Search results

This study aims to contribute by showing that although artificial intelligence (AI) practitioners have been faster to adapt, redefine and improve their remote working performance for routine tasks, they have instead decreased their tacit knowledge sharing and ability to perform extra tasks and manage the diverse time allocation.

Based on a grounded theory study of 57 in-depth interviews, conducted before the outbreak of the pandemic and after, this study investigates how remote work as a pandemic response measure affected AI practitioners.

Although remote working was a reality for AI practitioners before the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall remote working restrictions appear to have affected tacit knowledge sharing between AI practitioners, with a consequent negative impact on AI project output diversity.

The interactions of AI practitioners are partly embedded in AI tools and partly in human exchange. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these interactions appear to have become more obvious, even if the consequences have been unforeseen.

In an arts organisation context, this paper aims to further the understanding of service relationships by developing a framework explaining how sponsored arts organisations could better manage their relationships with sponsors to facilitate mutual benefit and relationship persistence.

Grounded theory methodology was applied to sponsorship of arts organisations through interviews with the managers of arts organisations worldwide who had been involved in seeking and managing sponsorship relationships.

Reciprocity was found to be the key factor in successful sponsorship relationships, but emotional reference to reputation was also important. Together they link uncertainty in the complex sponsorship environment with an arts organisation’s artistic ambitions.

This study extends the understanding of service relationships by shedding light on the sponsorship relationship from the sponsored organisation’s point of view and in particular highlighting the role of reciprocity in managing the relationship with their sponsor.

Understanding the moderating roles of reciprocity and reputation in sponsorship relationships helps to explain key facets of such relationships which can partially negate sponsor benefits and threaten a sponsorship’s continuation.

To date the vast majority of sponsorship research has focused on the perspective of sponsors. The purpose of this paper is to use this research to identify factors that sponsored institutions and organizations (sponsees) should be cognizant of before entering into a sponsorship arrangement, and to propose a research agenda based on these factors.

The authors leverage sponsorship research that has been published in business journals with an impact factor above 0.5 (Reuters, 2015).

This paper argues that sponsees should be aware of the benefits that sponsorship brings to sponsors so that they can better appeal to potential sponsors. A sponsee also needs to be aware of the impact a sponsorship partnership may have on its own brand, image, and equity.

This is a conceptual paper grounded in the literature that aims to stimulate further research in the domain of sponsorship and provide deeper understanding for sponsees. Empirical research addressing the research questions posed is required.

In a holistic manner, this literature review offers insights into factors that sponsees should consider before entering a sponsorship relationship.

Previous research in the sponsorship domain has focused primarily on dyadic sponsors. This paper considers sponsorship from the sponsee’s perspective.

Recent guidance from the United States Food and Drug Administration discusses patient-reported outcomes as endpoints in clinical trials (FDA, 2006). Using methods consistent with this guidance, we developed symptom indexes for patients with advanced cancer. Input on the most important symptoms was obtained from 533 patients recruited from National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions and four non-profit social service organizations. Diagnoses included the following 11 primary cancers: bladder, brain, breast, colorectal, head/neck, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, kidney, lung, lymphoma, ovarian and prostate. Physician experts in each of 11 diseases were also surveyed to differentiate symptoms that were predominantly disease-based from those that were predominantly treatment-induced. Results were evaluated alongside previously published indexes for 9 of these 11 advanced cancers that were created based on expert provider surveys, also at NCCN institutions (Cella et al., 2003). The final results are 11 symptom indexes that reflect the highest priorities of people affected by these 11 advanced cancers and the experienced perspective of the people who provide their medical treatment. Beyond the clinical value of such indexes, they may also contribute significantly to satisfying regulatory requirements for a standardized tool to evaluate drug efficacy with respect to symptomatology.