Search results

This paper aims to determine the advantages and disadvantages associated with integrating a coworking environment into the real estate portfolios of large office-based organizations. The study discusses both external and internal coworking solutions.

This paper is a literature review and qualitative research based on 12 semistructured interviews with high-level real estate practitioners, including users, suppliers and consultants.

The authors examined the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating coworking environments into the real estate portfolios of large organizations from the four perspectives of Krumm et al. (2000). These perspectives were operationalized through the 12 real estate added value parameters of Jensen and Van der Voordt (2017). The findings show that improved adaptability is the greatest advantage of external coworking solutions (facility management perspective). The most significant advantage of internal coworking is related to stimulation of innovation, creativity and knowledge sharing (general management perspective). The disadvantages of external and internal coworking partly overlap and are mainly the negative effect on the corporate culture (general management perspective).

The findings contribute to the understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating both external and internal coworking solutions from multiple perspectives and allow to compare them. The authors developed and tested an operationalization of the four perspectives of Krumm (2000) through the 12 added values of Jensen and Van der Voordt (2017). Opinions and perceptions of professionals regarding internal and external coworking models are presented in a framework and related to earlier findings.

The concept of “participation” has become a buzzword in contemporary public governance models. However, despite the broad and significant interest, defining participation remains a debated topic. The aim of the current study was to explore how participants perceived and interpreted the meaning and scope of participation.

This study is part of a four-year (2019–2022) longitudinal research project investigating stakeholder participation in the context of developing and establishing a strategic regional plan in Region Skåne in southern Sweden. The research project has a qualitative approach and uses interviews with different stakeholder groups such as municipal politicians and public officials and a survey as empirical material.

The authors developed a participation spectrum including eight types of participation: to be open, to be informed, to be listened to, to discuss, to be consulted, to give and take, to collaborate and to co-create. The authors also identified four different purposes of participation: creating a joint network, creating a joint understanding, creating a joint effort and creating a joint vision. The spectrum and the purposes were related through four characteristics of participation, i.e. involvement, interaction, influence and empowerment.

The study rests on a single case, and so the results have limited transferatibility.

Researching participation in terms of the participants' perceptions contributes a new perspective to the existing literature, which has commonly focussed on the organizers' perceptions of participation. Moreover, in order to clarify what participation meant to the participants, the study puts emphasis on untangling this from the why question of participation.

The study aims to promote the use of qualitative methods in service research by investigating how these methods are reported in service journals, how the level of reporting has evolved and whether methodological reporting influences the downloads or citations received by qualitative articles.

Methodological reporting practices were identified through content analysis of 318 qualitative articles published in three major service research journals and comparison with prior methodological literature. Regression analysis was used to test how the level of methodological reporting influences article downloads and citations.

The study identifies 29 reporting practices related to 9 key methodological reporting areas. The overall level of methodological reporting in published qualitative articles has increased over time. While differences in the level of reporting between service journals persist, they are narrowing. The level of methodological reporting did not influence downloads or citations of qualitative articles.

Service scholars using qualitative methods should pay attention to methodological reporting as it can improve the chances of being published. Factors such as theoretical contributions are likely to have a greater influence on article impact than methodological reporting.

No prior study has explored methodological reporting practices across different qualitative methodologies or how reporting influences article impact. For authors, reviewers and editors, the study provides an inventory of reporting practices relevant for evaluating qualitative articles, which should lower barriers for qualitative methods in service research by providing practical guidelines on what to focus on when reporting and assessing qualitative research.