Search results

This study aims to determine the extent to which the use of coordinating conjunctions enhances or impairs definitional clarity.

In two studies, a sample of 736 construct definitions from the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Journal of Consumer Research over a 30-year period was judged for ambiguity and vagueness by both academic and lay judges.

The authors demonstrate that constructing definitions using both “and” and “or” increases the ambiguity and vagueness of the construct’s meaning. The most frequently used conjunction is “and” which appeared in 42 per cent of the definitions. A significant percentage (26 per cent) contain the conjunction “or.”

A framework for understanding alternative interpretations of “and” or “or” is developed. Five recommendations are proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists in all academic fields should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition.

A five-step process is proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition.

This is the first exploration of how specific wording patterns used in construct definitions in academic research affect the clarity of the definition.

The purpose of this paper is to remove confusion surrounding the terms responsibility and accountability from the general and project management arenas by creating “refined” (with unnecessary elements removed) definitions of these terms.

A method of deriving refined definitions for a group of terms by ensuring that there is no internal conflict or overlap is adopted and applied to resolve the confusion.

The confusion between responsibility and accountability can be characterised as a failure to separate the obligation to satisfactorily perform a task (responsibility) from the liability to ensure that it is satisfactorily done (accountability). Furthermore, clarity of application can be achieved if legislative and organisational accountabilities are differentiated and it is recognised that accountability and responsibility transition across organisational levels. A difficulty in applying accountability in RACI tables is also resolved.

Clear definition of responsibility and accountability will facilitate future research endeavours by removing confusion surrounding the terms. Verification of the method used through its success in deriving these “refined” definitions suggests its suitability for application to other contested terms.

Projects and businesses alike can benefit from removal of confusion around the definitions of responsibility and accountability in the academic research they fund and attempt to apply. They can also achieve improvements in both efficiency and effectiveness in undertaking organisation-wide exercises to determine organisational responsibilities and accountabilities as well as in the application of governance models.

Refined definitions of responsibility and accountability will facilitate building social and physical systems and infrastructure, benefitting organisations, whether public, charitable or private.

Clarity resulting in the avoidance of confusion and misunderstanding together with their consequent waste of time, resources and money.

The purpose of the research described in this paper is to disentangle the rhetoric from the reality in relation to supply chain management (SCM) adoption in practice. There is significant evidence of a divergence between theory and practice in the field of SCM.

Based on a review of extant theory, the authors posit a new definitional construct for SCM – the Four Fundamentals – and investigated four research questions (RQs) that emerged from the theoretical review. The empirical work comprised three main phases: focussed interviews, focus groups and a questionnaire survey. Each phase used the authors’ definitional construct as its basis. While the context of the paper’s empirical work is Ireland, the insights and results are generalisable to other geographical contexts.

The data collected during the various stages of the empirical research supported the essence of the definitional construct and allowed it to be further developed and refined. In addition, the findings suggest that, while levels of SCM understanding are generally quite high, there is room for improvement in relation to how this understanding is translated into practice.

Expansion of the research design to incorporate case studies, grounded theory and action research has the potential to generate new SCM theory that builds on the Four Fundamentals construct, thus facilitating a deeper and richer understanding of SCM phenomena. The use of longitudinal studies would enable a barometer of progress to be developed over time.

The authors’ definitional construct supports improvement in the cohesion of SCM practices, thereby promoting the effective implementation of supply chain strategies. A number of critical success factors and/or barriers to implementation of SCM theory in practice are identified, as are a number of practical measures that could be implemented at policy/supply chain/firm level to improve the level of effective SCM adoption.

The authors’ robust definitional construct supports a more cohesive approach to the development of a unified theory of SCM. In addition to a profile of SCM understanding and adoption by firms in Ireland, the related critical success factors and/or inhibitors to success, as well as possible interventions, are identified.

To demonstrate existing definitional consensus on information literacy, and outline the main and unique areas of concern resulting from that consensus for libraries desiring to contribute to information literacy education.

Leading attempts at defining information literacy are examined to demonstrate their lack of substantive definitional differences, and to establish parameters for the library’s participation in information literacy education.

