Search results

Daring to challenge the status quo impacts innovation. Yet, successful outcomes depend on individual risk-taking and choice to influence others to support new ideas. This Challenging the Status Quo exercise illustrates how leaders use power and influencing tactics to challenge norms by analyzing Donald Trump’s journey as the 45^th U.S. President to defy experts and successfully influence followers to support his non-traditional candidacy: businessman lacking political experience becoming leader of the free world. Through integrating videoclips and polls, instructors make power visible, relevant, and thought-provoking as students apply power theory and influencing tactics perspectives to analyze (a) how leaders impact followers’ perceptions, (b) students mutual-influencing strategies, (c) power’s relationship with social identity and privilege, and (d) social impact on innovation via activism and free speech.

While research on digital dangers has been growing, studies on their respective solutions and justice responses have not kept pace. The agathokakological nature of technology demands that we pay attention to not only harms associated with interconnectivity, but also the potential for technology to counter offenses and “do good.” This chapter discusses technology as both a weapon and a shield when it comes to violence against women and girls in public spaces and private places. First, we review the complex and varied manifestations of technological gender violence, ranging from the use of technology to exploit, harass, stalk, and otherwise harm women and girls in communal spaces, to offenses that occur behind closed doors. Second, we discuss justice-related responses, underscoring how women and girls have “flipped the script” when their needs are not met. By developing innovative ways to respond to the wrongs committed against them and creating alternate systems that offer a voice, victims/survivors have repurposed technology to redress harms and unite in solidarity with others in an ongoing quest for justice.

This paper aims to introduce a new integrated strategic framework entitled, “The corporate identity, total corporate communications, stakeholders’ attributed identities, identifications and behaviours continuum” and elucidates the central and strategic importance of corporate identity apropos corporate communications, corporate image, attributed stakeholder identifications and resultant behaviours. The strategic importance of corporate identity is noted. The continuum incorporates a variety of disciplinary/theoretical perspectives.

The paper/framework is informed by corporate marketing and strategic perspectives; legal theory of the firm; social identity branch theories; and stakeholder theory. The effects and management of corporate identity are seen as a continuum. The framework accommodates Tagiuri’s (1982) scholarship on corporate identity.

This paper formally introduces and explicates “The corporate identity, total corporate communications, stakeholders’ attributed identities, identifications and behaviours continuum”. Corporate identity management is an on-going strategic senior management/strategic requisite. Notably, the legal theory of company law – routinely overlooked – and its impact on corporate identity management is accepted, acknowledged and accommodated. The importance of stakeholders and stakeholder identification (a derivative of social identity theory) is underscored.

Via the explication of the continuum, managers can comprehend the nature and importance of corporate identity; appreciate that corporate identity adaptation/change is on-going; comprehend its interface/s with corporate communications, stakeholder attributed identities, identifications and the business environment; understand the need for on-going fidelity to an institution’s legally based core purposes and corporate identity traits (juridical identity); cognise the efficacy of constant stakeholder and environmental analysis. Corporate identity sustainability requires corporate identity to be advantageous, beneficial, critical, differentiating and effectual. Stakeholder prioritisation is not solely dependent on power, legitimacy and urgency but on legality, efficacy, ethicality and temporality.

The resultant framework/approach, therefore, aims to make a meaningful advance on the territory and, moreover, seeks to be of utility to scholars and practitioners of corporate marketing, strategy and company law. Arguably, therefore, the framework is more ambitious than extant framework on the domain. The resultant framework/approach, therefore, aims to make a meaningful advance on the territory and seeks to be of utility to scholars and practitioners of corporate identity, communications, images, identification, stakeholder theory, company law and, importantly, corporate strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to present a research method which offers insights into the factors which affect the optimal use and implementation of telecare, or which may lead to its rejection by older people with support needs – factors pertinent to those involved in the design and delivery of both telecare research studies and of services.

The methodology outlined, influenced by Chicago School and Science and Technology Studies, emphasises the importance of context when examining social phenomena, such as the use of technology. The multi-method approach identified key patterns which provide insights into how telecare was used by a sample of older adults, including information on its suboptimal use and rejection.

The study of telecare use in real-life situations – and the investigation of other complex social interventions – requires an approach which fully considers the importance of context in explaining social phenomena. The main value of the method and findings lies in the insights offered to designers of larger studies which seek to generalise results, including telecare randomised control trials, as well as for those involved in the delivery of telecare services to achieve optimal adoption and use.

The study methods described combined ethnographic, longitudinal and qualitative methodologies and creative research tools in an innovative way to allow exploration of how context affects the uptake and use of telecare.

It's hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research. Many stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the research ecosystem; the ecosystem differs in significant ways across the globe and between researchers, institutions and fields of study; and there are many questions that exclusive action can't address. There are also broad ecosystem-level questions that need answering. For these reasons alone, global approaches to reform are needed.

The first step in this exploration isn't to start looking for “solutions”, but to develop a better understanding of how our needs and interests overlap. By identifying the broad contours of common ground in this conversation, we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over time.

What are these overlapping interests? First, the people in this community share a common motive – idealism – to make research better able to serve the public good. We also share a common desire to unleash the power of open to improve research and accelerate discovery; we are all willing to fix issues now instead of waiting for market forces or government intervention to do this for us; and we want to ensure that everyone everywhere has equitable access to knowledge.

There is also very broad agreement in this community about which specific problems in scholarly communication need to be fixed and why, and well as many overlapping beliefs in this community. OSI participants have concluded that four such beliefs best define our common ground: (1) research and society will benefit from open done right; (2) successful solutions will require broad collaboration; (3) connected issues need to be addressed, and (4) open isn't a single outcome, but a spectrum.

