Need assistance with paper "Can case study findings be generalized?"
nealtwicelove
Unit_11_Rowley.pdf
Management Research News Using case studies in research Jennifer Rowley,
Article information: To cite this document: Jennifer Rowley, (2002) "Using case studies in research", Management Research News, Vol. 25 Issue: 1, pp.16-27, https:// doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990
Downloaded on: 08 November 2018, At: 06:02 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13592 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2003),"Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands-on” applications for each research phase", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 75-86 <a href="https:// doi.org/10.1108/13522750310470055">https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750310470055</a> (2002),"Case research in operations management", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. 195-219 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210414329">https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210414329</ a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:310049 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Using Case Studies in Research
by Jennifer Rowley
Introduction
Case study as a research strategy often emerges as an obvious option for stu- dents and other new researchers who are seeking to undertake a modest scale research project based on their workplace or the comparison of a limited number of organisations. The most challenging aspect of the application of case study research in this context is to lift the investigation from a descrip- tive account of ‘what happens’ to a piece of research that can lay claim to be- ing a worthwhile, if modest addition to knowledge. This article draws heavily on established textbooks on case study research and related areas, such as Yin, 1994, Hamel et al., 1993, Eaton, 1992, Gomm, 2000, Perry, 1998, and Saunders et al., 2000 but seeks to distil key aspects of case study research in such a way as to encourage new researchers to grapple with and apply some of the key principles of this research approach. The article ex- plains when case study research can be used, research design, data collec- tion, and data analysis, and finally offers suggestions for drawing on the evidence in writing up a report or dissertation.
When to use Case Studies
Case studies as a research method or strategy have traditionally been viewed as lacking rigour and objectivity when compared with other social research methods. This is one of the major reasons for being extra careful to articulate research design, and implementation. On the other hand, despite this scepti- cism about case studies, they are widely used because they may offer in- sights that might not be achieved with other approaches. Case studies have often been viewed as a useful tool for the preliminary, exploratory stage of a research project, as a basis for the development of the ‘more structured’ tools that are necessary in surveys and experiments. For example, Eisen- hardt (1989) says that case studies are:
Particularly well suited to new research areas or research areas for which existing theory seems inadequate. This type of work is highly complementary to incremental theory building from normal science research. The former is useful in early stages of research on a topic or when a fresh perspective is needed, whilst the latter is useful in later stages of knowledge (pp.548-549).
This is however a somewhat narrow conception of the application of case study research. As discussed below case studies are useful in providing answers to ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’ questions, and in this role can be used for ex- ploratory, descriptive or explanatory research.
16 Management Research News
Biographical Note
Professor Jennifer Rowley can be contacted at the School of Management and Social Sciences, Edge Hill College of Higher Education, Ormskirk, Lancashire, England L39 4QP.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
The first stage is to decide whether case studies can be useful for a spe- cific kind of investigation. There are three factors that determine the best re- search methodology:
• The types of questions to be answered
• The extent of control over behavioural events, and
• The degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events.
The issue of types of research question is the most significant in deter- mining the most appropriate approach. Figure 1 (based on Yin, 1994, p.6) summarises the different kinds of research questions and methods that are most appropriate. Who, what and where questions can be investigated through documents, archival analysis, surveys and interviews. Case studies are one approach that supports deeper and more detailed investigation of the type that is normally necessary to answer how and why questions.
Case study research is also good for contemporary events when the rele- vant behaviour cannot be manipulated. Typically case study research uses a variety of evidence from different sources, such as documents, artefacts, in- terviews and observation, and this goes beyond the range of sources of evi- dence that might be available in historical study.
In summary then, case study research is useful when:
A how or why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or no control. (Yin, 1994, p.9)
In contrast to surveys, typically the number of units studies in a case study is many less than in a survey, but the extent of detail available for each case should be greater. As compared with an experiment, the case study re- searcher has much less control over the variables, than if an experiment were used to investigate a situation. In a survey data may be collected from a number of organisations in order to generalise to all other organisations of the same type. In contrast in a comparative case study across a number of dif- ferent organisations, the objective is to compare or replicate the organisa- tions studied with each other in a systematic way, in the exploration of different research issues.
