Search results

This study aims to investigate the fit of a promotion (prevention) focus with malicious (benign) envy and how this fit influences positive and negative behaviours, depending on the context.

Four empirical studies (two laboratory and two online experiments) were used to test key hypotheses. Study 1 manipulated regulatory focus and envy in a job application setting with university students. Study 2 engaged similar manipulations in a social media setting. Studies 3 and 4 extended the regulatory focus and envy manipulations to the general population in pay-what-you-want (PWYW) and pay-it-forward (PIF) restaurant contexts.

The findings showed that a promotion (prevention) focus fits with the emotion of malicious (benign) envy. In the social media context, promotion and prevention foci demonstrated negative behaviour, including unfollowing the envied person, when combined with malicious and benign envy. In the PWYW and PIF contexts, combining envy with a specific type of regulatory focus encouraged both positive and negative behaviours through influencing payments.

Future research could validate and extend this study’s findings with different product/service categories, cross-cultural samples and research methods such as field experiments.

The four studies’ findings will assist managers in formulating marketing strategies to enhance their positioning of target products/services, possibly leading to higher prices for PWYW and PIF businesses.

The conceptual model is novel as, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no prior research has proposed and tested the fit between envy type and regulatory foci.

Many literature reviews on project management (PM) research are limited to studies published only in PM journals but some reviews do expand their analysis on PM research published also in journals belonging to the management studies field. However, the authors found no previous literature reviews comparing the PM content in different sectors outside the management studies field. Therefore, the analysis and findings of PM content derived from the sector-specific engineering and technology-focused journals are new. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The authors analyze PM content in nine different sectors, where each sector and its inherent research is connected to specific engineering, technological, or industry-related disciplines. The authors conduct an evidence-informed literature review on PM knowledge in the distinct literatures of these nine sectors. The period of analysis is 24 years from 1986-2009. The authors discuss potential consequences of the findings’ sector-specificity for future PM domain development.

The perspective on different origins of PM leads to a meta-level PM concept covering several different PM domains, each with its own sector specific and separated development path.

The literature analysis purposefully excluded PM journals and management studies, and the authors focused only on sector-specific engineering and technology-focused journals that represent knowledge and wisdom of different PM contents in nine sectors.

The findings have significant potential to contribute to scholarly discussion on the development of a universal PM theory. For applicability across sectors, the authors suggest a modular PM theory with different sector-specific modules for knowledge, concepts, and underlying assumptions.

Currently, this discussion has been mainly focused on theorizing concepts and approaches in management studies only. This study expands the understanding to engineering and technology-focused journals across nine industry sectors/domains.

This paper deals with the organizing of interactive product development. Developing products in interaction between firms may provide benefits in terms of specialization, increased innovation, and possibilities to perform development activities in parallel. However, the differentiation of product development among a number of firms also implies that various dependencies need to be dealt with across firm boundaries. How dependencies may be dealt with across firms is related to how product development is organized. The purpose of the paper is to explore dependencies and how interactive product development may be organized with regard to these dependencies.

The analytical framework is based on the industrial network approach, and deals with the development of products in terms of adaptation and combination of heterogeneous resources. There are dependencies between resources, that is, they are embedded, implying that no resource can be developed in isolation. The characteristics of and dependencies related to four main categories of resources (products, production facilities, business units and business relationships) provide a basis for analyzing the organizing of interactive product development.

Three in-depth case studies are used to explore the organizing of interactive product development with regard to dependencies. The first two cases are based on the development of the electrical system and the seats for Volvo’s large car platform (P2), performed in interaction with Delphi and Lear respectively. The third case is based on the interaction between Scania and Dayco/DFC Tech for the development of various pipes and hoses for a new truck model.

