Search results

In this viewpoint article, the author proposes “experiential research” as a comprehensive and integrative methodological framework researchers can apply for data collection and analysis in a hybrid setting: “phygital,” combining physical places and digital spaces. This thought piece aims to advance existing research methodology frameworks by proposing a comprehensive methodological framework that allows marketing researchers to examine consumer behaviors in phygital settings.

An experiential research methodology framework is proposed by reviewing existing methodologies, along with considering the phygital as a new consumption context. The proposed framework can help marketing researchers use multiple data collection processes to create rich insights and develop an in-depth understanding of consumer behaviors in hybrid settings, such as the phygital.

The experiential research framework emphasizes the shift in methodological thinking by considering four main types of methods – i.e. experiential screening, experiential interaction, experiential immersion and experiential reflexivity – marketing researchers can use to examine consumer behaviors in phygital settings.

By embracing experiential research as a more flexible and adaptable methodological framework to examine phygital settings, marketing and consumer behavior scholars can develop deep knowledge of the examined phenomenon while shifting from online to offline fields, and inversely.

One of the currently debated changes in scientific practice is the implementation of data sharing requirements for peer-reviewed publication to increase transparency and intersubjective verifiability of results. However, it seems that data sharing is a not fully adopted behavior among researchers. The theory of planned behavior was repeatedly applied to explain drivers of data sharing from the perspective of data donors (researchers). However, data sharing can be viewed from another perspective as well: survey participants. The research questions (RQs) for this study were as follows: 1 Does data sharing increase participant's nonresponse? 2 Does data sharing influence participant's response behavior? The purpose of this paper is to address these issues.

To answer the RQs, a mixed methods approach was applied, consisting of a qualitative prestudy and a quantitative survey including an experimental component. The latter was a two-group setup with an intervention group (A) and a control group (B). A list-based recruiting of members of the Medical Faculty of the University of Freiburg was applied for 15 days. For exploratory data analysis of dropouts and nonresponse, we used Fisher's exact tests and binary logistic regressions.

In sum, we recorded 197 cases for Group A and 198 cases for Group B. We found no systematic group differences regarding response bias or dropout. Furthermore, we gained insights into the experiences our sample made with data sharing: half of our sample already requested data of other researchers or shared data on request of other researchers. Data repositories, however, were used less frequently: 28% of our respondents used data from repositories and 19% stored data in a repository.

To the authors’ knowledge, their study is the first study that includes researchers as survey subjects investigating the effect of data sharing on their response patterns.

As an emerging tool for data discovery, data retrieval systems fail to effectively support users' cognitive processes during data search and access. To uncover the relationship between data search and access and the cognitive mechanisms underlying this relationship, this paper examines the associations between affective memories, perceived value, search effort and the intention to access data during users' interactions with data retrieval systems.

This study conducted a user experiment for which 48 doctoral students from different disciplines were recruited. The authors collected search logs, screen recordings, questionnaires and eye movement data during the interactive data search. Multiple linear regression was used to test the hypotheses.

The results indicate that positive affective memories positively affect perceived value, while the effects of negative affective memories on perceived value are nonsignificant. Utility value positively affects search effort, while attainment value negatively affects search effort. Moreover, search effort partially positively affects the intention to access data, and it serves a full mediating role in the effects of utility value and attainment value on the intention to access data.

Through the comparison between the findings of this study and relevant findings in information search studies, this paper reveals the specificity of behaviour and cognitive processes during data search and access and the special characteristics of data discovery tasks. It sheds light on the inhibiting effect of attainment value and the motivating effect of utility value on data search and the intention to access data. Moreover, this paper provides new insights into the role of memory bias in the relationships between affective memories and data searchers' perceived value.

This study aims to investigate the factors influencing the data sharing habits of psychologists with respect to academic reciprocity.

A research model was developed based on Ostrom’s (2003) theory of collective action to map psychologists’ underlying motivations for data sharing. The model was validated by data from a survey of 427 psychologists, primarily from the psychological sciences and related disciplines.

This study found that data sharing among psychologists is driven primarily by their perceptions of community benefits, academic reciprocity and the norms of data sharing. This study also found that academic reciprocity is significantly influenced by psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits, academic reputation and the norms of data sharing. Both academic reputation and academic reciprocity are affected by psychologists’ prior experiences with data reuse. Additionally, psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits and the norms of data sharing are significantly affected by the perception of their academic reputation.

This study suggests that Ostrom’s (2003) theory of collective action can provide a new theoretical lens in understanding psychologists’ data sharing behaviours.

This study suggests several practical implications for the design and promotion of data sharing in the research community of psychology.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the initial studies that applied the theory of collective action to the mechanisms of reputation, community benefits, norms and reciprocity in psychologists’ data sharing behaviour. This research demonstrates that perceived community benefits, academic reputation and the norms of data sharing can all encourage academic reciprocity, and psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits, academic reciprocity and data sharing norms all facilitate their data sharing intentions.

This systematic literature review aims to elaborate on the research progress and features of information source preferences to help other researchers attain a more comprehensive understanding of the field.

Following a systematic review protocol, 139 research articles from 11 academic databases were analyzed.

