Search results

This paper examines the socio-political affordances of metrics in research evaluation and the consequences of epistemic injustice in research practices and recorded knowledge.

First, the use of metrics is examined as a mechanism that promotes competition and social acceleration. Second, it is argued that the use of metrics in a competitive research culture reproduces systemic inequalities and leads to epistemic injustice. The conceptual analysis draws on works of Hartmut Rosa and Miranda Fricker, amongst others.

The use of metrics is largely driven by competition such as university rankings and league tables. Not only that metrics are not designed to enrich academic and research culture, they also suppress the visibility and credibility of works by minorities. As such, metrics perpetuate epistemic injustice in knowledge practices; at the same time, the reliability of metrics for bibliometric and scientometric studies is put into question.

As metrics leverage who can speak and who will be heard, epistemic injustice is reflected in recorded knowledge and what we consider to be information.

This paper contributes to the discussion of metrics beyond bibliometric studies and research evaluation. It argues that metrics-induced competition is antithetical to equality and diversity in research practices.

In academia, assessment is often narrow in its focus on research productivity, its application of a limited number of standardised metrics and its summative approach aimed at selection. This approach, corresponding to an exclusive, subject-oriented concept of talent management, can be thought of as at odds with a broader view of the role of academic institutions as accelerating and improving science and scholarship and its societal impact. In recent years, open science practices as well as research integrity issues have increased awareness of the need for a more inclusive approach to assessment and talent management in academia, broadening assessment to reward the full spectrum of academic activities and, within that spectrum, deepening assessment by critically reflecting on the processes and indicators involved (both qualitative and quantitative). In terms of talent management, this would mean a move from research-focused assessment to assessment including all academic activities (including education, professional performance and leadership), a shift from focus on the individual to a focus on collaboration in teams (recognising contributions of both academic and support staff), increased attention for formative assessment and greater agency for those being evaluated, as well as around the data, tools and platforms used in assessment. Together, this represents a more inclusive, subject-oriented approach to talent management. Implementation of such changes requires involvement from university management, human resource management and academic and support staff at all career levels, and universities would benefit from participation in mutual learning initiatives currently taking shape in various regions of the world.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) has had a tremendous impact on companies worldwide. However, researchers have no clear idea of the key issues requiring their attention. This paper aims to close this gap by analysing all business-related posts on a coronavirus subreddit (“r/coronavirus”) and identifying the main research streams that are guiding the research agenda for a post-coronavirus world.

We use data from reddit, particularly the subreddit “r/coronavirus” to identify posts that reveal the impact of coronavirus on business. Our dataset has more than 200,000 posts. We used an artificial intelligence–based algorithm to scrape the data with business-related search terms, clean it and analyse the discussion topics.

We show the key topics that address the impact of coronavirus on business, combining them into four themes: essential service provision, bricolage service innovation, responsible shopping practices and market shaping amid crisis. We discuss these themes and use them to develop a service research agenda. The results are reported against the backdrop of service research priorities.

The study identifies four key themes that have emerged from the impact of coronavirus on business and that require scholarly attention. Our findings can guide service research with unique insights provided immediately after the coronavirus outbreak to conduct research that matters to business and helps people in vulnerable positions in a post-coronavirus world.

Background: This article presents a methodology to categorize scientific publications according to the targets of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. For the above, a dataset with bibliographic and descriptive attributes of 2,379 articles from 2017 by co-authors affiliated to the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, was used.

Methods: The methodology considered three relevant and consecutive milestones: establishment of the reading level that was applied for each publication record, which considers a proportional amount of information; assignment of one of the 18 categories identified for the analysis of the information, which include the 17 SDGs and the option “unclassified” and one of the 169 subcategories corresponding to the specific goals; and, finally, recording the status of the review process carried out, which allowed control of the progress and quality of the cross-review.

Results: The results show that 58.6% of the articles contribute to a primary target, of these 233 contribute to a secondary target; goals 3, 4, 9, and 11 are the most frequent in the process of assigning SDGs. There is an 81% increase in the use of alphanumeric targets when they are assigned as secondary targets. At the same time, cross-checking is shown to be beneficial when allowing the reclassification of 190 articles to some of the targets. Finally, it is established that levels 2 and 3 enabled better classification, given that the contents considered provide more information; however, it is significant that through level 1, 355 articles were categorized as “unclassified”.

Conclusions: It is concluded that the methodology allows for a conclusive, exhaustive, rigorous, extensive, and varied classification through the different milestones and actions carried out, providing strategic information for decision making and research management in the academy-society relationship.

Building on the concept of “impact literacy” established in a previous paper from Bayley and Phipps, here we extend the principles of impact literacy in light of further insights into sector practice. More specifically, we focus on three additions needed in response to the sector-wide growth of impact: (1) differential levels of impact literacy; (2) institutional impact literacy and environment for impact; and (3) issues of ethics and values in research impact. This paper invites the sector to consider the relevance of all dimensions in establishing, maintaining and strengthening impact within the research landscape. We explore implications for individual professional development, institutional capacity building and ethical collaboration to maximise societal benefit.

Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School.

This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics.

Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank.

This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and traditions.

Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes.

This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers.

This paper aims to identify and empirically analyze useful and applicable metrics for measuring and managing the sustainability performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

To achieve the objective of the paper, potential metrics were adopted from previous research related to industrial sustainability and an empirical analysis was carried to assess the applicability of the metrics by collecting empirical data from Italian footwear SMEs using a structured questionnaire. The SMEs were selected using a convenience sampling method.

The results of the within-case analysis and the cross-case analysis indicate that the majority of the metrics were found to be useful and applicable to each of the SMEs and across the SMEs, respectively. These metrics emphasized measuring industrial sustainability performance related to financial benefits, costs and market competitiveness for the economic sustainability dimension; resources for the environmental sustainability dimension; and customers, employees and the community for the social sustainability dimension.

Apart from the within-case analysis and cross-case analysis, it was not possible to conduct statistical analysis since a small number of SMEs were accessible to collect empirical data.

The findings of the paper have considerable academic, managerial and policy implications and will provide a theoretical basis for future research on measuring and managing industrial sustainability performance. By providing a set of empirically supported metrics based on the triple bottom line approach (i.e. economic, environmental and social metrics), this paper contributes to the existing knowledge in the field of industrial sustainability performance measurement.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the perception of marketing managers in a transition country Montenegro with regards to marketing metrics. The paper examines the degree in which managers are familiar with the way marketing metrics are applied and how important they are in the process of making business decisions in a company operating in a Montenegro.

Data was collected during 2020 through a survey of 171 randomly selected companies and was analyzed using structural equation model and the statistical method of analysis of variance tests.

The obtained results show that managers are quite familiar with financial and non-financial metrics. Both groups are applied to a significant degree, as managers believe that these indicators provide valuable information needed during the decision-making process. Still, more emphasis is placed on the knowledge, implementation and importance of non-financial metrics compared to financial metrics. This is probably due to the specificities of the economic activities of the companies operating in Montenegro, as most of them are service companies, which is why non-financial metrics (such as consumer metrics) are the most important indicators when it comes to ascertaining the market position of the company. Additionally, in recent years the primary focus in Montenegro, as country that is still in the process of transformation from planned economy to a free-market form, has been placed on strengthening of competitiveness and advancing the market orientation of companies. This led to an increase in the importance that managers in transition countries attach to non-financial metrics.

The fact that the survey only covers companies from one country is its limitation.

The obtained results will have a significant empirical contribution, which is reflected in providing guidelines for managers on how to improve the system of measuring and controlling marketing performance, all that to strengthen the competitiveness of the company, and can serve managers of hierarchy levels in a company as guidelines for making decisions on the implementation of marketing strategy and marketing metrics, to improve business performance, multi-context customer interaction, cost-saving and strengthen competitiveness.

Obtaining necessary knowledge management and implementing marketing metrics are important conditions for consideration when it comes to the continuous monitoring and improvement of business results, increasing competitiveness and advancing the market position of the company.

The originality stems from the analysis of the interconnection that exists between marketing metrics and strategic decision-making, which is expected to be positively reflected in the development of society, i.e. strengthening the competitiveness of companies based on knowledge management achieved through the assessment of the degree of knowledge, the implementation and the significance of each of the metrics covered within this research in business decision-making processes. The paper provides insights into the extent to which managers understand the meaning of these indicators and are able to combine different marketing metrics to obtain more complex indicators, serving as necessary inputs when making strategic business decisions.

Based on stakeholder, agency and institutional theory, this study aims to examine the role of institutional ownership in the relationship between environmental, social and governance practices and CEO compensation.

Utilizing a fixed-effect panel regression analysis, this research utilized a panel data approach, analyzing data spanning from 2014 to 2021, focusing on US companies listed on the S&P500 stock market index. The dataset encompassed 219 companies, leading to a total of 1,533 observations.

The analysis identified that environmental scores significantly impact CEO equity-linked compensation, unlike social and governance scores. Additionally, it was found that institutional ownership acts as a moderating factor in the relationship between the environmental score and CEO equity-linked compensation, as well as the association between the social score and CEO equity-linked compensation. Interestingly, the direction of these moderating effects varied between the two relationships, suggesting a nuanced role of institutional ownership.

This research makes a unique contribution to the field of corporate governance by exploring the relatively understudied area of institutional ownership's influence on the ESG practices–CEO compensation nexus.

The present study seeks to outline the role of marketing automation (MA) in measuring the return on marketing activities and the challenges associated with reaching accountability in marketing.

To investigate the objective of the study, the authors adopted a qualitative approach, conducting an exploratory study among ten key informants located in Portugal.

Based on the results of the qualitative analysis, a conceptual framework is proposed, which includes both strategic- and operational-level factors with the goal of creating a value-based agenda. In this agenda, executives such as the Chief Marketing Officer emerge as value creators, fostering business scalability, and further arguments are provided to justify budget allocation to MA activities.

Through careful research of the elements that characterize the phenomenon under study, the present paper ultimately contributes to a better understanding of MA and accountability within the current business paradigm.