Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine new directions for diversity scholarship in the context of future of work or advanced technological shifts that are impacting organizations and society. It proposes that both new opportunities and challenges are likely to emerge for individuals and offers considerations around ethics, inequalities and global dimensions as relevant conversations within this domain.

The paper provides an overview of new technological advances in the domains of artificial intelligence, automation and the gig economy. It then layers considerations related to diversity within this context, focusing on issues of relevance to mainstream, critical and transnational traditions within diversity scholarship.

It is likely that technological shifts will impact several domains of diversity scholarship including how we define “diversity,” and the value and appropriateness of using advanced technologies to replace certain jobs that are predominantly held by underrepresented groups. Furthermore, the paper outlines ways in which bias, ethical considerations and emergent digital inequalities will become important conversations within diversity research in the context of future of work.

This paper brings together diversity scholarship and future of work conversations in assessing the ways such research and trends will intersect and provides insights about future directions that diversity-focused research should take to address and understand the consequences of rapid technological advances for inclusion.

The purpose of this paper is to offer and explore innovative strategies for building and sustaining digital initiatives at information organizations. Although the examples provided are based on case studies at an academic library, the practices are rooted in project management principles and therefore applicable to all library types, museums, archives and other information organizations. The innovative strategies on staffing and funding will be particularly useful to organizations faced with monetary and staffing shortages and highlights collaborative management practices.

Concept of strategic and collaborative management practices led by an experienced project manager cross-trained in management, technical and soft skills enables the successful development and sustainability of digital initiatives. A cross-trained librarian’s management practices of leading the Digital Scholarship Initiatives at a particular university will be examined as a case study and aided with literature supporting the need for digital initiatives leaders to have training beyond the credentials of librarian, curator, archivist or historian in the technologically savvy twenty-first century ecology of information centers.

The innovative strategies implemented in the case study yielded increases in the number of hours of digital lab usage, digital projects developed, seminars or workshops presented, attendance of library hosted events, number of programs implemented and awareness on campus, all with limited staff and funding. The variety and level of production and marketing is instrumental to the growth and sustainability of digital initiatives.

The innovative strategies emphasized in this paper use the concept of borrowed or shared time to start staffing needs and is particularly helpful to organizations that do not have a strong line of dedicated staffing or funding to begin building digital initiatives. Offers small ways to start immediately while setting the stage to plan for big ideas for the future.

This paper suggests a credentialed information expert, such as a librarian, archivist or curator, that is, also cross-trained in project management and technology is the key to not only successfully leading digital initiatives but is instrumental for its sustainability and the marketing, growth and future of digital initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of enterprise educators working collectively to develop a unique scholarship of teaching. The authors argue that the time is right for educators in this domain to secure the future of enterprise education. Acknowledging the debate between “entrepreneurship education” and “enterprise education,” the authors set out to develop a unification model through which educators can act collectively to demonstrate the leadership required to secure the autonomy of the domain.

The authors bring several pertinent ideas (pedagogical content knowledge, heutagogy and academagogy) to the attention of academics/researchers involved in the design, development and delivery of enterprise education. The innovative approach to combine these ideas with prevailing thinking in this domain has facilitated a model for collective action.

It is at the level of the shared philosophical positions that the authors can best cooperate to shape the future direction of enterprise education. The authors argue against dwelling upon how the authors differ in terms of context and process issues. Such matters can only fragment the theory and practice of enterprise education. The authors need to develop greater appreciation of shared philosophical positions and leverage this understanding into a unique scholarship of teaching, specific to enterprise education.

As enterprise education becomes more global, it is also likely to become more attractive to business schools that long for a new positioning tool in the increasingly overcrowded markets that they compete in.

This paper encourages enterprise educators to reflect upon the knowledge they hold of their own practice, and that of other enterprise educators.

According to Boyer (1990, p. 15), “the term ‘scholarship’ was first used in England in the 1870s by reformers who wished to make Cambridge and Oxford ‘not only a place of teaching, but a place of learning,’.…[it] referred to a variety of creative work carried on in a variety of places, and its integrity was measured by the ability to think, communicate, and learn.” Today, the word “scholarship” evokes thoughts of academic articles published in peer-reviewed journals, most frequently written by individuals holding academic ranks in colleges or universities. It is assumed that these articles are an outcome of dedicated and disciplined pursuit of knowledge aimed to enlighten man's thought processes, generate understanding, and enhance the ability to think and make good decisions. Clearly, in the last 150 years, the meaning of the word “scholarship” has changed significantly in higher education.

The purpose of this paper is to understand individual academics’ perception, attitudes and participation in Open Access Publishing and open scholarship and revisit some principles and designs of openness in academic publishing from the perspective of creative end-users, which helps to increase the sustainability and efficiency of open models.

This paper draws on a case study of China and empirical data collected through semi-structured interviews with a wide range of academics and stakeholders.

A separation between the communication and certification functions of publishing is identified: open initiatives are valued for efficient and interactive communication while traditional publishing still dominates the legitimacy of research publications, which leads to the quandary of individual academics operating within the transitional landscape of scholarly communication.

Practical recommendations for sustainable and efficient openness are derived from discussions on the difficulties associated open/social certification and the shifting maxims that govern academics from “publish or perish” to “be visible or vanish”.

