Search results

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.

The purpose of this paper of this study is to examine the possible factors contributing to the issue of inconclusiveness in capital structure studies. This study also attempts to provide logical explanations to the unresolved issue of inconsistencies in the relationship between factors identified and leverage in capital structure studies. Comparisons are also made between the emerging market and the developed market to see whether the findings are consistent with both market landscapes.

This study employs two models in its methodology which are static and dynamic models to examine the effects of using different models in the study. The fixed effect model and partial adjustment model represent the static and dynamic models, respectively. The dynamic model is estimated using generalized method of moments. This study also uses six definitions of leverage to examine the impact of using different leverage definition in capital structure studies. To test the robustness of the findings comparison were made with past studies done by other researchers on developed markets.

This study found that the use of different models (with the same leverage definition) and different leverage definitions (using the same model) give different results including signs. Inconsistencies were more obvious in the different leverage definitions (using the same model) compared to the use of different models (with the same leverage definition). There was also evidence that the findings were consistent with both the emerging and the developed markets as other studies on developed markets also report inconsistent results when using different models and different leverage definitions.

The sample chosen focussed only on firms in three emerging markets (Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore) thus it may not be sufficient for generalization.

The issue of inconclusive results and findings in capital structure studies keeps recurring but no study has been done to further understand the issue. Using data from the selected countries, this paper attempts to fill this gap in the literature.

The purpose of this chapter is to identify the most appropriate ways of defining the adoption and non-adoption of activity-based costing (ABC). This chapter uses the responses to a questionnaire survey of management accountants working in British manufacturing industry to test if there are differences across various definitions of adoption and non-adoption in the level of competition, product customization, manufacturing overhead cost percentage and operating unit size. When there are no significant differences between the groups making up each definition this indicates that the definition is appropriate and can be used to define adoption or non-adoption. The results of the research show that the only appropriate definition for ABC adoption is operating units that are currently using ABC. It is possible to define non-adoption in three ways as operating units that are not using ABC, but have considered it; those that are not using ABC, but have considered it except those intending to use it; and those that have rejected ABC, but have never adopted activity-based principles or have never previously used ABC. Comparisons between these two groups show that operating units that have adopted ABC are significantly larger than non-adopters, regardless of how non-adoption is defined. Prior research into the adoption of ABC has used a variety of definitions for the adoption and non-adoption of ABC without examining the appropriateness of these definitions. This chapter overcomes this deficiency by empirically testing the most appropriate definitions.

There is ongoing debate amongst in-work poverty researchers as to how to answer the question “who is counted as in-work poor?” and how to define the minimum size of work that should be used to determine a “working threshold”. The purpose of this paper aims to contribute to this debate by testing five different definitions of a “working threshold” and discussing their implications when testing the different measurement outcomes.

The authors use data from Statistics Sweden (SCB), including the total population registered as living in Sweden for each year from 1987 to 2017. All calculations are on a yearly basis and in fixed prices (2017). The data set used is based on linked administrative data retrieved from Statistics Sweden and the software used is SAS 9.4.

Results show how in-work poverty trends differ by measurement approach. The two definitions with the lowest income thresholds are found to include a very heterogenic group of individuals. The development of in-work poverty in Sweden over 30 years show decreasing in-work poverty during the first decade followed by an increase to almost the same levels at the end of the period. In-work poverty in Sweden has transformed from being female-dominated in 1987 and the typical person in in-work poverty 2017 is a male immigrant, aged 26–55 years.

This methodological discussion might lead to a new definition of who is a worker amongst the in-work poor, which could consequently affect who is counted as being in in-work poverty and lead to new social policy measures.

This is, to the authors' knowledge, the first time different definitions of work requirement used to define in-work poverty have been tested on a data set including the total population and over a period of 30 years.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art review of research on consumers experiencing vulnerability to describe the current situation of the consumers experiencing vulnerability literature and develop an up-to-date synthesised definition of consumers experiencing vulnerability.

