Search results

The purpose of this paper is to clarify how university‐industry (U‐I) collaboration differs by technology fields in Japan.

An analysis of the research resource allocation in the Japanese national universities in the Japanese national innovation system is followed by the analysis of U‐I collaboration by technology fields. The fields analyzed are life science, information and communication technology (ICT), environment science, nanotechnology and material science, which have been designated as strategically important fields by the Second Japanese Science and Technology Basic Plan. The analysis was conducted in a quantitative way using government data of R&D expenditure, researchers, patent application, joint research, contract research and university spin‐offs.

Some characteristics of U‐I collaboration have been quantitatively found by technology fields. Though the national universities occupy large R&D expenditure shares in life science and nanotechnology/material science in the Japanese national innovation system, their joint research and contract research are fairly active in environment science as well as in life science and in nanotechnology/material science. For university spin‐offs, the national universities are active in life science and ICT.

This paper quantitatively clarifies U‐I collaboration by technology fields showing relative importance of U‐I collaboration by technology fields. The results provide information input to policy makers when they formulate policies to promote U‐I collaboration by technology fields and to corporate managers when they make U‐I collaboration strategies by technology fields as a part of open innovation strategies.

A small group of pioneering founders led the creation and early evolution of the service research field. Decades later, this article shares timeless service wisdom from ten of those pioneering founders.

Bowen and Fisk specified three criteria by which to identify a pioneering founder. In total, 11 founders met the criteria (Bateson, Berry, Bitner, Brown, Chase, Edvardsson, Grönroos, Gummesson, Parasuraman, Schneider and Zeithaml) and were invited to join Bowen and Fisk – founders that also met the criteria as coauthors. Ten founders then answered a set of questions regarding their careers as service scholars and the state of the field.

Insightful reflections were provided by each of the ten pioneering founders. In addition, based on their synthesis of the reflections, Bowen and Fisk developed nine wisdom themes for service researchers to consider and to possibly act upon.

The service research field is in its fifth decade. This article offers a unique way to learn directly from the pioneering founders about the still-relevant history of the field, the founders' lives and contributions as service scholars and the founders' hopes and concerns for the service research field.

This study aims to know the tactician role of financial technology (FinTech) in the field of accounting and auditing through contextualized systematic literature review by using bibliometric analysis.

The qualitative bibliometric analysis includes studies from 2017 to 2021 using the Scopus and Web of Science databases, which yielded 277 published papers with the keywords, FinTech accounting and auditing. The contextualized systematic literature review greatly helped in clarifying the content within each cluster.

The study identified the tactician role of fintech primarily in the accounting and auditing professional field. Fintech is still in its inception, with continual development and implementation taking place especially, in the auditing field. The findings also confirm that FinTech can produce a confluence between various research areas, including accounting, auditing, business finance, economics, management and business field.

The study describes the tactician role of FinTech and its huge possibility for future study in the accounting and auditing field among professionals, academics and regulators.

This study be able to help accounting professionals, policymakers and government regulators to establish policy development, as this research emphasizes the tactician role of FinTech in the accounting and auditing field.

FinTech in accounting and auditing might add to the existing field of FinTech in the IR4.0 era that give benefits to different players such as policymakers, governments, researchers, FinTech entrepreneurs and practicing professionals.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, little focus has been given about FinTech in the accounting and auditing field using bibliometric analysis. The insights of systematic literature review provide researchers on FinTech among practicing professionals and offer opportunities for further scientific endeavours.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the existing knowledge system of lean supply chain management (LSCM), i.e. by using main path analysis, and the authors extract the main development track of LSCM. It is advantageous for relevant scholars to deepen their understanding of this academic field from a bibliometrics view to grasp the future directions better.

Structuring a citation network with the processed data set containing 866 papers and relevant information collected from Web of Science (WoS). Conducting review analyses aiming at the main paths that are extracted from the above citation network.

