Search results

The human factor is the most important defense asset against cyberattacks. To ensure that the human factor stays strong, a cybersecurity culture must be established and cultivated in a company to guide the attitudes and behaviors of employees. Many cybersecurity culture frameworks exist; however, their practical application is difficult. This paper aims to demonstrate how an established framework can be applied to determine and improve the cybersecurity culture of a company.

Two surveys were conducted within eight months in the internal IT department of a global software company to analyze the cybersecurity culture and the applied improvement measures. Both surveys comprised the same 23 questions to measure cybersecurity culture according to six dimensions: cybersecurity accountability, cybersecurity commitment, cybersecurity necessity and importance, cybersecurity policy effectiveness, information usage perception and management buy-in.

Results demonstrate that cybersecurity culture maturity can be determined and improved if accurate measures are derived from the results of the survey. The first survey showed potential for improving the dimensions of cybersecurity accountability, cybersecurity commitment and cybersecurity policy effectiveness, while the second survey proved that these dimensions have been improved.

This paper proves that practical application of cybersecurity culture frameworks is possible if they are appropriately tailored to a given organization. In this regard, scientific research and practical application combine to offer real value to researchers and cybersecurity executives.

The study aims to promote the use of qualitative methods in service research by investigating how these methods are reported in service journals, how the level of reporting has evolved and whether methodological reporting influences the downloads or citations received by qualitative articles.

Methodological reporting practices were identified through content analysis of 318 qualitative articles published in three major service research journals and comparison with prior methodological literature. Regression analysis was used to test how the level of methodological reporting influences article downloads and citations.

The study identifies 29 reporting practices related to 9 key methodological reporting areas. The overall level of methodological reporting in published qualitative articles has increased over time. While differences in the level of reporting between service journals persist, they are narrowing. The level of methodological reporting did not influence downloads or citations of qualitative articles.

Service scholars using qualitative methods should pay attention to methodological reporting as it can improve the chances of being published. Factors such as theoretical contributions are likely to have a greater influence on article impact than methodological reporting.

No prior study has explored methodological reporting practices across different qualitative methodologies or how reporting influences article impact. For authors, reviewers and editors, the study provides an inventory of reporting practices relevant for evaluating qualitative articles, which should lower barriers for qualitative methods in service research by providing practical guidelines on what to focus on when reporting and assessing qualitative research.