This systematic review, guided by the PRISMA framework, takes a multi-disciplinary approach to identify 310 articles published between 2010 and 2019 examining consumers experiencing vulnerability. Descriptive analysis of the data is undertaken in combination with a thematic and text mining approach using Leximancer software.

A definition of consumers experiencing vulnerability is developed- “unique and subjective experiences where characteristics such as states, conditions and/or external factors lead to a consumer experiencing a sense of powerlessness in consumption settings”. The findings reveal consumers experiencing vulnerability have often been classified using a uni-dimensional approach (opposed to a multi-dimensional), focussing on one factor of vulnerability, the most prevalent of these being economic and age factors. A lack of research has examined consumers experiencing vulnerability based upon geographical remoteness, gender and sexual exploitation.

This paper is one of the first to examine consumers experiencing vulnerability using a systematic approach and text mining analysis to synthesise a large set of articles, which subsequently reduces the potential for researchers’ interpretative bias. Further, it is the first to generate a data-driven definition of consumers experiencing vulnerability. It provides targeted recommendations to allow further scholarly, policy and practical contributions to this area.

This study aims to determine the extent to which the use of coordinating conjunctions enhances or impairs definitional clarity.

In two studies, a sample of 736 construct definitions from the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Journal of Consumer Research over a 30-year period was judged for ambiguity and vagueness by both academic and lay judges.

The authors demonstrate that constructing definitions using both “and” and “or” increases the ambiguity and vagueness of the construct’s meaning. The most frequently used conjunction is “and” which appeared in 42 per cent of the definitions. A significant percentage (26 per cent) contain the conjunction “or.”

A framework for understanding alternative interpretations of “and” or “or” is developed. Five recommendations are proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists in all academic fields should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition.

A five-step process is proposed for evaluating the use of “and” and “or” in construct definitions. Theorists should not use both “and” and “or” in the same construct definition.

This is the first exploration of how specific wording patterns used in construct definitions in academic research affect the clarity of the definition.

The purpose of this paper is to ask how two normative definitions of sustainable development identified in the Brundtland report contribute to individual definitions constructed by a network of professional actors working in the construction industry.

This paper draws on 74 questionnaires generated from a purposive sample of professional actors working in the construction sector. These questionnaires are analysed using a coding strategy based on pre-defined categories generated from a review of academic and policy literature.

The results show that these definitions mostly appeal to actors working in roles with a strong input into the design process. The evidence suggests that all professional actors in the construction industry construct definitions of sustainable development to valorise their professional role, to support professional critiques of the industry or to reinforce their personal ideological beliefs.

These results present a challenge to a normative agenda aimed at “pinning the concepts down” to an unequivocal, universal definition. It suggests that research might be better redirected towards a context dependent and pragmatic use of the term.

These findings suggest that future policy making should acknowledge multiple, sector and role-specific definitions of sustainable development. It also suggests that a better understanding of this diversity within the construction industry could improve the efficiency of the design, procurement and construction process.

These findings provide new insight into the “in use” definitions of sustainable development in the construction industry and question some of the academic arguments that support a single, universal definition of the term.

Academic authors tend to define terms that meet their own needs. Knowledge Management (KM) is a term that comes to mind and is examined in this study. Lexicographical research identified KM terms used by authors from 1996 to 2006 in academic outlets to define KM. Data were collected based on strict criteria which included that definitions should be unique instances. From 2006 onwards, these authors could not identify new unique instances of definitions with repetitive usage of such definition instances. Analysis revealed that KM is directly defined by People (Person and Organisation), Processes (Codify, Share, Leverage, and Process) and Contextualised Content (Information). The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The aim of this paper is to add to the body of knowledge in the KM discipline and supply KM practitioners and scholars with insight into what is commonly regarded to be KM so as to reignite the debate on what one could consider as KM. The lexicon used by KM scholars was evaluated though the application of lexicographical research methods as extended though Knowledge Discovery and Text Analysis methods.

