Search results

Since the first definition of Total Quality Management (TQM) was established, its inseparable relationship with Human Resource Management (HRM) has been undeniable. However, many years have passed since this initial definition was made. During this time, not only have TQM and HRM evolved, but their relationship has also adapted in order to accompany and follow the environmental and technological changes that have ultimately changed the ways the authors work and how the authors perceive quality. This study provides a detailed map of the knowledge evolution of the TQM–HRM relationship. It also identifies interesting gaps for future researchers to consider to enable us to better understand emerging challenges and identify the next steps in the progression of TQM literature.

The study adopted a bibliometric analysis approach, using a systematic literature review of a data set that included 132 peer-reviewed articles published between 1991 and 2021 to identify thematic topics. In exploring each of these, the authors created a framework to spotlight future explorative and exploitative research questions.

The results show that literature on the relationship between HRM and TQM focuses on six topics: a different performance appraisal (PA); a different role for the human resources (HR) department; HRM practices, such as different bridges between JIT and TQM; the integration of job satisfaction into TQM goals; different TQM healers; and the different effects of HRM practices on firm performance. This paper provides clear interpretations of these topics and offers some recommendations for how HRM studies could contribute towards the development of TQM research, thus forming a clear agenda for the future of TQM–HRM research.

This study represents the first attempt to systematize, analyze and critically interpret TQM–HRM studies, promoting a collective reflection on the state of the art and stimulating further discussions on this topic.

This article describes the interviews the authors conducted in late 2021 with 19 researchers at the Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies at the University of Bologna. The main purpose was to shed light on the definition of the word “data” in the humanities domain, as far as FAIR data management practices are concerned, and on what researchers think of the term.

The authors invited one researcher for each of the official disciplinary areas represented within the department and all 19 accepted to participate in the study. Participants were then divided into five main research areas: philology and literary criticism, language and linguistics, history of art, computer science and archival studies. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach.

A list of 13 research data types has been compiled thanks to the information collected from participants. The term “data” does not emerge as especially problematic, although a good deal of confusion remains. Looking at current research management practices, methodologies and teamwork appear more central than previously reported.

Our findings confirm that “data” within the FAIR framework should include all types of inputs and outputs humanities research work with, including publications. Also, the participants of this study appear ready for a discussion around making their research data FAIR: they do not find the terminology particularly problematic, while they rely on precise and recognised methodologies, as well as on sharing and collaboration with colleagues.