The analysis is focused on what different dependencies the firms considered and dealt with, and how product development was organized with regard to these dependencies. It is concluded that there is a complex and dynamic pattern of dependencies that reaches far beyond the developed product as well as beyond individual business units. To deal with these dependencies, development may be organized in teams where several business units are represented. This enables interaction between different business units’ resource collections, which is important for resource adaptation as well as for innovation. The delimiting and relating functions of the team boundary are elaborated upon and it is argued that also teams may be regarded as actors. It is also concluded that a modular product structure may entail a modular organization with regard to the teams, though, interaction between business units and teams is needed. A strong connection between the technical structure and the organizational structure is identified and it is concluded that policies regarding the technical structure (e.g. concerning “carry-over”) cannot be separated from the management of the organizational structure (e.g. the supplier structure). The organizing of product development is in itself a complex and dynamic task that needs to be subject to interaction between business units.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

This paper seeks to highlight the current confusion in the terminology for group research, identify the geographic, historical and scientific sources of this confusion and suggest a reduction in the number of terms used to two, thereby offering a definition on which researchers from different cultural backgrounds and scientific traditions may be able to agree.

A review of the academic and practitioner literature on qualitative group research in academic, social and market research indicates that various terms for groups are used interchangeably and are often assumed to have the same meaning. These terms include; Focus Group, Group Discussion, Group Interview, Group, Focus Group Interview, Focus Group Discussion, Qualitative Group Discussion and Nominal Group Interview.

The contribution of this paper is that it offers a resolution of this issue and so allows researchers from across geographic borders, different scientific traditions and from both academic and practitioner backgrounds to talk to one another in a common language.

This issue of differences in terminology for groups has largely been ignored by researchers and this paper hopes to bring some clarity and understanding of the key differences between focus group interviews and focus group discussions.

Valence and volume of online reviews are generally considered to influence sales positively. However, existing findings regarding the relative influence of these two components have been inconclusive. This paper aims to explain some of these inconsistencies by examining the moderating role of regulatory focus (both as a chronic disposition and as a situational focus induced by the product category) in the relationship between online review volume/valence and consumers purchase decisions.

Two studies were conducted. Study 1 used a 2 (Volume: high/ low) * 3 (Valence: high/medium/low) within-subject experimental design. Study 2 analyzed real-world data from Amazon.com. Logistic and panel regression analyses were used to test the research hypotheses.

The studies confirmed the hypothesized effect of regulatory focus on online review valence and volume effects. Specifically, Study 1 showed that online review valence was more impactful for consumers with a promotion focus than for consumers with a prevention focus. The opposite was true for online review volume effects, where consumers with a prevention focus were influenced more by volume in their decision-making compared to consumers with a promotion focus. Study 2 showed that the pattern of results we found in Study 1 also applied to situational regulatory focus induced by the product category. The effect of review volume on sales rank was stronger for prevention-oriented products, whereas the effect of valence was stronger for promotion-oriented products.

In Study 1, one product category was involved in the study (Digital camera). Involving more different product categories will add reliability to the results of current research. Also, it can offer external validity to current research results. In Study 2, there was no exact measurement for sales, as Amazon.com does not share that kind of information. Instead, Sales Rank was used as a proxy variable. Future research could look into the websites that offer access to the exact sales information.

The current research findings suggest the need for companies to adapt their consumer review management strategy to the regulatory orientation of their target market and products. When a promotion-focused mindset is targeted, strategies for increasing the favorability of product reviews should be used, in contrast, tactics for increasing the quantity of reviews may be more suitable when a prevention-focused mindset is involved.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this research is the first to investigate the interaction between regulatory focus of consumers and products and online review components.

We are the midst of accelerated change in the academic workforce. Academic roles, being a resilient mixture of research and education, are differentiating. An education-focused academic role, rather than one solely focused on disciplinary research, is gaining credibility and value. With the rise of the education-focused academic roles, questions are being raised about whether this new form of education-focused academic will continue to be overly represented by women in a new form of “women's work.” In the next decade, as academic roles continue to differentiate, care needs to be taken not to repeat the practice of the last 100 years which has seen gender bias continue. We will present four profiles of education-focused women academics, the snakes and ladders in their careers, and the strategies needed to ensure that women progress with equal recognition in these complex but exciting times.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize and identify the existing studies on the relationship between technological media and development

The authors conducted a systematic mapping study to identify and analyze the related literature. The authors identified 196 primary studies, dated from 2000 to 2017 and categorized them with respect to research focus, types of research and research method.

