Search results

This paper aims to examine sites of dissonance or consensus between global investor responses to the draft standards, International Financial Reporting Standards S1 (IFRS) (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

A thematic content analysis was used to capture investor views expressed in their comment letters submitted in the consultation period (March to July 2022) in comparison to the ex ante position (issue of draft standards, March 2022) and ex post summary feedback (ISSB staff papers, September 2022) of the ISSB.

There was investor consensus in support of the ISSB and the development of the draft standards. However, there were sites of dissonance between investors and the ISSB, notably regarding the basis and focus of reporting (double or single/financial materiality and enterprise value); definitional clarity; emissions reporting; and assurance. Incrementally, the research further highlights that investors display heterogeneity of opinion.

The ISSB standards will provide a framework for future sustainability reporting. This research highlights the significance of such reporting to investors through their responses to the draft standards. The findings reveal sites of dissonance in the development and alignment of draft standards to user needs. The views of investors, as primary users, should help inform the development of sustainability-related standards by a global standard-setting body apposite to current policy and future reporting requirements, and their usefulness to users in practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper makes an original contribution to the comment letter literature, hitherto focused on financial reporting with a relative lack of investor engagement. Using thematic analysis, sites of dissonance are examined between the views of investors and the ISSB on their development of sustainability reporting standards.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to provide a critical assessment of the literature on business incubation effectiveness and second, to submit a situated theoretical perspective on how business incubation management can provide an environment that supports the development of incubatee entrepreneurs and their businesses.

The paper provides a narrative critical assessment of the literature on business incubation effectiveness. Definitional issues, performance aspects and approaches to establishing critical success factors in business incubation are discussed. Business incubation management is identified as an overarching factor for theorising on business incubation effectiveness.

The literature on business incubation effectiveness suffers from several deficiencies, including definitional incongruence, descriptive accounts, fragmentation and lack of strong conceptual grounding. Notwithstanding the growth of research on this domain, understanding of how entrepreneurs and their businesses develop within the business incubator environment remains limited. Given the importance of relational, intangible factors in business incubation and the critical role of business incubation management in orchestrating and optimising such factors, it is suggested that theorising efforts would benefit from a situated perspective.

The identification of specific shortcomings in the literature on business incubation highlights the need for more systematic efforts towards theory building. It is suggested that focusing on the role of business incubation management from a situated learning theory perspective can lend itself to a more profound understanding of the development process of incubatee entrepreneurs and their firms. Theoretical propositions are offered to this effect, as well as avenues for future research.

Theoretical development and integration in organizational learning and learning organizations are currently impeded by three conceptual issues—issues of definition, of bridging cognitive and behavioral perspectives, and of linking individual and organizational learning. This paper reviews these issues and suggests how they may be reconciled.

The purpose of this paper is to enhance the eminent work of Burns and Scapens (B&S) by introducing broader conceptualisations on organisational routines and rules into management accounting.

The paper sets out with the B&S framework. The paper is primarily conceptual in nature and with the addition of some more recent literature on organisational routines serves to bolster the underpinnings of the B&S framework. Drawing especially on the work of Feldman and Pentland, the nature of management accounting routines in particular is explored in some detail. By association, rules are also explored.

This paper proposes that an ostensive‐performative distinction of routines augments our conceptualisation of how management accounting routines can represent both a source of stability and of change (simultaneously). Also, by showing how routines can represent both structure and action simultaneously, some light is shed on the ongoing interrelationship between routines and rules as highlighted in the B&S framework and some concerns in recent literature addressed. In particular, a refined view of both routines and rules not only bolsters the work of B&S, but potentially increases its applicability as a theoretical lens to empirical studies in less formal organisations.

The proposed refinements to the B&S framework, which aim to clarify the nature of rules and routines in a management accounting context, may be particularly useful for researchers studying less formalised (or, less rules‐based) organisations. The findings emphasise the potentially more important role of the less formal concept of routines in most organisations.

The paper supports and complements the B&S framework by integrating more recent conceptual developments on organisational routines and offering some potential definitional clarity on rules and routines in management accounting.

Despite significant theoretical work over the past decade, the phenomenon of trust and the process of its development in managerial relationships remain elusive in theory and practice. This paper revisits theories that frame trust development in order to explore the development of trust in the specific social context of managerial relationships. Managerial relationships are often characterised by politics and the pursuit of hidden agendas and self‐interest. Competing perspectives and personal motivations can conspire to render even the most innocent of acts subject to scrutiny and suspicion. In these senses, high levels of trust are not commensurate with ideal conditions for managerial effectiveness. Examines the realistic possibilities for trust development set in the context of managerial relationships, and in the process of this analysis, creates a set of propositions that could inform further theory development and empirical investigation of the area.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that foundational terms in work‐learning research, specifically “learning”, “work”, and “workplace”, are inherently complex and contested as the same as their scope has expanded in different fields to elide various conceptual categories and theoretical positions. Yet researchers often use these terms without explanation, or as generic abstractions. The article suggests rigorous questioning and more precise delineation to reveal conceptual tangles in work‐learning research and build links across disciplinary languages and research traditions.

