Search results

Increasing amount of empirical research in operations and supply chain management is using institutional theory as its theoretical lens. Yet, a common scale to measure the three institutional pressures – coercive, mimetic and normative – is lacking. Many studies use proxies or a single, grouped, construct of external pressures which present methodological challenges. This study aims to present the development of multi-item scales to measure institutional pressures (in a purchasing context).

First, items were generated based on the theoretical construct definitions. These items were then tested through academic sorting and an international survey. The first empirical testing failed to produce reliable and valid scales, and further refinement and analysis revealed that coercive pressure splits into two separate constructs. A second q-sorting was then conducted with purchasing practitioners, followed by another survey in Italy to verify the new measurement scale for four institutional pressures.

The multimethod and multistage measurement development reveals that empirically the three institutional pressures actually turn into four pressures. The theoretical construct of coercive pressure splits into two distinct constructs: coercive market pressure and coercive regulatory pressure.

The results of the paper, namely, the measurement scales, are an important theoretical and methodological contribution to future empirical research. They present a much-needed measurement for these theoretical constructs increasingly used in management research.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the quasi-experiment setting to test the formulated design support (developed in the author’s PhD research) within a design research methodology (DRM) framework. This support intends to help designers to consciously engage rural families within a development aid scenario and increase their self-reliance towards their built environment (housing).

This paper elaborates on the setting in which the design support was tested within a quasi-experiment. The literature section describes the challenges in design research and why the DRM is suitable for this type of empirical research.

Findings of the paper include a workable setting to organise and evaluate the impact of a design support within a DRM framework on a vulnerable rural community.

The main limitation of the research lies in the study population. Due to financial and time constraints, only four teams could participate in the experiment conducted in rural Kenya.

Further research will need to prove that the support works in comparable situations on the African continent.

The quasi-experiment setting within a DRM framework could benefit researchers in comparable empirical investigations.

This study explores the benefits of accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), according to those who are engaged in the practice.

The authors collected data through open-ended, semi-structured telephone interviews. The authors analyzed the data using an inductive methodology.

The authors found that CALEA police accreditation enhances organizational learning through the development of knowledge brokers, the creation of communities of practice, support for knowledge repositories, support for knowledge managers and greater levels of transparency.

This qualitative study, which focuses on the perceptions and experiences of those involved in the CALEA process, provides a valuable complement to the quantitative literature on accreditation by shedding light on the organizational learning resulting from accreditation.