Volume 25 Number 1 2002 17
Using
Case Studies
in Research
Figure 1: Choosing a Research Strategy
Strategy Form of research question
Experiment
Survey
Archival analysis
History
Case study
How, why
Who, what, where, how many, how much
Who, what, where, how many, how much
How, why
How, why
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
What is case study reseach? Yin (1994) p.13 defines a case study thus:
A case study is an empirical inquiry that:
• Investigates a contemporary phenomena within its real life context, especially when
• The boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.
This statement emphasises that an important strength of case studies is the ability to undertake an investigation into a phenomenon in its context; it is not necessary to replicate the phenomenon in a laboratory or experimental setting in order to better understand the phenomena. Thus case studies are a valuable way of looking at the world around us. On the other hand, it is im- portant not to confuse case studies with ethnographic and other strictly qualitative research paradigms. Case study research can be based on any mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Typically, it uses multiple data sources including two or more of: direct detailed observations, interviews, and documents. In addition, case studies can involve single or multiple cases as discussed in the next section on research design.
Research Design
Research design often seems to be something of a mystery to new research- ers, and the proneness of research philosophers to engage in sophisticated debates using terminology that is inaccessible to the novice does not help. On the basis that it is necessary to grasp the basics, and undertake some re- search before arriving at the position where some of these debates start to have some meaning, this section takes a very practical approach to research design. For those that need a health warning, this section takes a positivist and deductive approach to case study design. It urges the definition of ques- tions and propositions in advance of data collection. This is in contrast to al- ternatives such as the grounded theory or inductive approach, in which questions, insights, propositions, and pictures emerge from the data collec- tion. The authors are of the opinion that the positivist approach provides a firmer foundation for understanding and managing issues such as validity and reliability, and for structuring data collection and analysis, and is there- fore a more straightforward process for the new researcher.
A research design is the logic that links the data to be collected and the conclusions to be drawn to the initial questions of a study; it ensures coher- ence. Another way of viewing a research design is to see it as an action plan for getting from the questions to conclusions. It should ensure that there is a clear view of what is to be achieved by the case study. This involves defining the basic components of the investigation, such as research questions and propositions, appreciating how validity and reliability can be established, and selecting a case study design.
18 Management Research News
Using
Case Studies
in Research
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Components of research design
A research design has the following components:
• The study’s questions
• The study’s propositions
• The study’s units of analysis
• The logic linking the data to the propositions
• The criteria for interpreting findings.
The previous section has already explored the nature of research ques- tions. Starting with clearly formulated questions is useful for all research projects. Formulating research questions is never easy. Theory as embodied in the literature of a discipline is important in pointing towards appropriate research questions. Both practitioners and other researchers can generate questions that are of general interest, and that therefore might be fully ex- plored in the context of the proposed case study. Sometimes with exploratory research the questions may have yet to be formulated; in this case the purpose of the research still needs to be defined.
Descriptive and explanatory studies need propositions. Research ques- tions need to be translated into propositions. The researcher has to make a speculation, on the basis of the literature and any other earlier evidence as to what they expect the findings of the research to be. The data collection and analysis can then be structured in order to support or refute the research propositions.
The unit of analysis is the basis for the case. It may be an individual per- son (such as a business leader, or someone who has had an experience of in- terest), or an event, (such as a decision, a programme, an implementation process or organisational change), or an organisation or team or department within the organisation. It can sometimes be difficult to identify the bounda- ries of the unit of analysis. A key issue is that the case study should only ask questions about the unit of analysis, and any sub-units; sources of evidence and the evidence gathered are determined by the boundaries that define the unit of analysis.
