Search results

This paper aims to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the quality of integrated reports (IR) and highlight the gaps in the existing research to provide directions and suggestions for future research.

This study was conducted through a systematic literature review using content analysis based on 40 papers from the Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCOhost databases on IR quality. While reading the full-text papers, the authors found six additional papers referenced by the literature being reviewed that were relevant to IR quality. Thus, there were 46 papers in the final review. The analysis begins with the definition and dimension of IR quality and theoretical lenses. Furthermore, this study outlines constructs or variables used in the previous literature.

The authors found that most studies used the quantitative method (41 papers or 89%). Five papers in the literature used qualitative methods (11%). Most researchers (34 papers or 72%) defined IR quality as consistent with the International Integrated Reporting Council framework, specifically the eight content elements. In particular, with the constructs that make up the quality of the IR, variations between researchers were found. Furthermore, there were some gaps that could be the directions for future research.

The literature that provides academic knowledge about IR quality is still limited, and research on IR is still growing. The literature review conducted by this study can provide an overview of the current research positions on the quality of IR and directions for future research in this area.

This study intends to show corporate executives a framework demonstrating the quality of corporate reporting. It can impact not only investors as a specific stakeholder group but also other stakeholder groups.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first literature review to examine the quality of IR, thus providing a map of current research to suggest directions for future research. Most of the previous literature reviews have been focused on integrated reporting (IR) in general and not quality.

To recognize the existing state of knowledge on a culture of excellence (CoE) in higher education institutions (HEIs) and to define the CoE in HEI and the dimensions that make up that culture. A subsidiary goal is to propose a qualitative tool to measure CoE maturity.

The study was based on the qualitative method, the preferred reporting system of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA). Next, the conceptual work method was used.

A research gap in the topic of CoE in HE has been confirmed. The CoE's own definition has been proposed, as well as a set of seven dimensions that comprise it, such as: Clear vision, mission and goals for excellence; Leadership oriented to excellence; Employee engagement; Human resources management; Meeting and exceeding student and staff expectations; Continuous improvement of processes through innovation and excellent practices; and Partnership and teamwork for improvement.

The study research was limited to open-access articles. Therefore, in the future, the search can be broadened to include monographs or doctoral dissertations, and other peer-reviewed studies. The research implications are related to the originality of our work and the proposals of two concepts – a CoE model and a CoE maturity assessment tool.

Leaders at universities, e.g. rectors and deans, can take into account the identified dimensions and progressively provide them as conditions conducive to achieving above-average levels.

This is the first literature review on CoE in HEIs, which can be considered an original contribution to science and practice. The original contribution of the paper is also the proposal of a CoE conceptual model and a CoE maturity assessment tool.

This paper explores quality science and quality management as a potential pathway to resolve the challenges of corporate sustainability reporting (CSR) by establishing the need for a common understanding of sustainability and sustainable development.

Secondary research on key documents released by regulatory institutions working at the intersection of sustainability, corporate reporting, measurement and academic papers on quality science and management.

Existing measurement frameworks of CSR are limited. They are neither aligned nor appropriate for accurately measuring a company's ecological footprint for mitigating climate change. Quality for sustainability (Q4S) could be a conceptual framework to bring about an appropriate level of measurability to better align sustainability reporting to stakeholder needs.

There is a lack of primary data. The research is based on secondary literature review. The implications of Q4S as a framework could inform research studies connected to sustainable tourism, energy transition and sustainable buildings.

The paper connects to CSR stakeholders, sustainability managers, company leaderships and boards.

The implications of sustainability on people, purpose and prosperity are a part of World Economic Forum's stakeholder capitalism.

This paper fills a research gap on diagnosing and understanding the key reporting challenges emerging from the lack sustainability definitions.

Quality Assurance and Improvement Program (QAIP) is defined as “an ongoing and periodic assessment of the entire spectrum of audit and consulting work performed by the internal audit (IA) activity”. QAIP is an important component of internal auditors’ commitment to improve internal audit (IA) quality. The pressure towards improvement is urgent for central banks, in light of the vulnerabilities of their IA functions identified by the International Monetary Fund. The authors analyse the professional standards and the literature on IA and QAIP, aiming to propose general considerations to enhance IA quality and to develop and maintain a QAIP, with reference to central banks, also shedding light on the synergies among IA, QAIP and total quality management (TQM).

