This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/02632779510795430. When citing the article, please cite: William H. Johnson, Warren R. Matthews, (1995), “Disaster plan simulates plane crash into high-rise building”, Facilities, Vol. 13 Iss: 9/10, pp. 31 - 37.
Brand narratives are created to differentiate brands, and consumers base their assessments of a brand’s authenticity on this narrative. We propose that the default…
Brand narratives are created to differentiate brands, and consumers base their assessments of a brand’s authenticity on this narrative. We propose that the default consumer position is to accept a brand’s narrative, and we find that consumers maintain belief in this narrative even when explicitly reminded that it is manufactured by firms with an underlying profit motive. Because belief seems to be the default position adopted by consumers, we investigate what factors act as disruptors to this default position, thereby reducing assessments of authenticity.
This research uses a series of studies to investigate when and why consumers view some brand stories as authentic and others less so. In addition, we examine the impact of changes to authenticity assessments on managerially important brand outcomes.
Only when one or more authenticity disruptors are present do consumers begin to question the authenticity of the brand narrative. Disruption occurs when the focal brand is perceived to be nakedly copying a competitor, or when there is a gross mismatch between the brand narrative and reality. In the presence of one or both of these disruptors, consumers judge brands to be less authentic, report lower identification, lower assessments of brand quality and social responsibility, and are less likely to join the brand’s community.
Creating compelling brand stories is an important aspect of any marketing manager’s job; after all, these narratives help drive sales. Care must be taken when crafting narratives however, since consumers use these as the basis of their authenticity assessments, and brands deemed inauthentic are penalized.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze author and methodological characteristics in top-tier publications in higher education. As the importance of research in the professoriate continues to grow and faculty face ratcheted-up expectations for prestige in their research, such data are important contextually and historically.
This descriptive study examines 587 articles within four top-tier higher education research journals from 2008 to 2012. Data were open coded and analyzed with a research team, resulting in an intercoder reliability of 0.96.
Results show most authors are assistant professors, overwhelmingly received PhD’s from very high research institutions (Carnegie classification), and currently work in similar institutions. Five degree-granting institutions accounted for 29.0 percent of publications in top-tier journals. Additionally, quantitative research accounted for 60.6 percent of published articles, with regression as the most commonly used analytic technique (34.7 percent).
This study examined only higher education faculty and institutions based in the USA as well as first authors.
These results are meant to provide baseline data for top-tier journals within higher education and might inform conversations about methodological acceptability, respectability of qualitative research, graduate education research requirements, journal editor trainings, and tenure and promotion criteria.
This paper provides an update to previous studies that examined publications in higher education within the last three decades. In addition, this study examines author characteristics, which previous studies have mostly excluded. This study offers empirical data to inform conversations about the state of research in top-tier publications within higher education.
Because of the increasingly higher expectations of accrediting organizations, calls for greater accountability from state governments and students’ demand for an education…
Because of the increasingly higher expectations of accrediting organizations, calls for greater accountability from state governments and students’ demand for an education that prepares them for a career, most hospitality programs are now required to have an effective assessment of learning outcomes process. The increasing popularity of the assessment of learning outcomes process is viewed as highly positive because it can be considered as best-practices in higher education. The paper aims to discuss this issue.
This is Part 2 of a two-part article that provides an overview of the justifications for implementing an assessment of learning outcomes process, the steps that were developed by two hospitality programs, and the experiences of the two programs during implementation.
The steps in a closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process are relatively detailed; however, because of changes in expectations of stakeholders and the requirements of accreditors, they are now mandatory for most hospitality programs. Therefore, the choice is not whether to implement them, but when. From a competitive standpoint, it is to the program’s advantage to begin as soon as possible. Another factor to consider is that the implementation of a closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process will take several years to complete.
This paper is presenting a critical view of one of, if not the most important concepts in higher education, the closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process. Hopefully, the information on the process that is provided and the experiences of the two programs can shorten the learning curve for other hospitality programs.
We review the state of the literature concerning work–family conflict in the military, focusing on service members’ parenting roles and overall family and child…
We review the state of the literature concerning work–family conflict in the military, focusing on service members’ parenting roles and overall family and child well-being. This includes recognition that for many women service members, parenting considerations often arise long before a child is born, thereby further complicating work–family conflict considerations in regard to gender-specific conflict factors such as pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum, and breastfeeding. Subsequently, we consider more gender-invariant conflict factors, such as the nature of the work itself as causing conflict for the service member as parent (e.g., nontraditional hours, long separations, and child care challenges) as well as for the child (e.g., irregular contact with parent, fear for parent’s safety, and frequent relocations), and the ramifications of such conflict on service member and child well-being. Finally, we review formalized support resources that are in place to mitigate negative effects of such conflict, and make recommendations to facilitate progress in research and practice moving forward.