Search results

How much goodness do we expect from our neighbours? People living nearby might be locked with each other in interdependencies by spatial proximity but often do not know each other more personally. This chapter explores the question of how latent neighbourliness – an expectation that neighbours will have our back even though we might not know them – emerges. We draw on statistical analyses of survey data from four neighbourhoods in Berlin, Germany, and a pre- and post-COVID-19 methodology, therefore capturing a time when people were asked to stay home and within their neighbourhoods. Our findings demonstrate that latent neighbourliness is neither significantly associated with personal support from neighbours when facing important challenges, nor personal support experienced in the neighbourhood with others whom we know, but who are not neighbours (e.g., family members). Neither is latent neighbourliness a fixed attitude that can be explained by individual characteristics and/or positions (such as age, gender, education, income, one’s employment situation and others). In contrast, we find that, apart from individual generalised trust towards others, the neighbourhood setting itself shapes levels of latent neighbourliness among all demographics. Additionally, those with younger children show higher latent neighbourliness, most likely a result of moral geographies. We argue that caring for children in public and experiencing or displaying moral codes that others can read makes it easier to develop an expectation of goodwill (or for that matter, hostility) from neighbours, without having more durable ties to them.

The process of knowledge creation is recognized as an essential process for organizational learning and innovation. Creating knowledge to solve the problems and complexities of today's world is like opening a black box. Hence, the higher education system and universities are exploring ways to overcome the complexities and cope with global changes. In this regard, interdisciplinary collaborations and activities are crucial in creating knowledge and innovation to counter these changes. This study aimed to know the experiences of Shiraz university interdisciplinary researchers in the field of humanities and also design and explain the conceptual model of knowledge creation in interdisciplinary research teams in the field of humanities.

In this qualitative research, grounded theory was implemented based on Strauss and Corbin's systematic approach. The sampling method was purposeful, and the participants included sixteen faculty members of shiraz university who had at least one experience of performing an interdisciplinary activity in one of the humanities fields. The first participant was selected as a pilot, and the rest were selected by snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were also used to collect data and continued until theoretical saturation was attained. After collecting the available information and interviewing the people, the data were organized and analyzed in three stages, open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, using the proposed framework of Strauss and Corbin. Finally, the researcher reached a final and meaningful categorization.

In this research, the results were presented as a paradigm model of knowledge creation in the interdisciplinary research teams in the field of humanities. The paradigm model of the study consists of causal factors (internal and external factors), main categories (specialized competencies, scientific discourse, understanding of knowledge domains), strategies (structuring and synchronizing), context (individual and organizational), interfering factors (leadership, industry, and society), and consequences (individual and group achievement).

The present study aimed to explore the experiences of researchers in the interdisciplinary humanities research teams on knowledge creation in qualitative research. The study used Strauss and Corbin's systematic approach to recognize the causal factors of knowledge creation and the contexts. Discovering the main category of knowledge creation in interdisciplinary research teams, the authors analyze the strategies and consequences of knowledge creation.

IT is seldom that I can bring myself to write anything for publication, and as I had a longish article on “The education of librarians in Great Britain” printed as recently as 1964 in the Lucknow Librarian (which is edited by my friend Mr. R. P. Hingorani) I had not contemplated any further effort for some time to come. But as THE LIBRARY WORLD evidently wishes to cover all the British schools of librarianship it would be a pity for Brighton to be left out, even though, coming as it does towards the end of a gruelling series, I can see little prospect of this contribution being read. Perhaps, therefore, I need not apologise for the fact that, as my own life and fortunes have been (and still are) inextricably bound up with those of the Brighton school, any account which I write of the school is bound to be a very personal one.

Multinationals operate in a setting where the rules of the game are ambiguous, contradictory, and subject to rapid change. The consequences of such conflict for the firm can be serious, ranging from nationalization and expropriation to increased operating costs and losses of market share, managerial control, and valuable executive time. Here are five ways of coping management may try.