“Openness” is defined in broad sense integrating Open Access and open scholarship to comprehensively reflect individual academics’ views in the transitional landscape of academic publishing. The research findings suggest that new open approaches are needed to address the evolving tension and conflicts between communication and certification.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the author’s decade-long tenure as the Editor of the European Journal of Marketing (EJM). The paper presents his thoughts on the past 10 years of marketing scholarship, his views on future directions and some advice for those looking to publish their research in academic journals.

The paper takes a reflective, discursive approach, and also reviews a wide range of topics relevant to marketing researchers.

The author finds that EJM has grown substantially on many levels in the past decade. He also finds that there are some concerns around marketing research, and social scientific scholarship in general, that marketing scholars may wish to consider and take into account in their ongoing work.

The paper is partly a personal view, and does not rely on any empirical research. However, the views espoused are justified by theoretical review and conceptual argument.

The implications of this paper are relevant to marketing scholars, journal reviewers, readers of research, as well as those who manage scholarship (e.g. university administrators). The author suggests a number of directions that the research, publication and reward process could move in to improve practice.

The paper brings together a large number of different views and concepts relevant to further development of marketing research, and provides original summaries and extensions.

This chapter shares work carried out to use the discipline of Informing Science as a lens to carry out an analysis of the discipline of entrepreneurship. Focusing first at the level of the entrepreneurship discipline itself, recently advanced frameworks for practice-as-entrepreneurial-learning and for the scholarship of teaching and learning for entrepreneurship (SoTLE) are built upon using Gill’s work on academic informing systems to develop a framework that encourages viewing the entrepreneurship discipline as a system that informs entrepreneurial practice. While this may sound self-evident, we will explore how it implies something quite different from the teaching–research–scholarship paradigm to which most of us are accustomed.

Transnational migration has become a defining feature of many societies across the globe. This paper focuses on contributions to diversity theorizing and research available from “superdiversity”, an analytic framework derived from transnational migration studies. “Superdiversity” speaks to the novel social transformations taking place globally and provides new opportunities, albeit with critique, for conceptualizing and studying people, difference and inclusion. The purpose of this paper is to provide innovative ways to rethink hallmark concepts of diversity scholarship by offering new insights about the role of nation-states, the concept of difference and inclusion in the midst of mobility.

The paper relies upon transnational migration studies as an emergent field of inquiry about societal level changes brought upon by the ongoing movement of people. The social, cultural and political transformations growing out of transnational migration are used to theorize new directions for diversity research in the context of management and organization studies. By relying on “superdiversity” and its mobility-based ontology, epistemology and methodology, the paper proposes new ways to think about and carry out research on difference and inclusion.

Deploying the analytic framework of “superdiversity,” the paper offers “belonging” as the new conversation on inclusion and proposes mobile methods as a means to study mobile subjects/objects. In addition, it discusses how the ongoing transformative societal changes by way of transnational migration impact the ways in which the author theorizes and carry out diversity research. Questions and concerns around ethics, (in)equality and representation are considered vital to future research in/around diversity.

Extensive changes in societies emerging out of ongoing encounters between/among different kinds of people have taken shape by way of transnational migration. As a result, emergent and novel notions of difference have been forged in a transnational manner across social fields. By examining these transformations, the paper provides new directions and challenges for diversity scholarship in the context of rising societal tensions and rhetoric around difference and “belonging” in nation-states. It also provides alternative considerations for understanding and theorizing inclusion in diversity research.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss what the beginning of the Internet Age means for the functions and structures of scholarly information and communication by looking at and evaluating today's usability and usage of the digital information infrastructure for and by academic scholarship.

The paper gives an overview of the current state of development of digital information in the scholarly cultures and stresses the importance of data as the crucial – and considerably extended – basis of scholarly work. The central role of the publishing world for the academic rewards system is analyzed to consider continuities and discontinuities in scholarly publication.

The paper advances the thesis first coined by Christine Borgman that today we have an information infrastructure of, but not for, scholarly information. Some ideas and proposals of what should be done to move towards an information infrastructure for scholarly work conclude the paper.

The paper tries to bridge the gap between information professionals as producers and scholars as users of information and communication technologies and shows that a joint debate on these issues is necessary.

The purpose of this paper is to review and synthesise academic research in environmental accounting and demonstrate its shortcomings. It provokes scholars to rethink their conceptions of “accounts” and “nature”, and alongside others in this AAAJ special issue, provides the basis for an agenda for theoretical and empirical research that begins to “ecologise” accounting.

Utilising a wide range of thought from accounting, geography, sociology, political ecology, nature writing and social activism, the paper provides an analysis and critique of key themes associated with 40 years research in environmental accounting. It then considers how that broad base of work in social science, particularly pragmatic sociology (e.g. Latour, Boltanksi and Thévenot), could contribute to reimagining an ecologically informed accounting.

Environmental accounting research overwhelmingly focuses on economic entities and their inputs and outputs. Conceptually, an “information throughput” model dominates. There is little or no environment in environmental accounting, and certainly no ecology. The papers in this AAAJ special issue contribute to these themes, and alongside social science literature, indicate significant opportunities for research to begin to overcome them.

This paper outlines and encourages the advancement of ecological accounts and accountabilities drawing on conceptual resources across social sciences, arts and humanities. It identifies areas for research to develop its interdisciplinary potential to contribute to ecological sustainability and social justice.

How to “ecologise” accounting and conceptualise human and non-human entities has received little attention in accounting research. This paper and AAAJ special issue provides empirical, practical and theoretical material to advance further work.