Overall, five separate results were obtained: first, information source horizon theory is the main theoretical foundation of information source preferences research, while other theories have been applied less. Second, information source preference research has strong context sensitivity and involves health, work, consumption, learning, survival and development and emergencies. Third, preference criteria can be summarized into three categories: information characteristics, user characteristics, needs characteristics and corresponding specific criteria. Fourth, information source preferences are influenced by both internal and external factors, including five specific aspects, namely demographics, the user's cognition, the user's affection, capital and contextual factors. Fifth, this field is dominated by quantitative methods and an information horizon mapping method could be applied more.

This study is the first to reveal the general picture of information source preferences. It also elaborates on the characteristics of this field and presents potential development directions.

We are long overdue for a conversation about ethical treatment of student researchers. Ethical treatment of research participants has been carefully defined through decades of public conversation, and ethical practices have been institutionalized through mechanisms like mandatory ethics trainings and Institutional Review Boards. Student researchers deserve the same level of consideration. While there are many types of ethical violations of student labor in research projects, there are two that are of particular concern to social movements researchers: use of volunteer labor without clear academic or professional benefits, and failure to ensure the safety of student researchers. The first of these ethical violations is especially common in social movements research because of the emergent nature of protests: new rounds of protests begin and researchers seek to rapidly collect data on a tight timeframe, making grant funding to pay student researchers challenging. The second situation emerges when faculty researchers do not consider the ways students' race, gender identity, or other characteristics, or the nature of the protests themselves might create potential risks for students.

In this paper, I propose using the Belmont Report principles to create guidelines for ethical treatment of student researchers. While these principles were developed for the purposes of protecting research participants, the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice help us to clarify the risks and benefits for student researchers, to find ways to maximize the benefits of student research participation, and to understand and address the inequalities that plague graduate student training.

There is no innovation without ideas. More than ever before, these ideas are increasingly difficult to express in a changing environment ripe with emotions. Today's organizations need to understand why their employees may or may not develop, voice and implement innovative ideas in the face of this emotional tension. Current literature focuses on external factors that empower employees to innovate. This research attempts to shift the focus to the individual by investigating the relationship between emotional intelligence, openness to experience and innovation voicing behavior.

This study employs a quantitative survey among 288 US-based workers to test a mediated model of emotional intelligence, openness to experience and innovation-focused promotive voice. The authors assessed both the measurement and structural models through partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), while controlling for a range of variables with the potential to confound construct measurements.

The findings validated the positive effect of emotional intelligence on openness to experience, while also finding a significant impact of openness to experience on innovation-focused promotive voice. More importantly, evidence suggests that openness to experience mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and innovation focused promotive voice.

These findings shed new light on why employees might start the innovation process by developing and, ultimately, voicing innovative ideas. Further, this new insight focuses on the impact of intrapersonal factors as it relates to innovation and attempts to fill a gap in what is known about innovative behavior.

Empirical evidence on how supervisors have perceived the changes and the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on their supervision is scarce. This paper aims to examine how the changing landscape of doctoral education has affected supervision from the supervisors’ perspective.

This survey addressed change, challenges and impact in supervisory responsibilities due to COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was completed by 561 doctoral supervisors from a large multi-field research-intensive university in Finland.

Results show that supervisors estimated that their supervision had been negatively affected by the pandemic, but to a lesser extent than their doctoral candidates’ progress and well-being. In the changed landscape of supervision, the supervisors grappled with challenges related to recognising doctoral candidates’ need of help. Supervisors’ experiences of the challenges and the impact of changed circumstances varied depending on the field and the position of the supervisor, whether they supervised part- or full-time candidates, and the organisation of supervision.

The slowed-down progression and diminishing well-being of doctoral candidates reported by supervisors is likely to influence supervision in a delayed way. Supervisors may be anticipating some issues with stalled studying and stress, but the question is the extent to which they are prepared to handle these as they emerge in supervision encounters. The fact that the experiences varied across field, position, organisation of supervision and the type of candidates (full or part time) suggests that support provided for supervisors to overcome challenges needs to be tailored and engineered.

This study contributes to the literature on doctoral supervision by exploring the impact of transitioning to online supervision and the rapid changes in doctoral supervision as a consequence of the recent global pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had its impact on research and researchers, potentially influencing the future of academia. Yet, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no empirical studies on the alignment between supervisors’ and supervisees’ estimates of the impact of COVID-19. This study aims to contribute to bridging this gap by exploring PhD candidates’ and supervisors’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on candidates’ study progress and study well-being, and whether the estimates were related to supervisors’ and supervisees’ well-being.

A total of 768 PhD candidates and 561 doctoral supervisors from a large multifield research-intensive university in Finland participated in this quantitative study. Data were collected with the doctoral experience survey and the supervisory experience survey.

In general, the results show that both supervisors and supervisees recognised the negative impact of the pandemic on candidates’ well-being and progress, and their perceptions were quite well aligned. However, supervisors estimated that the impact had been more detrimental than the supervisees did. The results also show that the supervisors’ perceptions of the negative impact of COVID-19 on candidates’ progress and well-being were related to reduced levels of their own well-being.

Results can be used in developing effective support means for both the supervisors and supervisees to overcome the hardships caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to avoid long-term negative consequences for the candidates in degree completion, career trajectories and the future of the academy.