There are two different evolution paths in LSCM field, i.e. improving corporate sustainability performance through combining lean and green practices, and seeking the balance between lean and agility to structure leagile supply chain for specific industries. LSCM research studies mainly focus on five aspects: (1) establishment and development of LSCM theory; (2) structuration of lean supply chain; (3) research studies of the relationship between LSCM and corporate performance; (4) supply chain evaluation system; and (5) review and vista of LSCM field. The intersection of two knowledge evolute routes would be Industry 4.0, which is an integrated theory system combining lean, agility, green and other supply chain thinking.

The data set collected from WoS cannot contain all the research studies about LSCM is the main research limitation. Sustainability, as represented by environmental performance, will continue to be a major pursuit of this field. Integrating LSCM in Industry 4.0 will be the next hotspot in LSCM field.

Providing the main research contents and common methods of LSCM field. It is conducive to deepening the understanding of relevant practitioners and scholars to LSCM field from a dynamic perspective.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first time to reveal the knowledge diffuse trajectories of LSCM under different view with main path analysis. This study is unique that it provides a new view to understand the field of LSCM.

Reflexivity involves critical reflection by the qualitative researcher as to the influence of the researcher's culture, history and belief on the conduct and outcome of the research. It is often seen as a practice exercised in the analysis of results in order to attempt to objectify the research. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the value of reflexivity is located in its practice in the field encounter as a means of recognising and embracing subjectivity. In order to widen reflexivity as hermeneutics, the paper draws on Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics as developed in “Truth and Method”.

This is a conceptual paper which distils critical themes from Gadamer's truth and method and applies them to the concept of reflexivity as applied in the field.

The paper suggests that reflexivity is an important component in the field encounter. Immersion in the language and terms of the field is critical to understanding meaning; who I am, my past, my lived experience are essential inputs to my research; the researcher's opinions, ideas and outspoken statements are part of the fabric of qualitative research; qualitative interpretation as a creative exercise; qualitative research should bring insight and understanding that can be applied to catalyse change.

Understanding and applying reflexivity in the field will provide innovative insights which can be carried through to the data analysis.

This study uniquely applies Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics to reflexivity and the field encounter.

In this study, the authors develop knowledge and insights on how the perception of interestingness influences the structure and focus of conversations in entrepreneurial education (EE) research. In particular, the authors elaborate on what is perceived as interesting among different subgroups of EE researchers, and not least, how EE researchers can identify and engage in scholarly conversation within the field.

The study is based on a unique database with web-based responses from 465 EE researchers from around the world. The authors conduct analyses of both open-ended and closed questions. The open-ended questions are analyzed by inductive categorization. The closed questions are subject to factor and cluster analyses.

The findings suggest that EE research is a topic-oriented field, characterized by a strong focus on novel and challenging research issues. In addition, the field is individualistic and fragmented, and the perception of interestingness differs between five subgroups of EE researchers, whose members have a somewhat different perception of interestingness. Accordingly, the authors also find different core conversations going on within the field. Obviously, these conversations tend to be triggered by the field's obsession with novelty and challenging research, but several conversations are related to practically relevant research, as well as methodological and theoretical discussions.

This is the first study to elaborate on the perception of interestingness among EE researchers and the conversations going on within the field. In the study the authors have explored the characteristics of EE research based on the perception of interestingness among the researchers within the field. In this respect, this study contributes insights on how current and aspiring EE researchers can find and build scholarly conversations embedded in passionate interest, while concurrently disseminating and accumulating knowledge on EE together with like-minded peers.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the literary authority of qualitative management accounting field research (QMAFR) and its interconnectedness with the scientific authority of this form of research.

The paper adopts a non‐positivist perspective on the writing/authoring of QMAFR. The paper illustrates its arguments by analysing how the field is written/authored in two well‐known examples of qualitative management accounting research, using Golden‐Biddle and Locke's framework as a way of initiating an understanding of how field research attains its “convincingness”.

The paper finds that these two examples of QMAFR attain their convincingness by authoring a strong sense of authenticity and plausibility, adopting writing strategies that signal the authority of the researcher and their figuration of the “facts”.

