Search results

How do organizations respond to negative feedback regarding their innovation activities? In this chapter, the authors reconcile contradictory predictions stemming from behavioral learning and from the escalation of commitment (EoC) perspectives regarding persistence under negative performance feedback. The authors core argument suggests that the seemingly contradictory psychological processes indicated by these two perspectives occur simultaneously in decision makers but that the design of organizational roles and reward systems affects their prevalence in decision-making tasks. Specifically, the authors argue that for decision makers responsible for an individual project, responses given to negative performance feedback regarding a project are dominated by self-justification and loss-avoidance mechanisms predicted by the EoC literature, while for decision makers responsible for a portfolio of projects, responses to negative performance regarding a project are dominated by an under-sampling of poorly performing alternatives that behavioral learning theory predicts. In addition to assigning decision-making authority to different organizational roles, organizational designers shape the strength of these mechanisms through the design of reward systems and specifically by setting more or less ambiguous goals, aspiration levels, time horizons of incentives provided, and levels of failure tolerance.

Purpose – Service-dominant logic (S-D logic) has conceptualized value as value-in-context where context is defined as a “set of unique actors with unique reciprocal links among them” (Chandler & Vargo, 2011, p. 40). The chapter proposes a means of measuring value-in-context as experienced by an actor while integrating resources, called the ValConRIA model (value-in-context of resource integrating activities).Design/methodology/approach – Value emerges from experiencing interactions in a service-for-service exchange. The actor perceives value as emerging with his activities and hence experiences the emerging value as connected to either his activities or the items supporting his activities or the people he is interacting with. We call these realms of experience the I (–Me) realm, the I–It and It–I realm, and the I–You and You–I realm, composing five dimensions. An exploratory principal component analysis supports this structure. The measurement process has been tested for reliability and validity and applied to different activities: using a laptop, using cigarettes (=smoking), using a smartphone, and using Facebook.Findings – According to where the actor mostly experiences the value emergence, five dimensions of value-in-context have been identified using principal component analysis. The measurement scale shows high construct reliability and discriminant validity.Implications – Being able to measure value-in-context as proposed by S-D logic brings S-D logic into practice. Practitioners can use the measurement process to identify value their customers co-create. The proposed means of measuring value-in-context does not measure the value of things but instead values as it emerges from an actor’s activities, exchanging service for service.Value/originality – To our knowledge this chapter is the first to propose a means of measuring value-in-context, which is based on S-D logic.

Allocating budget optimally to marketing channels is an increasingly difficult venture. This difficulty is compounded by an increase in the number of marketing channels, a rise in siloed data between marketing technologies, and a decrease in individually identifiable data due to legislated privacy policies. The authors explore the rich attribution modeling literature and discuss the different model types and approaches previously used by practitioners and researchers. They also investigate the changing landscape of marketing attribution, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different data handling approaches (i.e., aggregate vs. individualistic data), and present a research agenda for future attribution research.

After a decade of comparative and international education research, evaluation, reflection, and introspection, there still may not be a clear answer to the question: What difference does an Annual Review of Comparative and International Education make? Bereday’s questions regarding the field from the 1960s largely remain unanswered, and what answers there are remain relatively unchanged from the initial review of the field in 2013. In this reflective piece, the editor of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education provides a retrospective look at what the Annual Review of the field has produced as well as what has not been accomplished over the first 10 years of the Annual Review’s publication. Key points are that (1) comparative and international education continues to be an affiliation-oriented rather than independent, well defined field of study and practice; (2) annual reflection on the field is meaningful even when the field seems resistant to change; and (3) comparative and international education scholars and professionals alike tend to under emphasize reflective scholarship and practice and over emphasize critique or critical commentary; (4) there is promise for the field related to unity, debate, clarification, understanding, and encouragement; (5) the field is persistently under-professionalized; (6) the state of the field is largely unchanged since the 1960s; and (7) the organization and content of the Annual Review itself – much like the field itself – is subject to reflection and change.

Women empowerment is an aid against discrimination and exploitation. Empowerment to women helps minimize the gender gap, achieve equality and promote self-worth to make independent choices and to influence social change. It is seen that women empowerment and economic development are two sides of the same coin. According to sustainable development goals by World Development Indicator, by 2030 their aim is to empower all women and girls by achieving gender equality. Being the first teacher of a child and to ably run a household from front females are the pillars of a strong and thriving society. Educating and empowering women will usher us in a society where each member is contributing to the betterment of society; which gradually will uplift the economic condition. As stated by Mahatma Gandhi “If you educate a man you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman you educate an entire family.” Therefore, this study aims to investigate the status of women in the field of health, education, labor force participation and socioeconomic empowerment in selected South Asian countries, namely, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Secondary data has been used which are collected from the website and data center of United Nations Development Programme and World Bank. The research focuses on the comparative study on the South Asian countries, namely Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka regarding gender equality and women empowerment in the sectors like education, health, political and economic involvement and opportunity.

After a decade of comparative and international education research, evaluation, reflection, and introspection, there still may not be a clear answer to the question: What difference does an annual review of comparative and international education make? Bereday’s questions regarding the field from the 1960s largely remain unanswered and what answers there are remain relatively unchanged from the initial review of the field in 2013. In this reflective piece, the editor of the Annual Review of Comparative and International Education provides a retrospective look at what the Annual Review of the field has produced as well as what has not been accomplished over the first 10 years of the Annual Review’s publication. Key points are that (1) comparative and international education continues to be an affiliation-oriented rather than independent, well defined field of study and practice; (2) annual reflection on the field is meaningful even when the field seems resistant to change; (3) comparative and international education scholars and professionals alike tend to under emphasize reflective scholarship and practice and over emphasize critique or critical commentary; (4) there is promise for the field related to unity, debate, clarification, understanding, and encouragement; (5) the field is persistently under-professionalized; (6) the state of the field is largely unchanged since the 1960s; and (7) the organization and content of the Annual Review itself – much like the field itself – is subject to reflection and change.