This paper reviews the most relevant professional standards in light of the professional and academic literature regarding IA quality, QAIP and their relationship with TQM. The analysis of these sources represents an important step to identify general measures to improve IA quality and develop effective QAIP in central banks.

This analysis shows that it is important to understand the rationale behind the development of an IA function and its theoretical and practical foundation, especially for complex organisations such as central banks. In addition, the authors show that QAIP represents an important tool to exploit the synergies between TQM and IA. These synergies could result in higher levels of quality for the IA function and more effective implementation of TQM within the whole organisation. Lastly, the authors provide practical suggestions to support the implementation of an effective QAIP in central banks and to spread TQM philosophy within the organisation.

The authors contribute to the scant literature on IA quality and QAIP by focusing on central banks and shedding light on the relationship with TQM. Regardless of their importance, these topics have been largely neglected by the extant literature.

Globally, higher education institutions have become reliant on a quality assurance (QA) system over the past four decades. QA is considered to be one of the most important drivers of continuous improvement and an essential tool for promoting excellence in teaching, learning, and research. It provides a framework for establishing and maintaining standards, and for assuring stakeholders that programs and services meet or exceed these standards. Despite the wide range of quality assurance models available to higher education institutions, there remains considerable debate over which model is the most effective, as well as what criteria should be used for evaluating the effectiveness of these models. Universities in the Middle East have tried to adopt different models of QA that can meet their needs and expectations and provide a framework for continuous improvement. A major objective of this book is to provide an overview account of the QA process as implemented in the higher education systems of a number of Middle East countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This book lays out essential theoretical and practical insights into the role of QA policies and practices in higher education in the Middle East countries and builds upon this idea to provide a blueprint for future academic leaders in these countries and other Middle Eastern countries to enhance their QA policies and practices and drive higher education in those countries forward.

Purpose: Different approaches have been applied to define and measure service quality as both a process and a performance-intensive presentation. The literature agreed that service quality assessments are essential in measuring performance, however they could only reach a partial consensus. Although the Servqual scale is the most widely known and used tool in measuring service quality, it has received various criticisms. This study presents the difficulties encountered in measuring service quality and an evaluation of the Servqual scale.

Methodology: The study provides a conceptual framework, examining the research on the subject in the literature and the criticisms of the Servqual scale. It is designed as a compilation/assessment to improve the perspectives of the interested parties by bringing together evaluations about the pros and cons of the most well-known service quality scale.

Findings: Measurement of service quality is a complex business. Although it has received various criticisms, the Servqual scale which enables the measurement of quality in the services sector is still the most frequently used measurement tool.

Practical Implications: The difficulty of defining the service and its quality, which arises from the characteristics of the services, does not eliminate the necessity of measuring the quality of the service. With this study, a conceptual framework has been provided on the subject, a collective evaluation has been made for the most widely used scale, and the ground has been prepared for improvement and development in the criticisms of the scale.

This study addresses the need for a theory-guided, rich, descriptive account of research data repositories' (RDRs) understanding of data quality and the structures of their data quality assurance (DQA) activities. Its findings can help develop operational DQA models and best practice guides and identify opportunities for innovation in the DQA activities.

The study analyzed 122 data repositories' applications for the Core Trustworthy Data Repositories, interview transcripts of 32 curators and repository managers and data curation-related webpages of their repository websites. The combined dataset represented 146 unique RDRs. The study was guided by a theoretical framework comprising activity theory and an information quality evaluation framework.

The study provided a theory-based examination of the DQA practices of RDRs summarized as a conceptual model. The authors identified three DQA activities: evaluation, intervention and communication and their structures, including activity motivations, roles played and mediating tools and rules and standards. When defining data quality, study participants went beyond the traditional definition of data quality and referenced seven facets of ethical and effective information systems in addition to data quality. Furthermore, the participants and RDRs referenced 13 dimensions in their DQA models. The study revealed that DQA activities were prioritized by data value, level of quality, available expertise, cost and funding incentives.

The study's findings can inform the design and construction of digital research data curation infrastructure components on university campuses that aim to provide access not just to big data but trustworthy data. Communities of practice focused on repositories and archives could consider adding FAIR operationalizations, extensions and metrics focused on data quality. The availability of such metrics and associated measurements can help reusers determine whether they can trust and reuse a particular dataset. The findings of this study can help to develop such data quality assessment metrics and intervention strategies in a sound and systematic way.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this paper is the first data quality theory guided examination of DQA practices in RDRs.