A total of 97 studies were identified and mapped, synthesizing the available evidence on the relationship between technological media and development. “Social development” with 54 articles and “communication” with 34 articles were the dominant research focus. Regarding the research type, “Solution proposal” is the most frequently employed research type. “Case study,” “discussion paper” and “interview,” respectively were the most used research methods. However, “SNA,” “focus group” and “time series” were used less often. “Solution proposal” was the most common research type between 2015 and 2017, and after that “philosophical paper” was the dominant research paper type. Further, the number of publications has increased between 2006 and 2017.

This mapping study is the first systematic exploration of the state-of-art on technological media-development nexus. The existing body of knowledge is limited to a few high quality studies.

The purposes of this paper are to provide a description of AI and to document and compare two applications of AI, one in program evaluation and another in an applied research study.

Focus groups, interviews and observations were used to gather rich qualitative data which was used to detail Appreciative Inquiry's value in evaluation and research.

AI aided the researcher in connecting with the participants and valuing what they shared. In both studies, the use of AI amassed information that answered the research questions, provided a rich description of the context and findings, and led to data saturation. The authors describe and compare experiences with two applications of AI: program evaluation and a research study. This paper contributes further understanding of the use of AI in public education institutions. The researchers also explore the efficacy of using AI in qualitative research and recommend its use for multiple purposes.

Limitations occurred in the AI-Design Stage by using a positive viewpoint and because both program and partnership studied were new with limited data to use for designing a better future. So, the authors recommend a revisit of both studies through the same 4D Model.

This manuscript shows that AI is useful for evaluation and research. It amplifies the participants' voices through favorite stories and successes. AI has many undiscovered uses.

Through the use of AI the authors can: improve theoretical perspectives; conduct research that yields more authentic data; enable participants to deeply reflect on their practice and feel empowered; and ultimately impact and improve the world.

AI is presented as an evaluation tool for a high-school program and as a research approach identifying strengths and perceptions of an educational partnership. In both studies, AI crumbled the walls that are often erected by interviewees when expecting to justify or defend decisions and actions. This paper contributes further understanding of the use of AI in public education institutions.

Since its launch in 2007, research has been carried out on the popular social networking website Tumblr. The purpose of this paper is to identify published Tumblr-based research, classify it to understand approaches and methods, and provide methodological recommendations for others.

Research regarding Tumblr was identified. Following a review of the literature, a classification scheme was adapted and applied, to understand research focus. Papers were quantitatively classified using open coded content analysis of method, subject, approach, and topic.

The majority of published work relating to Tumblr concentrates on conceptual issues, followed by aspects of the messages sent. This has evolved over time. Perceived benefits are the platform’s long-form text posts, ability to track tags, and the multimodal nature of the platform. Severe research limitations are caused by the lack of demographic, geo-spatial, and temporal metadata attached to individual posts, the limited Advanced Programming Interface, restricted access to data, and the large amounts of ephemeral posts on the site.

This study focusses on Tumblr: the applicability of the approach to other media is not considered. The authors focus on published research and conference papers: there will be book content which was not found using the method. Tumblr as a platform has falling user numbers which may be of concern to researchers.

The authors identify practical barriers to research on the Tumblr platform including lack of metadata and access to big data, explaining why Tumblr is not as popular as Twitter in academic studies.

This paper highlights the breadth of topics covered by social media researchers, which allows us to understand popular online platforms.

There has not yet been an overarching study to look at the methods and purpose of those who study Tumblr. The authors identify Tumblr-related research papers from the first appearing in 2011 July until 2015 July. The classification derived here provides a framework that can be used to analyse social media research, and in which to position Tumblr-related work, with recommendations on benefits and limitations of the platform for researchers.