Search results

Traditional innovation typologies within the extant literature are not compatible with the innovation levels found within the Australian outdoor hospitality parks (OHP) sector, given its tourism and small business characteristics. This paper seeks to introduce an innovation typology specific to the Australian OHP sector.

A two‐phase qualitative research method was employed, whereby 30 semi‐structured interviews were conducted with OHP operators/administrators who were identified as being “innovative” by four industry executives. Based on the 30 interviews carried out in Phase 1, six industry individuals who demonstrated a wider and deeper approach to innovation than the others were further interviewed in Phase 2.

A small percentage of Australian OHP industry operators and executive officers showcase a level of innovation that is beyond incremental in character, but is not radical, revolutionary or disruptive. This group of “strategic innovators” are the first to adopt ideas from other sources and adapt them to fit within the Australian context. These new ideas are introduced in three‐ to four‐year increments, providing the individuals with sufficient time to assess the market's reaction to the changes, and to measure increased value to their situation. The three‐ to four‐year time span dovetails with the length of time taken by the majority of competitors to imitate the new concepts.

The paper introduces an innovation typology applicable to the Australian outdoor hospitality parks sector.

The purpose of this paper is to use duoethnography to explore experiences of service as work in the university, an institution increasingly shaped by neoliberal values. The authors trace the shift in emphasis within the university from one of a care-oriented form of service to a highly managerial form of service. The authors first interrogate childhood stories to make sense of the initial response to the role of service in a lecturer position, and then to the increasing organisational demand for leadership within the university.

As two women academics the authors see the work in teacher education as a particular form of service—as “our calling”.

This duoethnography reveals different histories in relation to service, but similar ways of thinking about the changing nature of service in the university. With particular regard to women in the academy, it reveals the desire for a more transformative approach, recognising the importance of collegial relationships, and valuing an ethics of care, in order to develop inclusive and transformative service and leadership in the academy.

This paper provides clear links to how changes in the university are understood and approached differently by people.

This paper argues for the importance of autoethnographic and duoethnographic explorations of the personal stories in the university to better understand wider definitions of service and leadership.