Background: Most children in low-income countries complete their elementary education with low competency in essential reading, writing, and arithmetic skills. Besides, about 250 million students are not learning the basics, most of whom have spent at least four years in school, and this failure is coined the global learning crisis. This study aimed to examine educational quality management practices perceived by secondary school teachers.

Methods: The study employed a multilevel mixed-method design. Employing a simple random sampling technique, the researcher selected 251 teachers from 10 secondary schools in the research regions. He collected data through a researcher-designed questionnaire, school standards, and student achievement records from November 2018 to March 2019. He analyzed data from a questionnaire using frequency, percentage, mean, Pearson correlation, and exploratory factor analysis. The document review concerning quality management was analyzed using content analysis to triangulate the quantitative findings.

Results: At the school level, the study revealed the impracticality of laboratories. Besides, incompetent and unmotivated teachers and students ran the education business from the input side. At the same level, principals' management practices on staff development and encouraging parents to support their schools were low. The principals' management practices in the teaching-learning process were also undesirable at the classroom level. Overall, the study revealed incredibly insufficient input, process, and output management in the study context.

Conclusion: Hence, the study concluded that it is difficult to achieve the very objectives of producing creative, critical, and problem-solving individuals through this type of educational provision and its management. Due to this, it is not easy to achieve quality education for all goals.

Scholars and practitioners alike wish to understand what makes workplace conflict beneficial or injurious to, for example, performance and satisfaction. The authors focus on parties’ personal experience of the conflict, which is complementary to studying conflict issues (i.e. task- or relationship-related conflict). Although many authors discuss the personal experience of conflict, which the authors will refer to as conflict personalization, different definitions are used, leading to conceptual vagueness. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to develop an integrative definition of the concept of conflict personalization.

The authors conducted a systematic literature review to collect definitions and conceptualizations from 41 publications. The subsequent thematic analysis revealed four building blocks that were used to develop an integrative definition of conflict personalization.

The authors developed the following definition: Conflict personalization is the negative affective as well as cognitive reaction to the self being threatened and/or in danger as a result of a social interaction about perceived incompatibilities.

The integrative definition of this study enables the development of a measurement instrument to assess personalization during workplace conflict, paving the way for developing effective research-based interventions.

Conceptual vagueness hampers theoretical development, empirical research and the development of effective interventions. Although the importance of conflict personalization is mentioned within the field of workplace conflict, it has not been empirically studied yet. This paper can serve as the basis for future research in which conflict issue and personal experience are separated.

The authors compare perspectives on external evaluation of health service provision between Norway and the USA. External inspection and accreditation are examples of internationally wide-spread external evaluation methods used to assess the quality of care given to patients. Different countries have different national policy strategies and arrangements set up to do these evaluations. Although there is growing attention to the impact and effects on quality and safety from external evaluation, there is still a gap in knowledge to how structures and processes influence these outcomes. Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to describe the structures and processes in external evaluation designed to promote quality improvement in Norway and the USA with attention to comparison of enablers and barriers in external evaluation systems.

Data collection consisted of documentary evidence retrieved from governmental policies, and reviews of the Joint Commission (the US), international guidelines, recommendations and reports from the International Society for Quality in Health Care, and the World Health Organization, and policies and regulations related to Norwegian governmental bodies such as the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the Norwegian Directorate of Health, and the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision . Data were analyzed inspired by a deductive, direct content analytical framework.

The authors found that both accreditation and inspection are strategies put in place to ensure that healthcare providers have adequate quality systems as well as contributing to the wider risk and safety enhancing management and implementation processes in the organizations subjected to evaluation. The US and the Norwegian external regulatory landscapes are complex and include several policymaking and governing institutions. The Norwegian regulatory framework for inspection has replaced an individual blame logic with a model which “blames” the system for inadequate quality and patient harm. This contrasts with the US accreditation system, which focuses on accreditation visits. Although findings indicate an ongoing turning point in accreditation, findings also demonstrate that involving patients and next of kin directly in adverse event inspections is a bigger part of a change in external inspection culture and methods than in processes of accreditation.

The message of this paper is important for policymakers, and bodies of inspection and accreditation because knowledge retrieved from the comparative document study may contribute to better understanding of the implications from the different system designs and in turn contribute to improving external evaluations.

Although there is a growing attention to the impact and effects on quality and safety from external evaluation, the implications of different regulatory strategies and arrangements for evaluation on quality and safety remain unclear.