Search results

Although slack resources and their relationship to performance have been widely studied in the literature, the temporal symmetry of this relationship, and the duration of its effects, are still unknown aspects and are the objective of this paper.

To evaluate this effect, an exploratory study has been designed on a sample of 449 Spanish industrial companies over a period of 12 years, assessing the impact of idle resources on economic and financial profitability. By means of hierarchical regressions, the short- term, medium- term and long-term effects of slack resources have been evaluated.

The results show that the impact on performance depends on the type of resource considered. Available slack has a consistent and positive effect on economic profitability in the short term. Other types of slack show persistent effects on performance, but, in the case of the recoverable slack, with a negative sign that contradicts the benefits provided by these resources. Finally, potential slack only has a permanent effect on financial profitability, but the sign changes depending on the economic context under consideration. There are also differences in the duration of the effects according to the type of resources.

This paper advances the knowledge about the slack-performance relationship over time that has been scarcely studied.

閒置資源與表現的關係從文獻中可見得到廣泛的研究。唯這關係的時間對稱性及其影響的持續期則是未知之數，這正是本研究的目的。

此為一探索性研究，以評估這影響。研究樣本為449 間西班牙工業公司，研究為期12年，目的為評估閒置資源對經濟和財務盈利能力的影響。研究使用層次回歸，評估了閒置資源的短期、中期及長期的影響。

研究結果顯示、閒置資源對表現的影響是視乎被考慮之資源所屬種類的。可用冗餘就短期而言，對經濟盈利能力產生一貫積極的影響。其它種類的閒置資源對表現有持續的影響。但可恢復的冗餘，則與這些資源會帶來好處的現象相矛盾，帶來負面跡象。最後、潛在的冗餘對財務盈利能力只產生持久的影響，唯有關的跡象則會視乎被考慮的經濟環境而改變。致於影響的持續期則會根據資源的種類而有所不同。

本研究使我們更了解冗餘與表現在時間推移上的關係，而探討這關係的研究是罕見的。﹞

This paper examines the socio-political affordances of metrics in research evaluation and the consequences of epistemic injustice in research practices and recorded knowledge.

First, the use of metrics is examined as a mechanism that promotes competition and social acceleration. Second, it is argued that the use of metrics in a competitive research culture reproduces systemic inequalities and leads to epistemic injustice. The conceptual analysis draws on works of Hartmut Rosa and Miranda Fricker, amongst others.

The use of metrics is largely driven by competition such as university rankings and league tables. Not only that metrics are not designed to enrich academic and research culture, they also suppress the visibility and credibility of works by minorities. As such, metrics perpetuate epistemic injustice in knowledge practices; at the same time, the reliability of metrics for bibliometric and scientometric studies is put into question.

As metrics leverage who can speak and who will be heard, epistemic injustice is reflected in recorded knowledge and what we consider to be information.

This paper contributes to the discussion of metrics beyond bibliometric studies and research evaluation. It argues that metrics-induced competition is antithetical to equality and diversity in research practices.