Search results

The purpose of this Real Impact Research Article is to empirically explore one of the most controversial and elusive concepts in knowledge management research – practical wisdom. It develops a 10-dimensional practical wisdom construct and tests it within the nomological network of counterproductive and productive knowledge behavior.

A survey instrument was created based on the extant literature. A model was developed and tested by means of Partial Least Squares with data obtained from 200 experienced employees recruited from CloudResearch Connect crowdsourcing platform.

Practical wisdom is a multidimensional construct that may be operationalized and measured like other well-established knowledge management concepts. Practical wisdom guides employee counterproductive and productive knowledge behavior: it suppresses knowledge sabotage and knowledge hiding (whether general, evasive, playing dumb, rationalized or bullying) and promotes knowledge sharing. While all proposed dimensions contribute to employee practical wisdom, particularly salient are subject matter expertise, moral purpose in decision-making, self-reflection in the workplace and external reflection in the workplace. Unexpectedly, practical wisdom facilitates knowledge hoarding instead of reducing it.

Managers should realize that possessing practical wisdom is not limited to a group of select, high-level executives. Organizations may administer the practical wisdom questionnaire presented in this study to their workers to identify those who score the lowest, and invest in employee training programs that focus on the development of those attributes pertaining to the practical wisdom dimensions.

The concept of practical wisdom is a controversial topic that has both detractors and supporters. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first large-scale empirical study of practical wisdom in the knowledge management domain.

This study aims to identify the political alignment and political activity of the 11 Presidents of Britain’s most important scientific organisation, the Royal Society of London, in its early years 1662–1703, to determine whether or not the institution was politically aligned.

There is almost no information addressing the political alignment of the Royal Society or its Presidents available in the institution’s archives, or in the writings of historians specialising in its administration. Even reliable biographical sources, such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography provide very limited information. However, as 10 Presidents were elected Member of Parliament (MP), The History of Parliament: British Political, Social and Local History provides a wealth of accurate, in-depth data, revealing the alignment of both.

All Presidents held senior government offices, the first was a Royalist aristocrat; of the remaining 10, 8 were Royalist or Tory MPs, 2 of whom were falsely imprisoned by the House of Commons, 2 were Whig MPs, while 4 were elevated to the Lords. The institution was Royalist aligned 1662–1680, Tory aligned 1680–1695 and Whig aligned 1695–1703, which reflects changes in Parliament and State.

This study establishes that the early Royal Society was not an apolitical institution and that the political alignment of Presidents and institution continued in later eras. Furthermore, it demonstrates how the election or appointment of an organisation’s most senior officer can be used to signal its political alignment with government and other organisations to serve various ends.

This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing methodological discussions surrounding the adoption of ethnographic approaches in accounting by undertaking a comparative analysis of ethnography in anthropology and ethnography in qualitative accounting research. By doing so, it abductively speculates on the factors influencing the distinct characteristics of ethnography in accounting and explores their implications.

This paper uses a comparative approach, organizing the comparison using Van Maanen’s (2011a, 2011b) framework of field-, head- and text-work phases in ethnography. Furthermore, it draws on the author’s experience as a qualitative researcher who has conducted ethnographic research for more than a decade across the disciplines of anthropology and accounting, as well as for non-academic organizations, to provide illustrative examples for the comparison.

This paper finds that ethnography in accounting, when compared to its counterpart in anthropology, demonstrates a stronger inclination towards scientific aspirations. This is evidenced by its prevalence of realist tales, a high emphasis on “methodological rigour”, a focus on high-level theorization and other similar characteristics. Furthermore, the scientific aspiration and hegemony of the positivist paradigm in accounting research, when leading to a change of the evaluation criteria of non-positivist research, generate an impoverishment of interpretive and ethnographic research in accounting.

This paper provides critical insights from a comparative perspective, highlighting the marginalized position of ethnography in accounting research. By understanding the mechanisms of marginalization, the paper commits to reflexivity and advocates for meaningful changes within the field.

This study aims to explore the scientific research progress in the field of “Rural Livelihood” from 1991 to 2022.

A total of 2,122 documents were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection using the key terms “Rural Livelihood” OR “Rural Livelihoods” in the “Title-Abstract-Keyword” field. The statistical analysis was performed through VOSviewer, Bibliometrix, Biblioshiney open-source package of R language environment, and MS Office software.

The results show that the first research article related to the field of rural livelihood was published in 1991, and the rapid growth in the publications of rural livelihood was observed since 2000, with a positive annual growth rate of 14.87%. Shackleton CM (n = 30 articles) and Belcher B (n = 1235 citations) are the most productive and highly cited authors in the field of rural livelihood, respectively. World Development is the most prolific and dominant journal, followed by Sustainability and Land Use Policy. The citation analysis disclosed that “Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analysing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty” is the most cited research paper published in the field of rural livelihood by Anthony Bebbington. University of Copenhagen, Wageningen University and Rhodes University emerged as the topmost organizations engaged in rural livelihood research. The USA and the UK are the most productive and cited countries in rural livelihood. The keyword analysis revealed that most of the research published in the field of rural livelihood has focussed on rural livelihoods, management, conservation, poverty, strategies, climate change, etc.; however, the least emphasis is given on the subjects like food security, income diversification, biodiversity, deforestation, soil fertility management, bio-economy and environmental intervention. The thematic evolution reflects that the field of rural livelihood has been extensively researched and has undergone many dimensions, such as agriculture, management, conservation, climate change, households, policy and biodiversity.

The study’s findings provide an insight into global research trends, latest advances, hot issues, leading topics, and the thematic evolution of rural livelihood research over the last 31 years approximately. This study is quite useful to researchers and stakeholders to obtain rigorous bibliographic knowledge on literature related to the topic and work accordingly for R&D activities.