Search results

This chapter investigates the experiences of doctoral students and supervisors in the doctoral process, focusing on the potential impact of imbalances in the distribution of power. In this respect, there are troublesome manifestations of excessive faculty entitlement that appear to be a source of inequality and injustice. These phenomena call into question the crucial relationship of support expected of doctoral students, as thesis supervisors have a fundamental role to play in guiding them towards the doctorate and ensuring their successful entry into the research community. Looking at the issue from the angle of the theory of social fields, I examine instances of dysfunction in supervisory experiences. Such problematic practices tend to conform to the relationships and traditions that sustain and (re)produce the practices of the academy, constraining the establishment of what Bakhtin describes as a dialogical relationship, between doctoral students and supervisors. I examine this problem from my own experience, both as a doctoral student and as a supervisor. I approach the question by combining self-study and narrative inquiry to make use of the data from my experience to analyse the issues raised during the supervision of doctoral programmes. I connect accounts drawn from literature, real-life testimonies and a corpus of discussions and notes to explore the manifestations of excessive faculty entitlement in the form of asymmetries and difficulties that can negatively impact the quality of supervision.

COVID-19 has rendered many firms' business models, strategies and performance vulnerable, including entrepreneurial financials. Some managed to survive, while others drowned in the epidemic swamp. This study offers an exceptional model to fill the gap.

Employing a rigorous qualitative design, the study utilizes a novel framework that integrates institutional theory (IT) and corporate entrepreneurial strategy (CES). Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and thematic analysis identified key themes: external environment, institutional environment and organizational response, CES and performance and survival.

The study reveals the dual nature of the external and institutional environment, acting as both facilitators and barriers for entrepreneurial financial firms (EFFs). It highlights the robust CES exhibited by these firms during the pandemic, demonstrating their adept balancing and integration of different CES components in their organizational response. The EFFs employ a mix of financial and nonfinancial indicators for performance assessment, yielding varied outcomes based on contextual factors.

EFFs and stakeholders are guided to adapt their business models, balance institutional pressures, implement CES and evaluate performance. It advocates collaboration within the entrepreneurial finance ecosystem and leveraging opportunities emerging from the pandemic, including new market segments, technologies, innovations and regulatory changes.

This topic is underexplored in many emerging economies. Fresh perspectives and rigor frameworks are developed on how EFFs navigate and capitalize on the pandemic under uncertainties.

This paper describes a model of “Learning to care” derived from a study exploring how care workers in care homes learn to care for people living with dementia. The “Learning to care” model is primarily informal in nature in which influences such as formalised training and organisational culture impact care outcomes indirectly rather than directly.

This study used a focused, critical ethnographic approach in two care homes in England resulting in 63 h of observation of care of people living with advanced dementia, 15 semi-structured interviews and 90 in-situ ethnographic interviews with care staff.

The findings reveal a three-level model of learning to care. At the level of day-to-day interactions is a mechanism for learning that is wholly informal and follows the maxim “What Works is What Matters”. Workers draw on resources and information within this process derived from their personal experiences, resident influences and care home cultural knowledge. Cultural knowledge is created through a worker’s interactions with colleagues and the training they receive, meaning that these organisational level influences affect care practice only indirectly via the “What Works is What Matters” mechanism.

This study makes an original contribution by explaining the nature of day-to-day informal learning processes as experienced by care workers and those living with dementia in care homes. In particular, it illuminates the specific mechanisms by which organisational culture has an effect on care practice and the limitations of formal training in influencing such practice.