Search results

This study aims to investigate the manufacturing reshoring decision-making content from an Eclectic Paradigm perspective.

Data were collected through a six-step systematic literature review on factors influencing manufacturing reshoring decision-making. The review is based on 100 peer-reviewed journal papers discussing reshoring decision-making contents published from 2009 to 2022.

In total, 80 decision factors were extracted and then categorized into resource-seeking (8%), market-seeking (11%), efficiency-seeking (41%) and strategic asset-seeking (16%) advantages. Additionally, 24% of these were identified as hybrid, which means that they were classified into multiple categories. Some decision factors were further identified as reshoring influencing factors (i.e. drivers, enablers and barriers).

Scholars need to consider what other theories can be used or developed to identify and evaluate the decision factors (determinants) of manufacturing reshoring as well as how currently adopted theory can be further advanced to create clearer and comprehensive theoretical frameworks.

This research underscores the importance of developing clearer and more comprehensive theoretical frameworks. For practitioners, understanding the multifaceted nature of decision factors could enhance strategic decision-making regarding reshoring initiatives.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the value and practicality of the Eclectic Paradigm in categorizing factors in manufacturing reshoring decision-making content and presents in-depth theoretical classifications. In addition, it bridges the gap between decision factors and influencing factors in the decision-making content research realm.

The purpose of this paper is to provide scholars with a robust, easy-to-follow structural model for crafting compelling academic publications. Recognizing the diversity of research methodologies and genres, the paper proposes the symmetry of specificity framework as a guide to maintaining coherence, depth and relevance across different sections of an academic paper.

This paper presents a theoretical framework – “symmetry of specificity” – through an iterative approach inspired by supervision and examination of theses, writing and reviewing research papers and editorial work. The framework builds upon the established IMRAD model and uses the concept of symmetry to explain the structural elements of academic publications. Its unique contribution lies in elucidating the two-dimensional funneling process that takes place within academic writing, and providing a nuanced understanding of how to maintain balance between different sections.

The symmetry of specificity framework introduces a novel perspective on academic writing, emphasizing the concept of “symmetry in specificity”. It shows how maintaining a balance in detail and focus across different sections of a research paper can significantly enhance its coherence and relevance. By elucidating the interaction between theory and data in research writing, it provides valuable insights into the nuances of crafting a compelling academic paper.

While the proposed symmetry of specificity framework may not be universally applicable across all types of research, it provides a solid foundation for the development of alternate structures tailored to specific research paradigms. There is ample opportunity for future research to explore adaptations of this model for various types of academic writing, offering a fresh perspective on structuring academic publications and potentially sparking new discussions and innovations in this realm.

This framework can aid both novice and experienced scholars in structuring their research papers effectively. By offering a conceptual roadmap, it guides the writer through the complex process of academic writing, from crafting the methodology and analysis sections to articulating compelling conclusions. Thus, it serves as a useful tool in enhancing the quality and impact of research communication.

This paper presents a unique approach to structuring academic publications that goes beyond the conventional IMRAD model. By offering a theory-based structural model, it contributes to an underexplored area in academic writing and opens up new avenues for pedagogy and practice in research communication.

Collegiality is the modus operandi of universities. Collegiality is central to academic freedom and scientific quality. In this way, collegiality also contributes to the good functioning of universities’ contribution to society and democracy. In this concluding paper of the special issue on collegiality, we summarize the main findings and takeaways from our collective studies. We summarize the main challenges and contestations to collegiality and to universities, but also document lines of resistance, activation, and maintenance. We depict varieties of collegiality and conclude by emphasizing that future research needs to be based on an appreciation of this variation. We argue that it is essential to incorporate such a variation-sensitive perspective into discussions on academic freedom and scientific quality and highlight themes surfaced by the different studies that remain under-explored in extant literature: institutional trust, field-level studies of collegiality, and collegiality and communication. Finally, we offer some remarks on methodological and theoretical implications of this research and conclude by summarizing our research agenda in a list of themes.

The study discusses the professionalization of academic leadership in Israel by analyzing and comparing two different training programs: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s (HUJI) program and the CHE-Rothschild program. The HUJI program began in 2016 to train the professoriate to take charge of leadership positions alongside a separate program for administrative staff, while the CHE-Rothschild program was launched in 2019 to train academic leaders, both professors and administrators from universities and colleges nationwide. The analysis reveals two “ideal types” of collegiality: While Model A (exemplified by the HUJI program) bifurcates between the professoriate and administrative staff, Model B (exemplified by the CHE-Rothschild program) binds administrative and academic staff members through course composition, pedagogy, and content. The study suggests a pattern of redefinition of collegiality in academia: we find that while academic hierarchies are maintained (between academic faculty and administrative staff and between universities and colleges), collegiality in academia is being redefined as extending beyond the boundaries of the professoriate and emphasizing a partnership approach to collegial ties.

This paper aims to explore and develop knowledge about implementing and applying a quality management system (QMS) in the public sector.

A study was conducted including 16 qualitative in-depth interviews with 18 respondents, all working with QMSs in the Swedish public sector.

The study identified five main themes that are problematic in relation to the implementation of the statutory QMS in the public sector. The identified themes show that there exists a gap between theory and practice regarding how the statutory QMS needs to be implemented and applied.

Based on the analysis of the findings, the authors propose a model of core values and supporting elements for QMS in the public sector to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

The study identified problems when implementing statutory QMSs in the public sector and presents a model of improvement. Further research is needed regarding statutory QMS in the public sector.

This paper aims to ascertain whether and to what degree universities are becoming organizational actors globally. Utilizing an original dataset of a sample of 500 globally oriented universities, we explore how universities have increasingly become organizational actors as is the case of American universities. We consider the following indicators of university transformation into organization actors: development or institutional advancement, diversity or inclusion, legalization, and internationalization goals and structures. We find that these globally oriented universities have created international, development, and legal offices. Surprisingly, nearly half of the universities in our sample also have diversity offices. These “getting organized” indicators are somewhat similar to what holds for American universities, suggesting that there is globalization of organizational actorhood among universities. At the same time, however, we find that there are pronounced regional differences, especially when it comes to organizing around diversity and legal affairs.

Relations in university settings are becoming more heterogeneous in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, class, and gender. In South Africa, transformation imperatives have radically changed the complexion of the country’s university campuses but have also entrenched political imperatives in its universities. As a consequence, the university is a highly politicised space. This is not new. What is new is a communication environment characterised by real-time, global networked digital communication and the uptake of digital media platforms (including social media platforms). We explore the effects of politicisation and new modes of communication using the case of a controversial article published in a South Africa journal and the ensuing polemic. Drawing on both institutional theory and Castells’ description of the network society, we conceptualise collegiality along two dimensions: horizontal collegial relations which exist for the purpose of knowledge creation and transfer which, in turn, depends on self-governance according to a taken-for-granted code of conduct; and vertical collegiality which describes collegial relations between academic staff and university management, and which is necessary for the governance of the university as a complex organisation. We conclude that the highly personal nature of communication that is propelled by digital communication has a direct impact on collegial relations within the university. The motivations of both university academic staff and management, as well as the public, extend beyond stimulating collective debate in the service of knowledge production to serving individual and/or ideological agendas as the communication of science becomes politicised. While issues pertaining to collegiality in South Africa may at first glance appear to be unique to the country, we believe that in a globally transforming academy, the South African case may offer novel insights and useful lessons for other highly politicised university systems.