Search results

This paper aims to examine how doctoral students in education and applied linguistics fields successfully navigated graduate writing demands by participating in a support community that catalyzed writing productivity, peer mentoring and feedback. Guiding graduate students’ writing processes based on scholarly interests and providing peer support are vital to scholarly productivity and transition into academia.

Following a collaborative analytic autoethnographic case study design (Adams et al., 2022; Chang et al., 2013), the authors narrated major events that impacted their writing and publication experiences. The authors visualized their entire doctoral writing experience based on the frequency of writing events that contributed to writing productivity. In data triangulation discussions, the authors reflected on writing experiences.

Findings show that the support community alleviated individual struggles associated with writing a dissertation and high-quality papers. Key factors contributing to scholarly growth included nonevaluative peer support, feedback and shared academic resources. Writing within the periphery of faculty research and predominantly focusing on doctoral milestones led to individual scholarly interests being overshadowed. Without structured guidance, doctoral writers may develop initiatives to alleviate individual struggles and meet academic writing demands in the disciplines.

The authors recommend including structured guidance on developing writing productivity and a personal research agenda in the early stages of the doctorate.

This study offers unique examples of how a student group supported writing productivity and socialization into the academic community. It illustrates the multifaceted nature of academic writing influenced by faculty–student relationships, peers and individual initiatives. This paper provides doctoral writers and graduate programs with examples of accomplishing academic publishing goals.

This study investigates the origins and elaboration of the managerial “unitary” frame of reference associated with Alan Fox, focusing on unionised firms: the industrial relations context, intellectual roots, elaboration, adaptation by other writers, and international applicability.

Tracing the above requirements through contemporaneous sources.

Fox’s designation of the unitary frame needs to be understood in its 1960s’ context, particularly the promotion of “productivity bargaining”, and its furthering through management training and education. Fox’s specific contribution is identified. Subsequent UK writers have underplayed the importance of the legal dimension of managerial authority, especially relevant in the US context, while other extra-economic factors bolster the managerial unitary frame in authoritarian societies such as China.

The use of Fox's neglected 1960s’ writings; tracking how Fox developed the unitary frame concept and how it was funnelled into the narrow parameters of non-unionism by subsequent writers; identifying its applicability beyond the UK (with the USA as a historical example and China as a contemporary one).

This paper aims to offer an approach to cyborg composing with artificial intelligence (AI). The author posits that the hybridity of the cyborg, which amalgamates human and artificial elements, invites a cascade of creative and emancipatory possibilities. The author critically examines the biases embedded in AI systems while gesturing toward the generative potential of AI–human entanglements. Drawing on Bakhtinian theories of dialogism, the author contends that crafting found poetry with AI could inspire writers to problematize the ideologies embedded into the corpus while teasing apart its elisions or contradictions, sparking new forms of expression at the interface of the organic and the artificial.

To illustrate this approach to human–AI composing, the author shares a found poem that she wrote using ChatGPT alongside her reflection on the poem. The author reflects on her positionality as well as the positionality of her artificial interlocutor, interrogating the notion of subjectivity in relation to Bakhtinian dialogism and multivocality.

Weaving tales of resilience in harmony or tension with AI could unravel threads of possibility as human writers enrich, deepen or complicate AI-generated texts. By composing with AI, writers can resist closure, infiltrate illusions of objectivity and “speak back” to AI and the dominant voices replicated in its systems.

By encouraging students to critically engage with, question and complicate AI-generated texts, one can open avenues for alternative ways of thinking and writing, inspiring students to imagine and compose speculative futures. Ultimately, in animating assemblages of the organic and the artificial, one can invite transformative possibilities of being and becoming.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a transcript of a dialogue among literacy educators and researchers on the impact of generative aritficial intelligence (AI) in the field. In the spring of 2023, a lively conversation emerged on the National Council of Research on Language and Literacy (NCRLL)’s listserv. Stephanie initiated the conversation by sharing an op-ed she wrote for Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the rise of ChatGPT and similar generative AI platforms, moving beyond the general public’s concerns about student cheating and robot takeovers. NCRLL then convened a webinar of eight leading scholars in writing and literacies development, inspired by that listerv conversation and an organizational interest in promoting intergenerational collaboration among literacy scholars.

