Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how Austrian public universities (APUs) respond to the challenge of maintaining academic freedom while complying with legal requirements and enhancing competitiveness by using Management Control Systems (MCSs). Specifically, it examines how APUs respond to the co-presence of academic, government and business logic.

The perspective of institutional logics as a theoretical lens and the framework of MCSs by Malmi and Brown (2008) serve to analyse how APUs respond to the existence of different institutional field-level logics. In-depth expert interviews from the perspective of APUs’ research management are conducted to identify the applied management control practices (MCPs) and APUs’ responses to the different institutional field-level logics.

This study identifies how academic, government and business logic are represented in field-level-specific MCPs and field-level-specific corresponding narratives. Reflecting upon APUs’ responses to the co-existence of academic and government logic, compliance or rather, selective coupling with government logic or decoupling from government logic became obvious.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study at higher education institutions representing academic, government and business logic in the applied MCPs in research management. The study reveals that APUs have developed specific responses and narratives regarding the existence of different institutional field-level logics.

The Accounting Information Systems (AIS) research field emerged around 30 years ago as a subfield of accounting but is at risk to develop further as an isolated discipline. However, given the importance of digitalization and its relevance for accounting, an amalgamation of the parent research field of accounting and the subfield of accounting information systems is pivotal for continuing relevant research that is of high quality. This study empirically investigates the distance between AIS research that is included in accounting literature and AIS research that prevails in dedicated AIS research outlets.

To understand which topics define AIS research, all articles published in the two leading AIS journals since 2000 were analyzed. Based on this topical inventory, all AIS studies that were published in the top 16 accounting journals, also since 2000, are identified and categorized in terms of topic, subtopic and research methodology. Next, AIS studies published in the general accounting field and AIS studies published in the AIS field were compared in terms of topics and research methodology to gain insights into the distance between the two fields.

The coverage of AIS topics in accounting journals is, to no small extent, concentrated around the topics “information disclosure”, “network technologies” and “audit and control”. Other AIS topics remain underrepresented. A possible explanation might be the focus on archival studies in accounting outlets, but other elements might play a role. The findings suggest that there is only a partial overlap between the parent accounting research field and the AIS subfield, in terms of both topic and research methodology diversity. These findings suggest a considerable distance between both fields, which might hold detrimental consequences in the long run, if no corrective actions are taken.

This is the first in-depth investigation of the distance between the AIS research field and its parent field of accounting. This study helped develop an AIS classification scheme, which can be used in other research endeavors. This study creates awareness of the divergence between the general accounting research field and the AIS subfield. Given the latter's relevance to the accounting profession, isolation or deterioration of the AIS research must be avoided. Some actionable suggestions are provided in the paper.

This research aims to intuit the trending technology hashtags (artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, big data, cloud, enterprise resource planning (ERP), information and communication technology (ICT)) in the field of accounting by providing a bibliometric overview of research articles published in 28 years.

A bibliometric analysis of R software was used in this study. The Scopus database was considered to identify the broad research trends related to technology hashtags in the field of accounting from 1984 to 2021, as well as to gain a better understanding of the growing technology research hashtags in that period.

The bibliometric analysis reveals that the trending research topic focused on technology hashtags (AI, blockchain, big data, cloud, ERP and ICT) in the field of accounting has become important after 2010, as references and number of publications found before that year are scarce. The six trending technology hashtags (AI, blockchain, big data, cloud, ERP and ICT) framework for accounting were outlined in this study.

This research examined the trending technology hashtags in the field of accounting. Only scientific papers published in the Scopus database were analyzed.

This research will be able to understand the trending technology hashtags in the field of accounting, as it identifies the most frequent words, cloud (146), big data (91), AI (65), ERP (76), blockchain (6) and ICT (14). It also aids practitioners and scholars in detecting gaps in the existing literature as well as future research trends.

This research result could be a useful resource for researchers, practitioners and accounting professionals who are interested in the latest technology hashtags in the field of accounting. The current research establishes a new framework on the role of trending technology hashtags in accounting research (accounting technology hashtags, framework) comprising of six research pathways (RP) in the four branches of accounting that future researchers can use to think about and construct their study designs in the field of accounting.

In this study, the authors develop knowledge and insights on how the perception of interestingness influences the structure and focus of conversations in entrepreneurial education (EE) research. In particular, the authors elaborate on what is perceived as interesting among different subgroups of EE researchers, and not least, how EE researchers can identify and engage in scholarly conversation within the field.

The study is based on a unique database with web-based responses from 465 EE researchers from around the world. The authors conduct analyses of both open-ended and closed questions. The open-ended questions are analyzed by inductive categorization. The closed questions are subject to factor and cluster analyses.

