Search results

This conceptual paper, framed as a letter to educators, explores what the theory of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) offers us as we reimagine our approaches to teaching and learning amidst a pandemic and during a time of physical distancing.

To make my argument that CRP is a frame for teaching that is based in a particular set of beliefs and ideologies, I draw on my experience as a K-12 educator, teacher educator, and education researcher. In addition, I ground my argument in the extant research on the intimate interrelationship between teachers’ beliefs about teaching, learning, themselves, and their students and the actions they take in the classroom.

In my discussion, I invite teachers to examine their beliefs, with the end goal of aligning these beliefs with those shared across the extensive scholarship on CRP. I argue that once educators have examined their beliefs with regard to teaching, learning and their students and aligned them with those presented in the literature on CRP, they will be in a better position to engage in online teaching that works toward achieving the seemingly elusive goal of educational equity. Furthermore, I make the argument that if we do not engage in this belief work prior to our transition to online instruction, we risk falling into online assimilationist practices that we know do not work and that reinscribe inequitable schooling experiences for our most marginalized students.

This paper will be useful for teachers and teacher educators who are committed to engaging in teaching (virtual, in-person, hybrid) during a time of collective crisis that is committed to bringing about educational equity. I present a new way of thinking about CRP as a set of beliefs and guiding questions to help educators align their beliefs with those presented in the literature on CRP.

For better mapping the path of intellectual capital (IC) research, the purpose of this paper is to selectively review empirical studies of IC published, and identify theories, components and three dimensions of analysis: national IC (NIC), regional IC (RIC) and organizational IC (OIC).

The systematic literature review (SLR) subject to analysis is based on empirical studies made between 1960 and 2016, and focuses on three dimensions of analysis: NIC, RIC and OIC. Four research questions were designed, using the following databases, namely, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, for data collection purposes.

The SLR unveils a multidimensional taxonomy for measuring and classifying the type of IC applicable to the different levels of analysis and provides some recommendations for future studies of NIC, RIC and OIC, by outlining the need for clear definitions of components and measures of IC and identifying strengths, limitations and future research avenues.

In order to fill the gap found in the literature and the non-existence of a study clarifying the multiple dimensions of analysis of IC, this SLR makes a twofold, original contribution to the literature on management: providing an SLR of the main empirical studies dealing with different units of analysis; and identifying a multidimensional taxonomy for measuring and classifying the type of IC applicable to the different levels of analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the predominant classification of intellectual capital (IC), in terms of components, using the literature of reference on the relationship between IC and performance and considering multi-dimensional analysis axes (MAAs): organisational, regional and national.

A systematic literature review (SLR) is presented focussing on empirical studies on IC published in the period 1960-2016. A protocol for action is defined and a research question is raised, gathering data from the databases of: Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. A social network analysis is also provided to determine the type of networks embracing groups, IC individual components and performance type.

Of the 777 papers included in the SLR, 189 deal with the relationship between IC and performance. The paper highlights the greater development of empirical studies starting from 2004; the organisational MAA is the most studied. The most frequently used groups of components in studies dealing with IC’s influence on performance corresponds to a triad of human capital; structural (organisational or process) capital; and relational (social or customer) capital, which determine positively the performance of organisations/regions/countries, but their influence is not linear and depends on various factors associated with the context and surrounding environment.

This study has wide-ranging implications for politicians/governments, managers and academics, providing empirical evidence about the relationships between the components of IC and performance, by MAAs, and a global vision and better understanding of how those IC components have developed and how they are related to performance.

Due to the high number of references covering a wide range of disciplines and the various dimensions (e.g. organisational, regional and national) that form IC, it becomes fundamental to carry out an SRL and systematise its MAAs to deepen knowledge about what has been discovered/developed in this domain, in terms of empirical studies, in order to situate the topic in a wider theoretical-practical context. The paper is exceptionally wide-ranging, covering the period 1960-2016. It is one of the first clarifying studies on systemisation of the literature on IC, by MAA, and an in-depth study of IC’s impact on the performance of organisations/regions and countries which may serve as a guideline for future studies using the taxonomy proposed.