Selecting the unit of analysis, or the case is crucial. Case selection must be determined by the research purpose, questions, propositions and theoreti- cal context, but there will also be other constraints that impact on case selec- tion. These include accessibility (whether the data needed can be collected from the case individual or organisation), resources (whether resources are available to support travel and other data collection and analysis costs), and time available (if time is limited, it may be easier to analyse a small business rather than a large business, or to identify a unit of analysis within a large or- ganisation, rather than seek to study the organisation in its entirety.
Volume 25 Number 1 2002 19
Using
Case Studies
in Research
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Finally, it is necessary to decide what data is necessary in order to sup- port or demolish the propositions, and to reflect on the criteria for interpret- ing the findings. These issues are explored in more detail later in the article.
Generalisation, Validity and Reliability
These three concepts establish the basis on which other researchers should regard a piece of research as knowledge that can be assimilated into the knowledge base of a field of study. It is therefore important to demonstrate that these issues have been fully considered.
Generalisation of the case study so that it contributes to theory is im- portant. Generalisation can only be performed if the case study design has been appropriately informed by theory, and can therefore be seen to add to the established theory. The method of generalisation for case studies is not statistical generalisation, but analytical generalisation in which a previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of the case study. If two or more cases are shown to support the same theory, replication can be claimed. In analytic generalisation, each case is viewed as an experiment, and not a case within an experiment. The greater the number of case studies that show replication the greater the rigour with which a theory has been established.
Four tests have been widely used to establish the quality of empirical social research:
1. Construct validity - establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied. This is concerned with exposing and reducing subjectivity, by linking data collection questions and measures to research questions and propositions.
2. Internal validity (for explanatory or causal studies only, and not for descriptive or exploratory studies) establishing a causal relationship whereby certain conditions are shown to lead to other conditions, as distinguished from spurious relationships.
3. External validity: establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalised. Generalisation is based on replication logic as discussed above.
4. Reliability: demonstrating that the operations of a study - such as the data collection produced can be repeated with the same results. This is achieved through thorough documentation of procedures and appropriate recording keeping.
Many of the approaches for ensuring validity and reliability are dis- cussed further below in the sections on data collection and analysis.
20 Management Research News
Using
Case Studies
in Research
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Case Study Designs
As summarised in Figure 3 case study designs can be categorised along two dimensions, reflecting whether the number of case studies contributing to the design, and the number of units in each case study respectively.
The differentiation between single case and multiple case designs needs to be clearly made. A single case design is akin to a single experiment. Single case studies are appropriate when the case is special (in relation to estab- lished theory) for some reason. This might arise when the case provides a critical test to a well-established theory, or where the case is extreme, unique, or has something special to reveal. Single case studies are also used as a pre- liminary or pilot in multiple case studies.
Multiple case designs are preferred. On the basis of the replication logic discussed above, multiple cases can be regarded as equivalent to multiple ex- periments. The more cases that can be marshalled to establish or refute a the- ory, the more robust are the research outcomes. A frequent question is how many cases should be included in a multiple case study. There is no simple answer to this question. Cases need to be carefully selected so that they either produce similar results (literal replication), or produce contrasting results but for predictable reasons (theoretical replication). Typically within say six to
Volume 25 Number 1 2002 21
Using
Case Studies
in Research
Figure 2: Checking Case Study Design
Tests Case Study tactic Phase of re-
search in which
tactic occurs
Construct validity
Internal validity
External validity
Reliability
Use multiple sources of evidence
Establish chain of evidence
Have key informants review draft case study report
Do pattern matching
Do explanation building
Do time series analysis
Use replication logic in multiple case studies
Use case study protocol
Develop case study database
Data collection
Data collection
Composition
Data analysis
Data analysis
Data analysis
Research design
Data collection
Data collection
Figure 3: Case Study Designs
Single Case Designs Multiple Case Designs
Holistic (single unit of analysis)
Embedded (multiple units of analysis)
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
ten cases, a few cases might be used to achieve literal replication, whereas others might be designed to peruse other patterns of theoretical replications. If all of the cases turn out as predicted then there is strong evidence for the initial set of propositions. If, however, the cases reveal a variety of different outcomes, it may be necessary to revisit the propositions, and consider con- ducting further research. The number of cases depends on the nature of the propositions to be substantiated.