The findings suggest that EE research is a topic-oriented field, characterized by a strong focus on novel and challenging research issues. In addition, the field is individualistic and fragmented, and the perception of interestingness differs between five subgroups of EE researchers, whose members have a somewhat different perception of interestingness. Accordingly, the authors also find different core conversations going on within the field. Obviously, these conversations tend to be triggered by the field's obsession with novelty and challenging research, but several conversations are related to practically relevant research, as well as methodological and theoretical discussions.

This is the first study to elaborate on the perception of interestingness among EE researchers and the conversations going on within the field. In the study the authors have explored the characteristics of EE research based on the perception of interestingness among the researchers within the field. In this respect, this study contributes insights on how current and aspiring EE researchers can find and build scholarly conversations embedded in passionate interest, while concurrently disseminating and accumulating knowledge on EE together with like-minded peers.

The publication oeuvre of a researcher carries great value when academic careers are assessed, and being recognised as a successful candidate is usually equated with being a productive author. Yet, how publications are valued in the context of evaluating careers is so far an understudied topic. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Through a content analysis of assessment reports in three disciplines – biomedicine, economics and history – this paper analyses how externalities are used to evaluate publication oeuvres. Externalities are defined as features such as reviews and bibliometric indicators, which can be assessed without evaluating the epistemological claims made in the actual text.

All three fields emphasise similar aspects when assessing: authorship, publication prestige, temporality of research, reputation within the field and boundary keeping. Yet, how these facets of quality are evaluated, and the means through which they are assessed differs between disciplines. Moreover, research fields orient themselves according to different temporal horizons, i.e. history looks to the past and economics to the future when research is evaluated.

The complexities involved in the process of evaluating candidates are also reflected in the findings, and while the comparative approach taken effectively highlights domain specific differences it may also hide counter-narratives, and subtle intradisciplinary discussion on quality.

This study offers a novel perspective on how publications are valued when assessing academic careers. Especially striking is how research across different fields is evaluated through different time horizons. This finding is significant in the debate on more overarching and formal systems of research evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize library and information science (LIS) as fragmenting discipline both historically and by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory about the organization of sciences and Fuchs’ (1993) theory about scientific change.

The study combines historical source analysis with conceptual and theoretical analysis for characterizing LIS. An attempt is made to empirically validate the distinction between LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The origin of fragmentation in LIS due the contributions of other disciplines can be traced in the 1960s and 1970s for solving the problems produced by the growth of scientific literature. Computer science and business established academic programs and started research relevant to LIS community focusing on information retrieval and bibliometrics. This has led to differing research interests between LIS and other disciplines concerning research topics and methods. LIS has been characterized as fragmented adhocracy as a whole, but we make a distinction between research topics LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The paper provides an elaborated historical perspective on the fragmentation of LIS in the pressure of other disciplines. It also characterizes LIS as discipline in a fresh way by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory.

This study aims to offer a bibliometric and coding analysis of blockchain articles published in the accounting, auditing and accountability fields.

The data were collected using the Scopus database and a bibliometric and qualitative coding analysis with the keywords “blockchain” and “accounting” or “auditing” or “accountability.” Of the 514 initial sources, 93 peer-reviewed papers, book chapters and conference proceedings in the areas of business, management and accounting were finally selected. Nonscientific sources such as nonpeer-reviewed books and white papers were excluded.

This study reveals a promising and multidisciplinary field of research dominated by scholars and less by practitioners. Qualitative research, especially discourse analysis, is the most used method among authors. This study gives some useful insights about blockchain's definition and characteristics, business models, processes involved, connection with other technologies and relationships with accounting theories. Among the most interesting insights, the results confirm that technology as an external force can create an intersection among several research areas: accounting, auditing, accountability, business, management, computer science and engineering fields. Finally, in terms of research themes, although blockchain has a clear effect on auditing accounting, the links with the area of accountability are less clear and validated.

This study highlights the current state of the field, combining methodological approaches and providing valuable future research insights. Additionally, it is also a starting point for professionals to fully understand blockchain's characteristics and potential with a constructive and systemic approach.

This paper aims to the identification of journal articles that probably report on interdisciplinary research at Wageningen University & Research (WUR).

For identification of interdisciplinary research, an analysis is performed on journals from which articles have been cited in articles (co-)authored by WUR staff. The journals with cited articles are inventoried from the reference lists of the WUR articles. For each WUR article, a mean dissimilarity is calculated between the journal in which it has been published and the journals inventoried from the reference lists. Dissimilarities are derived from a large matrix with similarity values between journals, calculated from co-occurrence of these journals in the WUR articles’ reference lists.

For 21,191 WUR articles published between 2006 and 2015 in 2,535 journals mean dissimilarities have been calculated. The analysis shows that WUR articles with high mean dissimilarities often are published in multidisciplinary journals. Also, WUR articles with high mean dissimilarities are found in non-multidisciplinary (research field-specific) journals. For these articles (with high mean dissimilarities), this paper shows that citations are often made to more various research fields than for articles with lower mean dissimilarities.

