Search results
1 – 10 of 787Simon Wakeling, Valerie Spezi, Jenny Fry, Claire Creaser, Stephen Pinfield and Peter Willett
The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article.
Design/methodology/approach
Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution.
Findings
A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers’ perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks.
Originality/value
This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.
Details
Keywords
Abstract
Details
Keywords
Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e.…
Abstract
Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e., destructive) is based on the intent behind the behaviors, it can be difficult to determine which acts are constructive. As an umbrella construct consisting of several forms of deviant acts (e.g., whistle-blowing, employee voice, necessary evils), research into constructive deviance has largely remained focused on the individual behaviors to date. While advancements have been made, this focus has limited the consideration of an overarching understanding of constructive deviance in the workplace. Further, constructs like constructive deviance that straddle the bounds between beneficial and detrimental necessitate the exploration into their antecedents as determined by the employees (i.e., apples), their environments (e.g., barrels), or some combination of the two. The author seeks to advance the research in constructive deviance by proposing a testable model. In which, the author develops an interactionist perspective of the antecedents to reposition constructive deviance as the acts of good employees in restrictive or negative environments. In doing so, the author considers how various aspects of individuals, their organizational environments, and the influence of their leaders interact. The author then develops a multi-stakeholder approach to the outcomes of constructive deviance to consider how the various parties (i.e., organization, coworkers, customers) are expected to respond and how these responses impact the more distal outcomes as well as the likelihood of engaging in future constructive deviance.
Details
Keywords
Carina Roemer, Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, Bo Pang, Patricia David, Jeawon Kim, James Durl, Timo Dietrich and Julia Carins
Females are underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), both in the workforce and in universities. Low self-efficacy and limited access to role…
Abstract
Purpose
Females are underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), both in the workforce and in universities. Low self-efficacy and limited access to role models are key factors preventing retention of female STEM students enrolled in university degrees. This paper aims to report on one social marketing pilot programme that was co-designed to increase self-efficacy in females currently enrolled in STEM programmes.
Design/methodology/approach
The Co-create, Build and Engage (C-B-E) framework was applied. Process and outcome evaluations were conducted using a repeated measure design to assess pilot programme effectiveness.
Findings
A significant increase in self-efficacy and high satisfaction rates were observed for STEM students that attended the bias literacy workshop. Social advertisements raised awareness for available STEM specific university services.
Originality/value
This paper outlines the application of the C-B-E framework. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study delivers the first scientific paper reporting an outcome evaluation for a social marketing programme seeking to retain women enrolled in university STEM degrees.
Details