To reflect on experience of research and journal publication with the aim of sharing key lessons in preparing and submitting articles for publication.
Abstract
Purpose
To reflect on experience of research and journal publication with the aim of sharing key lessons in preparing and submitting articles for publication.
Design/methodology/approach
The viewpoint draws on the author's own career‐long experience as a teacher, researcher and writer.
Findings
Draws together a series of lessons to provide guidelines for new researchers on how to write for publication.
Originality/value
Few senior academics have captured their own learning and insight on the process of initiating and sustaining a publications profile. Typically new researchers learn by trial and error and the aim here is to share key lessons that might assist them.
Details
Keywords
Leonard Waks and Eric Sandelands
In interview format this paper provides an introduction to the US education system for the non‐American faculty member, focusing primarily on the university sector. Issues…
Abstract
In interview format this paper provides an introduction to the US education system for the non‐American faculty member, focusing primarily on the university sector. Issues addressed include: key differences inherent in the US system (versus the majority of the world); the structure of education; the role of the individual states and that of the federal government; funding; accreditation; faculty assessment and promotion; and the practicalities of teaching for an American university.
Details
Keywords
Elizabeth van Veen-Berkx, Dirk F. de Korne, Olivier S. Olivier, Roland A. Bal and Geert Kazemier
Benchmarking is increasingly considered a useful management instrument to improve performance in healthcare. The purpose of this paper is to assess if a nationwide long-term…
Abstract
Purpose
Benchmarking is increasingly considered a useful management instrument to improve performance in healthcare. The purpose of this paper is to assess if a nationwide long-term benchmarking collaborative between operating room (OR) departments of university medical centres in the Netherlands leads to benefits in OR management and to evaluate if the initiative meets the requirements of the 4P-model.
Design/methodology/approach
The evaluation was based on the 4P-model (purposes, performance indicators, participating organisations, performance management system), developed in former studies. A mixed-methods design was applied, consisting of document study, observations, interviews as well as analysing OR performance data using SPSS statistics.
Findings
Collaborative benchmarking has benefits different from mainly performance improvement and identification of performance gaps. It is interesting that, since 2004, the OR benchmarking initiative still endures after already existing for ten years. A key benefit was pointed out by all respondents as “the purpose of networking”, on top of the purposes recognised in the 4P-model. The networking events were found to make it easier for participants to contact and also visit one another. Apparently, such informal contacts were helpful in spreading knowledge, sharing policy documents and initiating improvement. This benchmark largely met all key conditions of the 4P-model.
Research limitations/implications
The current study has the limitations accompanied with any qualitative research and particularly related to interviewing. Qualitative research findings must be viewed within the context of the conducted case study. The experiences in this university hospital context in the Netherlands might not be transferable to other (general) hospital settings or other countries. The number of conducted interviews is restricted; nevertheless, all other data sources are extensive.
Originality/value
A collaborative approach in benchmarking can be effective because participants use its knowledge-sharing infrastructure which enables operational, tactical and strategic learning. Organisational learning is to the advantage of overall OR management. Benchmarking seems a useful instrument in enabling hospitals to learn from each other, to initiate performance improvements and catalyse knowledge-sharing.
Details
Keywords
Börje Boers and Thomas Andersson
This article aims to increase the understanding of the role of individual actors and arenas in dealing with multiple institutional logics in family firms.
Abstract
Purpose
This article aims to increase the understanding of the role of individual actors and arenas in dealing with multiple institutional logics in family firms.
Design/methodology/approach
This study follows a case-study approach of two family-owned newspaper companies. Based on interviews and secondary sources, the empirical material was analysed focussing on three institutional logics, that is, family logic, management logic and journalistic logic.
Findings
First, the authors show how and in which arenas competing logics are balanced in family-owned newspaper companies. Second, the authors highlight that family owners are central actors in the process of balancing different institutional logics. Further, they analyse how family members can become hybrid owner-managers, meaning that they have access to all institutional logics and become central actors in the balancing process.
Originality/value
The authors reveal how multiple institutional logics are balanced in family firms by including formal actors and arenas as additional lenses. Therefore, owning family members, especially hybrid owner-managers, are the best-suited individual actors to balance competing logics. Hybrid owner-managers are members of the owner families who are also skilled in one or several professions.
Details
Keywords
Explores the extent of employee surveillance in the western world and queries why the USA uses surveillance measures to a greater extent than other developed nations. Suggests…
Abstract
Explores the extent of employee surveillance in the western world and queries why the USA uses surveillance measures to a greater extent than other developed nations. Suggests that American managers choose surveillance methods which include the control of workers’ bodies in the production process. Lists the batteries of tests and monitoring to which US employees can now be subjected – including searching employee computer files, voice/e‐mail, monitoring telephone calls, drug tests, alcohol tests, criminal record checks, lie detector and handwriting tests. Notes also the companies which are opposed to worker and consumer privacy rights. Pinpoints the use of surveillance as a means to ensure that employees do not withold production. Reports that employees dislike monitoring and that it may adversely affect their performance and productivity. Argues that Americans like to address complex social problems with technological means, there are no data protection laws in the USA, and that these two factors, combined with the “employment‐at‐will” doctrine, have all contributed to make it possible (and easy) for employers to use technological surveillance of their workforce. Outlines some of the ways employers insist on the purification of workers’ bodies.