Search results

Laboratories or “labs” outside science and technology have become increasingly popular in recent years. Their proliferation raises questions about what they have in common and the extent to which “lab” as a metaphor is still pertinent. We develop six criteria to assess these types of labs: (1) theoretical foundations; (2) experimentation; (3) collaboration; (4) boundaries; (5) governance; and (6) temporality. We identify a number of paradoxes in the operation of labs and explore their implications for research and practice.

This chapter examines the topic of internal branding from an organizational/behavioral science perspective, theoretically and empirically investigating how organizational members actually enact corporate brands. A mixed method research procedure serves to surface conscious (i.e., deliberate) and unconscious (i.e., tacit) internal brand meaning enactments in an internationally operating Austrian corporate business-to-business brand. The results are evidence of the potential complexity of real-life internal branding processes that limit the possibility of achieving a cohesive intended internal implementation of corporate brands. The chapter concludes with the managerial implication that purposeful managerial interventions necessitate an understanding of the social system that is the target of an internal branding initiative.

This chapter examines the topic of internal branding from an organizational/behavioral science perspective, theoretically and empirically investigating how organizational members actually enact corporate brands. A mixed-method research procedure serves to surface conscious (i.e., deliberate) and unconscious (i.e., tacit) internal brand meaning enactments in an internationally operating Austrian corporate business-to-business (B2B) brand. The results are an evidence of the potential complexity of real-life internal branding processes that limit the possibility of achieving a cohesive intended internal implementation of corporate brands. The chapter concludes with the managerial implication that purposeful managerial interventions necessitate an understanding of the social system that is the target of the internal branding initiative

The library metadata of the twenty-first century is moving toward a linked data model. BIBFRAME, which stands for Bibliographic Framework Initiative, was launched in 2011 with the goal to make bibliographic descriptions sharable and interoperable on the web. Since its inception, BIBFRAME development has made remarkable progress. The focus of BIBFRAME discussions has now shifted from experimentation to implementation. The library community is collaborating with all stakeholders to build the infrastructure for BIBFRAME production in order to provide the environment where BIBFRAME data can be easily created, reused, and shared. This chapter addresses library community's BIBFRAME endeavors, with the focus on Library of Congress, Program for Cooperative Program, Linked Data for Production Phase 2, and OCLC. This chapter discusses BIBFRAME's major differences from the MARC standard with the hope of helping metadata practitioners get a general understanding of the future metadata activity. While the BIBFRAME landscape is beginning to take shape and its practical implications are beginning to develop, it is anticipated that MARC records will continue to be circulated for the foreseeable future. Upcoming multistandard metadata environments will bring new challenges to metadata practitioners, and this chapter addresses the required knowledge and skills for this transitional and multistandard metadata landscape. Finally, this chapter explores BIBFRAME's remaining challenges to realize the BIBFRAME production environment and asserts that BIBFRAME's ultimate goal is to deliver a value-added next-web search experience to our users.

In this brief review, we do not attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of how the concept of ideology has developed in the different perspectives; this has been done in several publications that classify and discuss ideology in great detail (see Chiapello, 2003; Thompson, 1996; Eagleton, 1991; Lenk, 1984; Therborn, 1980; Larrain, 1979, among many others). However, the brief sketch below is intended to help us find venues for combining theories of ideology and institutions. Furthermore, it helps us to place the chapters of this volume in this broader context.

Are consumers tired of standing out? This study probes whether or not fast fashion understands the implicit behavior of their customers while dressing up or down. Retailers tend to market their more ready-to-wear (dress-down) fashion product in an approach that allows the customer to customize the outfits to become easily “me-self,” through a big selection of accessories for men and women such as hats, glasses, and scarves. Versus the dress-up look that echoes with conforming to social norms. Today marketers seem to misunderstand the tendency that when one dresses down they often seek to blend in more with the environment rather than display their own personality through fashion. The study extends the literature through explicating the process of picture introspection and member check using confirmatory personal introspection (CPI). Even though when one dresses down you would expect more individuality, according to the findings the subject sample was also more inclined to blend in society and stand out less. In the dress-up look there was a strong call for displaying features of a powerful and strong individuality.

The simplest part of sound preservation involves technology and its application. The real complexities lie in a mix of social legal, and financial issues. The social issues include how archivists, curators, librarians, historians, or anyone with limited engineering, computing, and other technical training can evaluate competing claims and risks. The legal issues include copyright and the risks that an institution may choose to take about what constitutes fair use and preservation copying. The financial issues include how much of what quality of preservation an institution can afford, and for how many of the items in its collection.