OSI has been observing and debating the activity in scholarly communication since late 2014 with regard to understanding possible global approaches and solutions for improving the future of open research. While the COVID-19 pandemic has made the importance of open science abundantly clear, the struggle to achieve this goal (not just for science but for all research) has been mired in a lack of clarity and urgency for over 20 years now, mostly stalling on the tension between wanting more openness but lacking realistic solutions for making this happen on a large scale with so many different stakeholders, needs and perspectives involved.

Underlying this tension is a fundamental difference in philosophy: whether the entire scholarly communication marketplace, driven by the needs and desires of researchers, should determine what kind of open it wants and needs; or whether this marketplace should be compelled to adopt open reform measures developed primarily by the scholarly communication system's main billpayers-funders and libraries. There is no widespread difference of opinion in the community whether open is worth pursuing. The debate is mostly over what specific open solutions are best, and at what pace open reforms should occur.

OSI has proposed a plan of action for working together to rebuild the future of scholarly communication on strong, common ground foundation. This plan – which we're referring to as Plan A – calls for joint action on studies, scholarly communication infrastructure improvement, and open outreach/education. Plan A also calls for working together with UNESCO to develop a unified global roadmap for the future of open, and for striving to ensure the community's work in this space is researcher-focused, collaborative, connected (addressing connected issues like peer review), diverse and flexible (no one-size-fits-all solutions), and beneficial to research. UNESCO's goal is to finish its roadmap proposal by early 2022.

For a full discussion of OSI's common ground recommendations, please see the Plan A website at http://plan-a.world.

This integrated care study seeks to highlight how voluntary sector “wellbeing co-ordinators” co-located in a horizontally and vertically integrated, multidisciplinary community hub within one locality of an Integrated Care Organisation contribute to complex, person-centred, co-ordinated care.

This is a naturalistic, mixed method and mixed data study. It is complementing a before-and-after study with a sub-group analysis of people receiving input from the wider hub (including Wellbeing Co-ordination and Enhanced Intermediate Care), qualitative case studies, interviews, and observations co-produced with embedded researchers-in-residence.

The cross-case analysis uses trajectories and outcome patterns across six client groups to illustrate the bio-psycho-social complexity of each group across the life course, corresponding with the range of inputs offered by the hub.

To consider the effectiveness and mechanisms of complex system-wide interventions operating at horizontal and vertical interfaces and researching this applying co-produced, embedded, naturalistic and mixed methods approaches.

How a bio-psycho-social approach by a wellbeing co-ordinator can contribute to improved person reported outcomes from a range of preventive, rehabilitation, palliative care and bereavement services in the community.

To combine knowledge about individuals held in the community to align the respective inputs, and expectations about outcomes while considering networked pathways based on functional status, above diagnostic pathways, and along a life-continuum.

The hub as a whole seems to (1) Enhance engagement through relationship, trust and activation, (2) Exchanging knowledge to co-create a shared bio-psycho-social understanding of each individual’s situation and goals, (3) Personalising care planning by utilising the range of available resources to ensure needs are met, and (4) Enhancing co-ordination and ongoing care through multi-disciplinary working between practitioners, across teams and sectors.

Because of the increasingly higher expectations of accrediting organizations, calls for greater accountability from state governments and students’ demand for an education that prepares them for a career, most hospitality programs are now required to have an effective assessment of learning outcomes process. The increasing popularity of the assessment of learning outcomes process is viewed as highly positive because it can be considered as best-practices in higher education. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This is Part 2 of a two-part article that provides an overview of the justifications for implementing an assessment of learning outcomes process, the steps that were developed by two hospitality programs, and the experiences of the two programs during implementation.

The steps in a closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process are relatively detailed; however, because of changes in expectations of stakeholders and the requirements of accreditors, they are now mandatory for most hospitality programs. Therefore, the choice is not whether to implement them, but when. From a competitive standpoint, it is to the program’s advantage to begin as soon as possible. Another factor to consider is that the implementation of a closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process will take several years to complete.

This paper is presenting a critical view of one of, if not the most important concepts in higher education, the closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process. Hopefully, the information on the process that is provided and the experiences of the two programs can shorten the learning curve for other hospitality programs.

The purpose of this paper is to garner a deeper understanding of the site of influence of aspects of risk management for tax practitioners.

The research design is twofold. Phase one consisted of a wide-scale international survey with 1,061 tax experts across 59 jurisdictions. In phase two, the authors followed up with 68 semi-structured interviews with tax practitioners working in 11 different countries.

The findings recognise the importance of the firm as a significant “site of influence” for tax practitioners in shaping their risk appetite in their tax work. The firm eclipses other influences of risk such as professional body oversight, public interest and demographic markers such as gender and career stage. The authors show that firm is significant, irrespective of size of firm.

This work has practical implications as the findings highlight the importance of oversight of professional service firms by both the professional accountancy bodies and revenue authorities. The findings may have impact on the ethical training and guidance for trainee accountants in terms of an increased awareness on the employing firm as a site of influence for tax practitioners.

This research is important as it adds to the significant body of work on firm socialisation and highlights the important role that the firm holds in moderating (or exacerbating) the risk appetite of tax practitioners, which has significant implications in terms of pushing the boundaries of tax aggressive behaviours. The work aims to recognise the important role that tax practitioners can have in moderating aggressive tax practice, and, thus, reducing tax inequalities and shaping a better world of “Reduced Inequalities” (SDG10).