Examines the leading definitional contributions since the American Library Association’s 1989 seminal work on information literacy. Demonstrates the lack of substantive definitional differences between those and the ALA definition. Suggests librarians concentrate on the expectations deriving from such unanimity, and outlines those expectations.

Clarity of definitions provides more stable atmosphere for practical initiatives, while controversies over definitions distract from action. By pointing out the fundamental agreements between seemingly competing definitions of information literacy, this article underscores the need for librarians to fully concentrate on ways to achieve information literacy. By specifying the library’s unique place in that process and outlining the concrete things it can do, the article also provides practical guidance for more focused activity on the part of the library in information literacy education.

This article demonstrates a consistently overlooked definitional consensus on information literacy, and shows how the purported differences in definition actually represent delineations of steps and approaches that facilitate practical implementation. It also outlines the specific areas and activities that are legitimate responsibilities of the library in information literacy education, and notes areas outside the library’s reach.

This study aims to reach academic consensus on key factors and boundaries used in defining the concepts of “social entrepreneurship” (SEsh), “social entrepreneur” (SE), and “social enterprise” (SEV). This study also explores the complex relationships among social/business enterprises, definitional categories and factors, missions, and impacts on effectiveness of practices and organizing for venture success.

Content analysis is conducted on articles published from 1998 to 2016 in peer-reviewed academic journals in the fields of management and organization. Furthermore, 80 articles are obtained and analyzed in terms of factors and frequently used terms for unified definitions and their intertwined linkages.

The unifying factors for the definitions of SEsh, SE, and SEV include primary mission and processes and resources. Strong linkages are observed between SEsh and actors, SE and characteristics, and SEV and organizational form. Results indicate that definitional categories and factors share numerous joint terms that can be used to propose unified definitions. This study identifies the effective interactions of variables among social mission, capabilities to manage resources and processes, entrepreneurial characteristics of actors, and forms of ventures in a process that provides potential for organizational sustainability and impact maximization.

This paper contributes to research by identifying clear and agreed-upon factors and traits as boundaries to propose definitions that can advance the legitimacy of social entrepreneurship as an academic field worthy of future exploration.

The findings emphasize social mission that achieves public benefits while preventing mission drift. Economic value and choice of organizational form can advance the fulfillment of objectives and governance practices. This study also presents the key influencing factors at various stages of an entrepreneurial process to determine how these concepts interact to increase the likelihood of organizational emergence and survival.

This work is the first to systematically review management and organizational literature on the key factors and terms that constitute the distinct definitions of SEsh, SE, and SEV and help clarify their complex relations in an entrepreneurial process.

This paper aims to move towards clarification of the self‐initiated expatriate/expatriation construct with the aim of extending and deepening theory development in the field.

Drawing on Suddaby's think piece on construct clarity, this paper applies his proposed four elements; definitional clarity, scope conditions, relationships between constructs and coherence, in order to clarify the SIE construct.

The discussion examines the “problem of definition” and its impact on SIE scholarship. The spatial, temporal and value‐laden constraints that must be considered by SIE scholars are expounded, and the links between SIE research and career theory are developed. From this, potential research agendas are proposed.

This is a conceptual piece which, rather than giving precise research data, encourages further thinking in the field.

Although the definitional difficulties of SIEs have been identified in previous literature, this is the first attempt to clarify the boundaries of SIE and its interconnectedness with other related constructs.

This paper aims to examine sites of dissonance or consensus between global investor responses to the draft standards, International Financial Reporting Standards S1 (IFRS) (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

A thematic content analysis was used to capture investor views expressed in their comment letters submitted in the consultation period (March to July 2022) in comparison to the ex ante position (issue of draft standards, March 2022) and ex post summary feedback (ISSB staff papers, September 2022) of the ISSB.

There was investor consensus in support of the ISSB and the development of the draft standards. However, there were sites of dissonance between investors and the ISSB, notably regarding the basis and focus of reporting (double or single/financial materiality and enterprise value); definitional clarity; emissions reporting; and assurance. Incrementally, the research further highlights that investors display heterogeneity of opinion.

