Search results

Past research on luxury is fragmented resulting in challenges to define what the construct of luxury means. Based on a need for conceptual clarity, this study aims to map how research conceptualises luxury and its creation.

This study presents a scoping review of luxury articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Of the initial 270 articles discovered by using the database of Scopus, and after control searching in Web of Science and reference scanning, 54 high-quality studies published before the end of 2020 were found to meet the inclusion criteria and comprised the final analytical corpus.

The findings demonstrate that research approaches luxury and its creation from three different perspectives: the provider-, consumer- and co-creation perspectives. In addition, the findings pinpoint how the perspectives differ from each other due to fundamental and distinguishing features and reveal particularities that underlie the perspectives.

The suggested framework offers implications to researchers who are interested in evaluating and developing luxury studies. Based on the identified luxury perspectives, the study identifies future research avenues.

The study contributes to the luxury research stream by advancing an understanding of an existing pluralistic perspective and by adding conceptual clarity to luxury literature. It also contributes to marketing and branding research by showing how the luxury literature connects to the evolution of value creation research in marketing literature.

The process of knowledge creation is recognized as an essential process for organizational learning and innovation. Creating knowledge to solve the problems and complexities of today's world is like opening a black box. Hence, the higher education system and universities are exploring ways to overcome the complexities and cope with global changes. In this regard, interdisciplinary collaborations and activities are crucial in creating knowledge and innovation to counter these changes. This study aimed to know the experiences of Shiraz university interdisciplinary researchers in the field of humanities and also design and explain the conceptual model of knowledge creation in interdisciplinary research teams in the field of humanities.

In this qualitative research, grounded theory was implemented based on Strauss and Corbin's systematic approach. The sampling method was purposeful, and the participants included sixteen faculty members of shiraz university who had at least one experience of performing an interdisciplinary activity in one of the humanities fields. The first participant was selected as a pilot, and the rest were selected by snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were also used to collect data and continued until theoretical saturation was attained. After collecting the available information and interviewing the people, the data were organized and analyzed in three stages, open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, using the proposed framework of Strauss and Corbin. Finally, the researcher reached a final and meaningful categorization.

In this research, the results were presented as a paradigm model of knowledge creation in the interdisciplinary research teams in the field of humanities. The paradigm model of the study consists of causal factors (internal and external factors), main categories (specialized competencies, scientific discourse, understanding of knowledge domains), strategies (structuring and synchronizing), context (individual and organizational), interfering factors (leadership, industry, and society), and consequences (individual and group achievement).

The present study aimed to explore the experiences of researchers in the interdisciplinary humanities research teams on knowledge creation in qualitative research. The study used Strauss and Corbin's systematic approach to recognize the causal factors of knowledge creation and the contexts. Discovering the main category of knowledge creation in interdisciplinary research teams, the authors analyze the strategies and consequences of knowledge creation.

This paper aims to add further evidence to adoption criteria for “revolutionary” business techniques.

Adoption criteria for business techniques with a high degree of novelty have been developed earlier. The case of exchange-traded funds supports the earlier findings. The methodology applied is explicative.

The analysis supports findings that an effective response to a problem, the availability of a controllable procedure, the means to apply the procedure easily and the hardware jointly explain adopting “revolutionary” business techniques.

The results of case studies, in general, do not permit induction. More research might identify additional adoption criteria or falsify the presently obtained results. Therefore, further research is invited.

Managers seeking or being introduced to new techniques in business administration might use the criteria outlined here for their evaluation.

The author believes this paper corroborates earlier findings on adopting “revolutionary” business techniques that draw on theoretically developed technologies.