As former doctoral students of two of the panel participants, webinar facilitators Grace and Victoria positioned themselves primarily as learners about this topic and gathered questions from colleagues, P-16 practitioners and those outside the field of education to assess the concerns and wonderings that ChatGPT and generative AI have raised. The following webinar conversation was recorded on two different days due to scheduling conflicts. It has been merged and edited into one dialogue for coherence and convergence.

Panel participants raise a host of questions and issues that go beyond topics of ethics, morality and basic writing instruction. Furthermore, in dialogue with one another, they describe possibilities for meaningful pedagogy and critical literacy to ensure that generative AI is used for a socially just future for students. While the discussion addressed matters of pedagogy, definitions of literacy and the purpose of (literacy) education, other themes included a critique of capitalism; an interrogation of the systems of power and oppression involved in using generative AI; and the philosophical, ontological, ethical and practical life questions about being human.

This paper provides a glimpse into one of the first panel conversations about ChatGPT and generative AI in the field of literacy. Not only are the panel members respected scholars in the field, they are also former doctoral students and advisors of one another, thus positioning all involved as both learners and teachers of this new technology.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretically rigorous and practically relevant summary of research findings that enables managers to drive sustainable profits improvements via pricing. It showcases multiple case studies that demonstrate how companies can achieve higher-than-average profitability by implementing intelligent pricing strategies and tactics.

Over the past 20 years, this writer has conducted dozens of academic surveys with managers exploring the antecedents, moderators and consequences of pricing practices for existing and new products. The writer has analyzed all pricing research published in leading academic journals over the past decades. Finally, as equity partner of Hinterhuber & Partners, a pricing consultancy (www.hinterhuber.com), this writer – through collaborations with companies and workshops conducted with practicing managers – has collected data and insights on best practices in managing pricing as a strategic activity.

Pricing is the most powerful driver of superior profits, yet managers view pricing as relevant only in the context of innovation. This narrow view prevents companies from realizing their full potential. Best practice examples of pricing as well as rigorous academic research suggest that pricing based on solid scientific principles helps average companies to achieve above-average results. This paper presents a review of recent research and summarizes the fundamental principles that managers must master so that pricing becomes an enabler of lasting superior performance.

Academic research in pricing surpasses managerial practice. Managers often rely on outdated concepts when it comes to pricing strategy and tactics.

The paper presents a framework that allows managers to implement pricing strategies that improve performance.

Effective pricing strategies benefit companies, customers and other stakeholders.

The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the latest research on pricing and thus documents that pricing based on solid, scientific principles is an enable of lasting, above-average profitability.

This paper investigates the news coverage of research documents with the top Altmetric attention score (AAS) using a descriptive and explorative approach.

A dataset comprising 1,000 articles with high AAS was retrieved from Altmetric.com. The DOIs of these articles were then used to retrieve citation data from Dimensions. Data collection was finalized on February 11, 2024, and separate Excel files were merged using SPSS. The research included subject analysis and conducted correlation and Mann–Whitney U statistical tests.

The study reveals that the highest number of articles with high AAS were published in 2020. News post correlation with citation count is stronger than with AAS score. From the top AAS documents, titles of those with the highest news post counts include public concern keywords, and their subjects were primarily biomedical and clinical sciences. While no significant difference exists between multidisciplinary and specialty journal news posts, there is an increase in the variety of news sources in 2020 and 2021. Documents on biomedical and clinical sciences receive the most attention primarily from US-based news outlets, and many of the news outlets covering top AAS documents do not have specific subject orientations.

Researchers and journal editors should prioritize factors influencing research news coverage, including subjects, writing styles, and publication sources. Science writers should expand their coverage to include academic publications from subject areas beyond biomedical and clinical sciences. They can also consider diverse publication sources, such as preprints.

This study offers insights into the news coverage of top social-attention academic articles and is among the first to analyze the news coverage of academic publications.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-12-2022-0666