The paper argues for a more aesthetically informed consideration of the “goodness” of non‐positivist QMAFR, arguing that its scientific and aesthetic forms of authority are ultimately intertwined.

This paper has practical implications for informing the ways in which QMAFR is read and written, arguing for greater experimentation in terms of its narration.

The value of this paper lies in its recognition of the authorial and aesthetic nature of QMAFR, as well as it potential to encourage debate, reflection and changed practices within the community of scholars interested in this form of research.

The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being a productive author. Yet, how publications are valued in the context of evaluating careers is so far an understudied topic. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Through a content analysis of assessment reports in three disciplines – biomedicine, economics and history – this paper analyses how externalities are used to evaluate publication oeuvres. Externalities are defined as features such as reviews and bibliometric indicators, which can be assessed without evaluating the epistemological claims made in the actual text.

All three fields emphasise similar aspects when assessing: authorship, publication prestige, temporality of research, reputation within the field and boundary keeping. Yet, how these facets of quality are evaluated, and the means through which they are assessed differs between disciplines. Moreover, research fields orient themselves according to different temporal horizons, i.e. history looks to the past and economics to the future when research is evaluated.

The complexities involved in the process of evaluating candidates are also reflected in the findings, and while the comparative approach taken effectively highlights domain specific differences it may also hide counter-narratives, and subtle intradisciplinary discussion on quality.

This study offers a novel perspective on how publications are valued when assessing academic careers. Especially striking is how research across different fields is evaluated through different time horizons. This finding is significant in the debate on more overarching and formal systems of research evaluation.

Despite some notable exceptions, the intricacies, dilemmas and impact of manufacturing management researchers’ adoption of different field roles during data collection in collaborating organizations tends to be glossed over in published work. The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential impact of different field roles upon manufacturing management research. Through a discussion of the research methodology literature two ideal types are presented: the researcher field role and the consultant field role. By drawing upon examples from the authors’ own experience we argue that inadvertent oscillation between these roles influences research findings. Nevertheless it is argued that both field roles are important in manufacturing research, so what is important is to maintain a balance between them. Such a balance requires both situational and epistemic reflexivities. This paper seeks to encourage researchers to be more reflexive in their published research and to avoid the tendency to present rationalized (and sanitized) accounts. The consequence would be a more rigorous analysis of the impact of the researcher’s field role upon the manufacturing management research process and findings.

The paper investigates the advantages of graphical mapping of national research publication and citation profiles from scientific fields in order to provide additional information with respect to research performance. By means of multi‐dimensional scaling techniques national social science profiles from seventeen OECD countries and two periods, 1989‐1993 and 1994‐1998, are mapped, each profile represented by a vector of either publication volumes or citation values for nine social science fields. Aside from demonstrating the developments of publication volumes and citedness ranges as well as patterns, the graphical maps display clusters and similarities of national profiles over time. Combined with international rankings of averaged national impact factors (NIF) relative to the average world impact of field (WIF) for the same number of fields and periods, the graphical display supplies additional otherwise concealed information of the differences in research patterns between countries – even when the NIFs are quite similar. The analyses show that low Pearson correlation coefficients can be applied to flag extraordinary instances of either high or low national citation impacts during a period. Most importantly, the graphical maps make a strong case for adjusting or tuning the baseline impact to the actual national publication profiles when comparing NIFs of different countries. A new indicator, the Tuned Citation Impact Index (TCII) is proposed. It is constructed from the amount of expected citations a country ought to have received in each research field aggregated over its true profile. Common baseline profiles, like those of the world or EU, are consequently not regarded as the ideal benchmark. In the case illustrated by the journal publications of the social sciences the paper verifies the hypothesis that a dominant central cluster exists consisting of the large Anglo‐American countries: USA, Canada and the UK. A further hypothesis, that the smaller northern EU countries with English as the second language are located together and close to the central cluster on the publication maps is only partly satisfied in the second period. A third hypothesis, that countries located near the central cluster on the citation maps may hold high(er) NIFs is falsified.