The argument is theory‐driven, and draws upon a meta‐review of work‐learning studies published in ten journals in the period 1999‐2004.

Often without clarification, the term “learning” in work is used to refer to learning as “product” (knowledge acquisition, transfer, control), as “process” (as cultural change, individual development, network dynamics, practice, collective sense‐making, identity negotiations, or problem‐solving), and as all conscious human experience. Work is used to refer to almost any activity, paid and unpaid. Issues of power relations in work become side‐stepped with these conflations, and the conceptual categories dissolve when they cannot distinguish what is not learning. These issues blur the contribution of work‐learning research (e.g. what is gained through learning studies focused on one context defined by labor relations).

More precise definitions of terms, conceptualizations and purposes in work‐learning research may help reveal conflicting positions, absences, similarities and links, towards more dialogue and rigorous theory‐building across fields.

The article intends to help researchers pause and reflect on the fundamental concepts and processes they seek to explore.

This paper aims to provide a synthesis of the contributions to this special issue focusing on organizational unlearning.

The papers were examined in depth to identify the key contributions and areas of ongoing concern for those researching unlearning.

Each paper was noted as making a unique contribution to the unlearning debate, and the authors’ understanding of this critical issue, however, areas of divergence or contradiction remain. Although the special issue called for a range of disciplines to engage with the topic, it is clear that some disciplines and contexts have embraced the concept of unlearning more than others, and that there are some key issues that remain problematic for advancing research of this phenomenon. Two key imperatives include clarifying and aligning terminology and advancing stronger underpinning empirical research of unlearning.

The paper identifies the current contradictions and questions relating to organizational unlearning and argues that it is time for clarity and more empirical research about this critical topic.

Almost all historical accounts of psychological work related to the self-concept begin with the pioneering work of William James (e.g., Harter, 1996; Pajares & Schunk, 2002, 2005; Roeser et al., 2006). James' distinction between the self as knower and agent (the I-self) and the self as known and object (the Me-self), in the famous Chap. 10, on self-consciousness, in his Principles of Psychology (1890), undoubtedly informs much subsequent work on the self-concept (a term that James never used himself). In particular, the general idea that the self is made up of different constituents (e.g., the Me-self contains material, social, and spiritual selves) arranged hierarchically is still very much a basic structural assumption in many contemporary theories of the self-concept, just as James' assumption that the I-self can create and monitor a variety of Me-selves anchors much self-concept methodology and process theorizing. With respect to the general aims of self-concept research, James' framing of self-esteem (a term he did use) also has been extremely influential on subsequent generations of both self-esteem and self-concept researchers. For James, self-esteem is a feeling that “depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do” (James, 1981, p. 310), a feeling that depends on the success with which we achieve those things we set out to achieve.²

Discusses a number of important issues pertaining to the domain of qualitative market research. Attempts to define what qualitative research is about and discuss some of the difficulties involved in coming up with a clear definition of the qualitative paradigm. Suggests a number of issues relating to theory and practice that warrant the existence of a new journal devoted specifically to qualitative market research. Concludes with a discussion of validity and reliability in the context of qualitative research.

Purpose – To explore the ideological effects and social control potential of diagnostic biopsychiatry and encourage the sociology of diagnosis to retain key insights of early medicalization scholarship.

Methodology – As the sociology of diagnosis emerges from medicalization, it is imperative that the new sub-specialty retains the critical edge of the early scholarship. With this in mind the paper reviews key aspects of the medicalization thesis, emphasizing the links between medical definitions and social control processes (e.g. Conrad, 1992; Conrad & Schneider, 1992; Zola, 1972). Based on this review scholars are urged to be mindful of the “diagnostic imaginary” -- a way of thinking that conceals the presence of the social in diagnoses, and which closes off critical analysis of the existential-connectedness and political nature of diagnoses.

Findings – The paradigm shift from dynamic to diagnostic psychiatry in DSM-III opened the door to a new biomedical model that has enhanced American psychiatry's scientific aura and prestige. With the increased presence and ordinariness of diagnoses in everyday life, an illusory view of diagnoses as scientific entities free of cultural ties has emerged, intensifying the dangers of medical social control.

Social implications – By illustrating that diagnoses are cultural objects imbued with political meaning, the ideological effects and social control potential of diagnostic biopsychiatry may be mitigated.