Identification of articles reporting on interdisciplinary research may be important to WUR policy for strategic purposes or for the evaluation of researchers or groups. Also, this analysis enables to identify journals with high mean dissimilarities (due to WUR articles citing more various research fields). Identification of these journals with a more interdisciplinary scope can be important for collection management by the library.

This article aims to conduct a bibliometric study using structural and relational approaches amongst the extracted documents and investigates the connections between business incubation and entrepreneurship-related papers to describe the field comprehensively.

A total of 259 articles have been retrieved from Scopus database in order to conduct the bibliometric analysis. Performance analysis and science mapping techniques of bibliometrics have been used along with data visualisation software, i.e. VOSviewer and RStudio. The network collaboration and intellectual structures, i.e. bibliographic coupling, co-occurrence analysis, word cloud and trending topics, have been presented to identify the field’s latest trends, themes and development.

The findings highlight annual publication trends, including the most frequently cited articles, the most productive authors, countries and highly influential journals that contribute the most to the said field. The intellectual structures have been developed to identify research themes and trends by running co-occurrence analysis and bibliographic coupling. The findings of this study emphasize the value of technology transfer, mentorship programmes, entrepreneurship education and an emphasis on innovation and creativity through entrepreneurial universities and academia. These findings provide policymakers and administrative officials with crucial guidance for fortifying the pillars of entrepreneurship and education for the comprehensive development of the economy. Further, this article attempts to identify the most influential and relevant publications as well as the newest trends in the area of business incubation in combination with entrepreneurship.

The article contributes not only to broaden the scope of knowledge on the said research discipline but also to comprehend how the field has evolved over a period of time. This study also attracts the interest of scholars/academicians, leading to the significant production of scholarly documents in business incubation and entrepreneurship.

The field of entrepreneurship and business incubation is one of the important pillars for the growth and development of the economy. This piece contributes to this arena by focusing on the areas that must be taken care of by developing the entrepreneurial ecosystem and fostering the progress of startups. The fundamentals of this research highlight the importance of mentorship programs, entrepreneurship education, technology transfer and a focus on innovation and creativity through entrepreneurial education and efforts by universities/academia, giving an important direction to the policymakers and administration for strengthening the pillar of entrepreneurship and education for the holistic development of the economy.

Business incubation is an emerging field of academic research connected to startups, venture formation and entrepreneurship ecosystems, making it a potential scholarly discipline. This study presents a thorough bibliometric analysis over the last three decades, offering comprehensive details on the most significant developments in the field of business incubation. Moreover, the various analytical methods applied to this study make it more attractive.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by analyzing articles in the leading journals of the two main research fields, entrepreneurship studies, and rural studies, through the concept of rural proofing.

The systematic literature review centers on the two main fields where rural entrepreneurship is studied and covers papers in nine leading journals in entrepreneurship studies and two leading journals in rural studies, between the years 1989 and 2020. In total, 97 papers were reviewed and we utilize and operationalize the rural proofing concept based on Fahmy et al.'s (2004) 3 characteristics of rural: remoteness, accessibility, and rural locale and sense of place. The authors take stock of the dimensions of rural proofing addressed within each of the research fields to find similarities and differences; that is, if articles are rural proofed (or not) when discussing rural entrepreneurship.

The classification of articles across the three dimensions of rural proofing shows that the field of rural entrepreneurship is being addressed mainly in the dimensions of remoteness and accessibility, while few authors in rural studies journals give priority to the rural locale and sense of place dimension. The results of the authors' review reveal that out of a total of 97 articles on rural entrepreneurship, 56 articles address at least one dimension of rural proofing and 41 articles do not address any dimension. Among the 41 articles not rural proofed, rurality is not problematized when discussing rural entrepreneurship. Instead, the authors focus on specific topics such as social capital, community entrepreneurship/networks, entrepreneurs'/farmers' identity, illegality in rural areas, and institutional framework. The number of non-rural-proofed articles in entrepreneurship journals is almost double that in rural studies journals. This means that authors in entrepreneurship journals do not problematize rurality to the same extent as authors in rural studies journals when addressing rural entrepreneurship.

The authors emphasize the need for increased cross-fertilization between the fields of entrepreneurship and rural studies as an avenue to develop the entrepreneurship field in the direction towards rural proofing. A close collaboration with academia and policymakers is essential to promote interdisciplinary research in order to make a distinctive contribution to rural development. Scholars in either of the two fields will benefit from our review and identification of similarities and differences in the research. The review is one step towards promoting a closer dialog between the two fields.

Previous reviews have focused mainly on what rural entrepreneurship entails (e.g. what topics are discussed) rather than how rural entrepreneurship is discussed. This paper centers on the differences and similarities of the two main fields and provides an in-depth qualitative analysis of how rural entrepreneurship is discussed by utilizing the rural proofing concept.