The ISSB standards will provide a framework for future sustainability reporting. This research highlights the significance of such reporting to investors through their responses to the draft standards. The findings reveal sites of dissonance in the development and alignment of draft standards to user needs. The views of investors, as primary users, should help inform the development of sustainability-related standards by a global standard-setting body apposite to current policy and future reporting requirements, and their usefulness to users in practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper makes an original contribution to the comment letter literature, hitherto focused on financial reporting with a relative lack of investor engagement. Using thematic analysis, sites of dissonance are examined between the views of investors and the ISSB on their development of sustainability reporting standards.

The paper introduces a new conceptualisation of entrepreneurship that promotes a broader perspective of the phenomenon. The purpose of the paper is to re-conceptualise the act of entrepreneurship so as to reduce it to the fundamental behaviours and processes.

The paper sets out the motivations for and challenges in establishing a broader definition of entrepreneurship. Following this, current approaches to defining entrepreneurship are reviewed. In light of these, a definition of entrepreneurship is offered that captures a new perspective in understanding entrepreneurship. A critique of the offered definition is offered with regards to promoting theory development, empirical research, quality predictions and a distinctive research domain.

The authors argue that a definition of entrepreneurship that is focussed on the development and validation of ideas provides a thought-provoking re-conceptualisation of entrepreneurship. Extant perspectives on entrepreneurship as business/organisation creation, uncertainty, innovation, value creation and opportunity recognition/creation are drawn on to demonstrate the applicability of the definition.

The pursuit for an encompassing definition of entrepreneurship has been both extensive and earnest, which has inadvertently resulted in a sizable pool of definitions. The authors offer a re-conceptualisation of entrepreneurship with the intent to provide a broad yet coherent definition that encompasses all acts of entrepreneurship. A benefit of this conceptualisation is the establishment of the endpoint of the entrepreneurship process that delineates it from the domain of management.

The purpose of this paper is to enhance the eminent work of Burns and Scapens (B&S) by introducing broader conceptualisations on organisational routines and rules into management accounting.

The paper sets out with the B&S framework. The paper is primarily conceptual in nature and with the addition of some more recent literature on organisational routines serves to bolster the underpinnings of the B&S framework. Drawing especially on the work of Feldman and Pentland, the nature of management accounting routines in particular is explored in some detail. By association, rules are also explored.

This paper proposes that an ostensive‐performative distinction of routines augments our conceptualisation of how management accounting routines can represent both a source of stability and of change (simultaneously). Also, by showing how routines can represent both structure and action simultaneously, some light is shed on the ongoing interrelationship between routines and rules as highlighted in the B&S framework and some concerns in recent literature addressed. In particular, a refined view of both routines and rules not only bolsters the work of B&S, but potentially increases its applicability as a theoretical lens to empirical studies in less formal organisations.

The proposed refinements to the B&S framework, which aim to clarify the nature of rules and routines in a management accounting context, may be particularly useful for researchers studying less formalised (or, less rules‐based) organisations. The findings emphasise the potentially more important role of the less formal concept of routines in most organisations.

The paper supports and complements the B&S framework by integrating more recent conceptual developments on organisational routines and offering some potential definitional clarity on rules and routines in management accounting.

Over the past few decades, examinations of emerging economies (EEs) have received increasing attention in international business (IB) research. This article takes a critical stance on some of the re-occurring shortcomings of that research.

The authors conducted a critical literature review of 493 articles on EEs that have been published in five top-tier IB academic journals in the period 2010–2020. True to the nature of a critical literature review, the authors judge and question some of the practices that have impeded knowledge accumulation.

The authors found a recurring lack of definitional clarity and contextualization, as well as overgeneralized inferences from findings. The authors provide recommendations on how to address these weaknesses and a checklist to guide future IB research on EEs.

The authors question and problematize what they see as dominant but undesirable practices when conducting EE research. The actionable directions for addressing uncovered issues and checklist to guide future research in this area that the authors offer are rather bold and unambiguous.