Search results

The purpose of this paper is to offer a reflexive account of the co‐production of a qualitative research project with the aim of illuminating the relationships between research participants.

The paper draws upon personal experience of designing and conducting a research project into management learning, run jointly between an academic and a senior practitioner. The methodological issues involved and the reflexive dynamics of how the work of research collaboration is accomplished are considered.

Engaging with radical reflexivity helps to produce insights about the co‐production process.

This paper contributes to the field of reflexivity and is innovative in its context of academic‐practitioner research.

This paper has been written in the style of a provocative essay. This paper aims to show how neo-liberalism has become the leading “policy doctrine” in higher education (HE) systems across the globe. This has put increasing systemic political and economic pressure on many universities which not only undermine but also “colonize” the Lebenswelt or “lifeworld” (Habermas, 1987) of academics.

This study draws on concrete empirical examples based on the authors’ subjective experiences within the higher educational sector and secondary sources.

The authors highlight and illustrate how the increasing dominance of “neo-liberal science” principles (Lave et al., 2010) severely damage the quality of knowledge production and working conditions of ordinary academics in both national and international academic communities.

This paper provides insights into the practical implications of the spread of “neo-liberal science” principles on the work and employment of academics.

The authors aim to trigger critical discussion concerning how emancipatory principles of teaching and research can be brought back into the Lebenswelt of academics to reverse some of the destructive effects to which this paper refers to.

Considers the dehumanization and weak service performance in the banking industry as it seeks to increase its efficiency. Argues that since customers are demanding more humanized banking, banks must narrow this gap between supply and demand by evaluating their marketing deficiencies and becoming more proactive. Considers a model for developing a bank′s effectiveness and improving customer satisfaction, thus developing a competitive edge.

The purpose of this paper is to draw on previous research and propose a framework for evaluating interest‐based bargaining (IBB) around three criteria: efficient, amicable and wise, where mutual gains are not self‐evident.

This paper reviews both survey and case study research on IBB in the USA and Canada. Based on trends discerned in the data, the paper uses the three criteria to present research and propositions on evaluating the IBB process.

IBB connects front stage acts by negotiators during collective bargaining with backstage environments and fosters collaboration hinging on dialogue across competing values involving online and offline processes during negotiations. Where mutual gains are not self evident, there these findings underpin criteria for evaluating the IBB process’s potential to serve enduring values of industrial democracy and employee voice and the newer values of collaboration and partnership in strategic decision making.

The amicable criterion predisposes the framework favorably towards amicable relations, which creates a favorable bias within the framework towards the IBB process when compared to other bargaining processes. There is a need for updated quantitative data on IBB trends at a national level, similar to the three FMCS surveys last reported in 2004, and a need for institutional linkages that will increase case study research on IBB, similar to recent research on Kaiser Permanente.

Negotiators, trainers and policy makers will gain from the criteria listed here to evaluate IBB where mutual gains are not self‐evident.

The framework presented in the paper advances an original framework to evaluate IBB.

Researchers have investigated the distinctions between founder and nonfounder chief executive officers (CEOs) for different performance variables. Researchers have also investigated the use of media as supplemental information that investors review to make decisions about initial public offering (IPO) firms. Research that investigates founders and nonfounder CEOs of IPO firms in the media is limited but growing. This paper aims to explore how founder and nonfounder CEOs' narratives are portrayed differently in business media following an IPO.

Using insights from the narrative paradigm, 1,057 news paragraphs about CEOs from 19 matched pairs (38 firms) were content analyzed using a contrasting coding strategy.

Founders and nonfounders' narratives differ in three ways. Specifically, founder CEOs are more likely to (1) have their personal background detailed in the media, (2) translate technical business information to easy-to-understand general language and (3) be quoted talking about positive information than nonfounder CEOs.

The results of this study show the media's role in creating narratives about management and how the experiences of founders and nonfounders are represented differently in the media. The study is limited by only investigating media articles about CEOs and not investigating the entire organizational narrative.

This study adds to the growing literature that investigates the role the media plays in portraying management in the media at time of IPO.