Search results

In this chapter we ask a simple question: how can we tell if strategic management research is making progress? While other limitations are noted, we argue that it is the absence of metrics for gauging research progress that is most limiting. We propose that research should focus on measures of effect size and that “precision” and “generalizability” in our predictions of important phenomena represent the core metrics that should be used to judge whether progress is occurring. We then discuss how to employ these metrics and examine why existing research practices are likely to hinder efforts to develop cumulative knowledge.

Constructing and evaluating behavioral science models is a complex process. Decisions must be made about which variables to include, which variables are related to each other, the functional forms of the relationships, and so on. The last 10 years have seen a substantial extension of the range of statistical tools available for use in the construction process. The progress in tool development has been accompanied by the publication of handbooks that introduce the methods in general terms (Arminger et al., 1995; Tinsley & Brown, 2000a). Each chapter in these handbooks cites a wide range of books and articles on specific analysis topics.

Cultural and creative industries (CCIs) have been argued to play an important role in achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, the mechanisms through which CCIs contribute to the attainment of SDGs remain underexplored. In this study, the authors adopt a network perspective to examine how the structure of a local CCI network relates to its local sustainability performance. By examining a database of 210,182 networked firms out of 1.34 million CCI firms across 294 cities in China, the authors conclude that both the scale and the density of a local CCI network improve the city’s performance in terms of attaining SDGs 8–12. The authors discuss the implications of these findings and propose future research avenues in international business.

This chapter addresses one of the most challenging aspects of impact, ‘how do I demonstrate that I've had an impact?’ When the topic of impact comes up, researchers want to know how they'll measure it. As not all evidence is a measurement, this chapter describes how researchers can be strategic and intentional about collecting and reporting impact evidence. As discussed in Chapter 1, a narrative approach to reporting on impact is generally used and making a case compelling is achieved with compelling evidence. Drawing on learnings from previous chapters around working with stakeholders and university systems and supports, the chapter challenges the reader to consider how they might build a compelling impact case study and provides a tool to support collecting and communicating the evidence of impact of your research. Case studies are generally utilised to demonstrate different types of evidence from various disciplines, and a template is provided for researchers to begin mapping out their impact evidence plan. Consistent with the approach of the book, it is emphasised that collecting the evidence of impact is not done in isolation or for one project and then forgotten. Rather, it is a whole career approach that is aligned with an individual philosophy of academic responsibility and identity. Being able to use excellent evidence to articulate the impact your research has generated will position the researcher to better attract additional funding to generate bigger impact in the future.

There is progress in entrepreneurship research. Important works in entrepreneurship increasingly appear in highly respected, mainstream journals (see Busenitz et al., 2003; Davidsson, Low & Wright, 2001). There is conceptual development that attracts attention (e.g. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and handbooks are compiled, providing the field with more of a common body of knowledge (Acs & Audretsch, 2003a; Shane, 2000a; Westhead & Wright, 2000). Further, there is evidence of methodological improvements (Chandler & Lyon, 2001) and accumulation of meaningful findings on various levels of analysis (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001). Moreover, due to time lags in publication the reported improvements are likely to be underestimated. This author’s experience as organizer, reviewer and participant in core entrepreneurship conferences on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g. Babson; RENT) suggests that much of the lower end of the quality distribution has either disappeared from the submissions or is screened out in the review process. Much more than used to be the case a few years back we find among the presented papers research that is truly theory-driven; research on the earliest stages of business development, and research that employs methods suitable for causal inference, i.e. experiments and longitudinal designs.

Faced with the existential threat of COVID-19, the College of Business Administration (CBA) at Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University (PNU) decided to work toward the dual goals to achieve accreditation and an effective social and educational response to the pandemic. CBA’s quality improvement process was implemented synergistically with Seligman’s (2011) PERMA well-being model, namely positive emotions, engagement, relationship, meaning, and accomplishment/achievement. The case study methodology, which was based on direct observations, faculty and students’ interviews, surveys, feedback, documents, and archival data records, allowed to capture the context and lived reality of all the participants in QAA processes. Results showed that quality improvement was facilitated through three domains: (1) governance and academic leadership, (2) teaching and learning, and (3) digitalization and technology. Within each domain, specific programs, activities, human resources, and networks were enabled through a framework based on the PERMA well-being model. As a result of this hybrid QAA well-being implementation process, CBA achieved NCAAA accreditation for its offered programs, while experiencing high levels of well-being and commitment to teaching and learning by the staff members and students. The description of CBA’s accreditation journey might be insightful for other higher education institutions (HEIs).

This chapter addresses issues of power distribution in the context of doctoral research supervision. In this respect, manifestations of abusive practices constitute real problems for doctoral students in terms of the success and continuation of their research. A first reflection is made on the way this phenomenon is addressed in the literature and the explanations given. Then, it is brought into perspective with the notion of “excessive faculty entitlement” (Ratnam & Craig, 2021), to better understand how this asymmetrical power relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee is constructed and experienced. To provide exploratory answers on how to promote more equitable spaces for doctoral students, this study focuses on monitoring committees which represent an a priori more equitable way of addressing the issue of power distribution in supervision and which are therefore likely to help students in their doctoral journey. Our study of a recorded session of a monitoring committee is based on an analysis of the different discourses at work, discourse analysis being considered as a form of social action that has an impact on the lived experience and its foreseeable consequences (Fairclough, 2001). Characteristic features related to the specific detrimental asymmetries in this situation were identified. Several categories of power asymmetries detected in supervision were found to hinder the identification process at stake and thus the conditions for the doctoral student's success. It is suggested that awareness of these asymmetries could help supervisors to develop a more supportive and equitable relationship, leading to positive change.

Xavier University of Louisiana has a national reputation for producing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates who go on to obtain MD and PhD degrees. According to a 2013 National Science Foundation report, Xavier is ranked first in producing African American graduates who go on to receive life sciences PhD degrees, fifth in the nation in producing African American graduates who go on to receive science and engineering PhD degrees, and seventh in producing African American graduates who go on to receive physical sciences PhD degrees. Xavier is currently third among the nation’s colleges and universities in the number of African American graduates enrolled in medical school, according to data compiled by the Association of American Medical Colleges, and ranked first in the number of African American alumni who successfully complete their medical degrees. The success of Xavier’s graduates is due to a combination of university-based student support initiatives and externally funded programs, in particular, the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD), Maximizing Access to Biomedical Research Careers (MARC) U*STAR, and Research Initiative in Scientific Enhancement (RISE) programs. These three programs, funded by the Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity (TWD) Division at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), offer select trainees undergraduate research opportunities, support mechanisms, and a variety of activities designed to improve their potential for success in graduate school. The BUILD, MARC U*STAR, and RISE programs work closely together and with the University to leverage the resources provided by each in order to provide the best experience possible for their students with a minimum of redundancy of effort. This chapter focuses on the program components and how the programs work together.