By simplifying term relationships through the application of lexicographical research methods, as extended though Knowledge Discovery and Text Analysis methods, it was found that KM is directly defined by People (Person and Organisation), Processes (Codify, Share, Leverage, Process) and Contextualised Content (Information). One would therefore be able to indicate that KM, from an academic point of view, refers to people processing contextualised content.

In total, 42 definitions were identified spanning a period of 11 years. This represented the first use of KM through the estimated apex of terms used. From 2006 onwards definitions were used in repetition, and all definitions that were considered to repeat were therefore subsequently excluded as not being unique instances. All definitions listed are by no means complete and exhaustive. The definitions are viewed outside the scope and context in which they were originally formulated and then used to review the key concepts in the definitions themselves.

When the authors refer to the aforementioned discussion of KM content as well as the presentation of the method followed in this paper, the authors may have a few implications for future research in KM. First the research validates ideas presented by the OECD in 2005 pertaining to KM. It also validates that through the evolution of KM, the authors ended with a description of KM that may be seen as a standardised description. If the authors as academics and practitioners, for example, refer to KM as the same construct and/or idea, it has the potential to speculatively, distinguish between what KM may or may not be.

By simplifying the term used to define KM, by focusing on the most common definitions, the paper assist in refocusing KM by reconsidering the dimensions that is the most common in how it has been defined over time. This would hopefully assist in reigniting discussions about KM and how it may be used to the benefit of an organisation.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the term “overkill” is used in the homicide literature to identify definitional issues that may interfere with reliable data coding across studies. This preliminary examination of the concept can guide future studies seeking to develop a standard definition.

To identify issues inherent in the term “overkill,” three definitions – ranging from broad and unclear to more specific and objective – were extracted or adapted from the existing literature. Using closed, homicide case files, nine coders were tasked with coding for the presence of overkill according to one of the definitions across two rounds of coding. Definitional components that made the coding of overkill difficult were identified using a qualitative sorting task to separate items into themes that represented similar issues; basic inter-rater agreement patterns were examined using pairwise percent agreement.

Based on coder feedback, two problems were identified: conceptual issues with the definitions and logistical issues with coding. However, feedback also suggested that increasing the objectivity of the overkill definition led coders to feel the intended meaning of the term was lost. Two out of three groups showed an increase in coder agreement between the two phases of data collection, illustrating how increased training is useful in certain situations.

This study is the first in-depth methodological and empirical examination of how the term “overkill” has been operationalized in the literature, raises key questions that may help with more clearly coding this variable, and outlines issues that may add difficulty to the development of a standard definition.

This paper aims to study the evolution of definitions of internet of things (IoT) through time, critically assess the knowledge these definitions contain and facilitate sensemaking by providing those unfamiliar with IoT with a theoretical definition and an extended framework.

164 articles published between 2005 and 2019 are collected using snowball sampling. Further, 100 unique definitions are identified in the sample. Definitions are examined using content analysis and applying a theoretical framework of five knowledge dimensions.

In declarative/relational dimensions of knowledge, increasing levels of agreement are observed in the sample. Sources of tautological reasoning are identified. In conditional and causal dimensions, definitions of IoT remain underdeveloped. In the former, potential limitations of IoT related to resource scarcity, privacy and security are overlooked. In the latter, three main loci of agreement are identified.

This study does not cover all published definitions of IoT. Some narratives may be omitted by our selection criteria and process.

This study supports sensemaking of IoT. Main loci of agreement in definitions of IoT are identified. Avenues for further clarification and consensus are explored. A new framework that can facilitate further investigation and agreement is introduced.

This is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first study that examines the historical evolution of definitions of IoT vis-à-vis its technological features. This study introduces an updated framework to critically assess and compare definitions, identify ambiguities and resolve conflicts among different interpretations. The framework can be used to compare past and future definitions and help actors unfamiliar with IoT to make sense of it in a way to reduce adoption costs. It can also support researchers in studying early discussions of IoT.