Search results

More complexity, less freedom, distrust and a lack of information seem to pose threats to the success of partner relationships in accounting firms, as approximately 70% of business partnerships fail globally, undermining SDG 17. The low competitive intensity in this industry seems not to help the current situation. Yet, the existing strategic alliance (SA) literature have been somewhat sluggish in adequately addressing how partnership attributes (PAs) affect partnership success (PS) and how brand competition (BC) impacts this relationship. In response, this conceptual work addresses the impact of PAs on PS in accounting firms. It further explores the BC conditions under which the PAs–PS connection may be intensified.

Incorporating theories and empirics on six distinct topics, this study presents a conceptual model and ten hypotheses that are worth testing in future research.

This research finds that PAs will be favourably linked to PS, and this favourable association will be positively moderated by BC such that the PAs–PS connection will be more pronounced if BC within the accounting industry is high than low.

Further research is needed to empirically test the suppositions made. Also, they could extend the proposed framework to cover other moderators like technological turbulence, market dynamism and government regulation.

Practical lessons for governments, shareholders, chief executive officers, consultants and other industry players, particularly those who are interested in the success of accounting partnership firms, are deliberated.

This study demonstrates how PAs and BC interact to foster PS. It also provides a baseline information for upcoming researchers to investigate other external factors under which the PAs–PS connection may be improved.

This paper offers a definition of the core of information science, which encompasses most research in the field. The definition provides a unique identity for information science and positions it in the disciplinary universe.

After motivating the objective, a definition of the core and an explanation of its key aspects are provided. The definition is related to other definitions of information science before controversial discourse aspects are briefly addressed: discipline vs. field, science vs. humanities, library vs. information science and application vs. theory. Interdisciplinarity as an often-assumed foundation of information science is challenged.

Information science is concerned with how information is manifested across space and time. Information is manifested to facilitate and support the representation, access, documentation and preservation of ideas, activities, or practices, and to enable different types of interactions. Research and professional practice encompass the infrastructures – institutions and technology –and phenomena and practices around manifested information across space and time as its core contribution to the scholarly landscape. Information science collaborates with other disciplines to work on complex information problems that need multi- and interdisciplinary approaches to address them.

The paper argues that new information problems may change the core of the field, but throughout its existence, the discipline has remained quite stable in its central focus, yet proved to be highly adaptive to the tremendous changes in the forms, practices, institutions and technologies around and for manifested information.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how gamification may be used for project stakeholder engagement.

The paper presents the results of a systematic literature review of extant research concerning the gamification of projects. Based on this, an agenda for future studies is outlined.

Extant research on the gamification of projects is scarce and scattered among various disciplines, but the engineering fields dominate. The research performed does indicate that gamification may be used for involving stakeholders in projects, primarily by promoting learning, but also by engaging them, motivating action and solving problems.

In several cases, extant research display poor quality in research design and a lack in cross-disciplinary perspectives, which means that more research is needed. The users’ perspective is often lacking. Furthermore, the ideas gamification might be “hidden” within other technologies.

The findings of this research may assist project management practitioners in the endeavor of adopting gamification principles to better involve stakeholders.

The study fills a gap in summarizing the research on how gamification may be used to promote project stakeholder engagement. Based on this, it proposes a research agenda for future research on the use of gamification to promote project stakeholder engagement.

This paper aims to address three research questions (1) Who is the main stakeholder that shapes Airbnb experience, (2) Does Airbnb offers an authentic travel experience? and (3) What should be the future research trends in Airbnb?

This paper uses the systematic literature review (SLR) with a well-defined protocol, research strategy and methods to answer the research questions.

The review revealed that while Airbnb plays a significant role as the platform provider, the stakeholders influencing the experiences are multifaceted. Hosts, guests, local communities and even regulatory bodies all contribute to shaping the overall Airbnb Experience ecosystem. Hosts, in particular, have a crucial role in curating and delivering unique experiences, which significantly impacts the quality and authenticity of the offerings. On the question of whether Airbnb offers an authentic travel experience, the review uncovered mixed findings. For examples, some studies emphasized the potential for Airbnb to provide authentic and local experiences, allowing travelers to engage with the community and cultural aspects of a destination. However, other studies raised concerns about the commodification and standardization of experiences, leading to a potential loss of authenticity.

This paper is different from previous SLR where previous research systematically reviewed; motivations to use and choose Airbnb, institutionalization of Airbnb, stakeholders of Airbnb. This paper addresses authentic experience as a factor that influences activity participation.