Search results

In the United Kingdom public libraries are under the control of local authorities, city or county elected bodies, funded from local taxes, with some un‐earmarked central government funding. These library authorities provide central reference and lending services, information offices, local studies collections, and often special services to hospitals, schools, residential homes and even prisons. Stock is the usual books and periodicals plus audio and sometimes videotapes, and discs.

When Hull University became the first UK library to install the Geac 8000 system in 1980, the Brynmor Jones Library was fortunate in having programming staff from the University Computer Centre seconded to the Library on a semi‐permanent basis. By 1986 the programming team, which has varied in number from 1 to 3 over the years, had already created one of the first networked OPAC systems in the country and had also started to use the 8000 for non‐library systems. GEMS (an electronic message facility) available to all members of the University without the need for separate registration had proved so popular with students that the number of terminals in the Library accessing the system simultaneously had to be reduced in order to prevent other library users being denied access to the catalogue. Also, both a Careers Information system and a Stores system have been in daily use by many departments in the University since 1986. All these facilities were made available via the main Public Enquiry system on the 8000.

During 1985 CLSI established itself as an obvious force in the UK turnkey market place, acquiring 5 customers for its LIBS‐100 system in the course of the year. The first of these, signed up in April 1985, were the libraries of Coventry City and Coventry Lanchester Polytechnic who jointly went out to tender towards the end of 1984. Though the specification and contract were a combined effort, the system selected to meet the OR does, in fact, run on two minicomputer systems each with its own LIBS‐100 software and database. These pages look at the introduction of the system into the Polytechnic Library, which went live with circulation control and cataloguing in September 1985 and, at the time of my visit, were testing acquisitions prior to going live early in 1986.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether learners from different cultures adopt a serious 3D game to facilitate the learning of transferable managerial skills (ethics) and knowledge.

A cross-sectional, cross-country survey study (n=319) was conducted recruiting participants from one North American and two British universities. The survey data and the conceptual model have been analysed and tested using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling.

Participants displayed positive attitudes towards the 3D game and responded positively to theory presented as “real-life” scenarios; gamification techniques such as interactions and dialogue, and rewards and progression levels, which are part of the game, albeit the participants’ adoption was driven more by extrinsic motivations (rewards) than intrinsic ones (ease of use and entertainment). In addition, the empirical results suggest that when gender is taken into account, the perceptions and needs of cross-cultural learners in serious gaming environments vary and display characteristics that are similar to Rogers’ five adopter categories; thus, culture could significantly shape learners’ decisions to adopt a serious game as a managerial learning tool.

For future researchers, this paper highlights various levels of training, support and promotional awareness that need to be considered to facilitate the adoption of serious games for managerial learning.

For academics and practitioners in work-based learning and managerial training environments, this paper highlights the salient factors that need to be inherent in a serious 3D game, and best practices for scaffolding existing instructional approaches or training interventions.

In light of Rogers’ five adopter categories, this cross-country study involving culturally diverse learners provides key insight into the potential application of serious games as a practice-based learning instrument in academia and industry.

The purpose of this study is to examine how accountability is constructed for blockchain systems. With the aim of increasing knowledge on accountability across three different types of blockchains (public, private and consortium), the researchers ask: how do blockchain systems construct accountability?

This study draws on theorising in the accountability literature to study how blockchains relate to our construction and understanding of accountability. A qualitative field study of the Australian blockchain technology landscape is conducted, with insights garnered from 18 blockchain experts.

Findings reveal that different types of blockchains employ different forms and mechanisms of accountability and in novel ways previously less acknowledged in the literature. Importantly, this study finds that accountability does not require a principal–agent relation and can still manifest in less pure applications of blockchain technology across a wide range of stakeholders, contrary to that espoused in earlier exhortations of blockchain use in interdisciplinary literature. This study also finds that similar subtypes of accountability operate very differently across public, private and consortium blockchains and there exists an inverse relation between trust and consensus building through transparency as blockchains progress from public to private types. Overall, this study offers novel explanations for the relevance of greater accountability in blockchains, especially when the assumptions of public blockchains are softened and applied as private and consortium blockchains.

This study contributes to the accountability literature by addressing how different blockchain systems reshape the understanding of traditional accounting and accountability practices. This study questions the very need for a principal–agent relation to facilitate accountability and offers an additional perspective to how trust and transparency operate as key mechanisms of accountability.