Case studies can also be divided into holistic or embedded studies. Ho- listic case studies examine the case as one unit. They might, for example, fo- cus on broad issues of organisational culture or strategy. This approach ensures a helicopter view of the case, but can be superficial, and may miss changes in the unit of analysis that could impact on the appropriateness of the original research design. Embedded designs identify a number of sub units (such as meetings, roles or locations) each of which is explored indi- vidually; results from these units are drawn together to yield an overall pic- ture. The biggest challenge with embedded designs lies in achieving a holistic perspective from the analysis of the sub-units.
Data Collection
Data collection, and in general the execution of a good case study, depend crucially upon the competence of the researcher. Unlike, with say, a ques- tionnaire, the evidence to be gathered is defined as it is collected, and the re- searcher is an active agent in the process. This means that the researcher undertaking data collection needs to be able to ask good questions, to listen and to interpret the answers. This involves having a sound grasp of the ques- tions and propositions of the case study, and being able to approach the study in an unbiased, and flexible manner.
Data collection should be guided by a case study protocol. This proto- col needs to include the following sections:
1. An overview of the case study project.
2. Field procedures, such as use of different sources of information, and access arrangements to these sources.
3. Case study questions, or the questions that the case study researcher needs to keep in mind when collecting data. These questions are posed to the researcher, and not to any specific respondents, although they may be used to guide the formulation of questions to interviewees, and members of focus groups. In complex cases studies it is important to differentiate between the questions asked of specific interviewees and used to interrogate documents, questions asked of the individual case, and questions to be asked across multiple cases.
22 Management Research News
Using
Case Studies
in Research
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Larger case studies, with multiple cases and embedded designs with several sub units in each case study are likely to need a team of researchers. When more than one researcher is engaged in gathering evidence, the case study protocol is a central communication document for the team. However, it is not sufficient to draft such a document, and leave it for researchers to read. The success of the project depends upon the quality of the researcher’s engagement with the problem and the agreed process. Training and partici- pation in research design are important in ensuring that a team has an appro- priate level of familiarity with the case study investigation.
Gathering evidence
Typically case studies draw on multiple sources of evidence. These include documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant ob- servation, and physical artefacts. Each of these different sources require dif- ferent approaches to their interrogation, and are likely to yield different kinds of insights. Each source has its strengths and its weaknesses, and the richness of the case study evidence base derives largely from this multi-facetted per- spective yielded by using different sources of evidence.
Whichever sources of evidence are used, there are three key principles of data collection that need to be observed:
1. Triangulation - one of the great strengths of case studies as compared with other methods is that evidence can be collected from multiple sources. Triangulation uses evidence from different sources to corroborate the same fact or finding.
2. Case Study Database - A case study database of the evidence gathered needs to be collected. Whilst a report or dissertation may be the primary distillation of the case study, a further outcome which strengthens the repeatability of the research, and increases the transparency of the findings is a well organised collection of the evidence base. This base may include case notes made by the investigators, case study documents that are collected during a case study, interview notes or transcripts, and analysis of the evidence. When preparing a dissertation it will be useful to agree with a supervisor whether some elements of this evidence base should be presented as appendices to the dissertation.
3. Chain of Evidence - The researcher needs to maintain a chain of evidence. The report should make clear the sections on the case study databases that it draws upon, by appropriate citation of documents and interviews. Also, the actual evidence needs to be accessible in the databases. Within the database, it should be clear that the data collection followed the protocol, and the link between the protocol questions and the propositions should be transparent.
Volume 25 Number 1 2002 23
Using
Case Studies
in Research
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Analysis of Case Study Evidence
Analysing case study evidence is not easy. Typically a case study database will include a multitude of different evidence from different sources. Data analysis of this rich resource is based on examining, categorising and tabu- lating evidence to assess whether the evidence supports or otherwise the ini- tial propositions of the study. The preferred strategy for analysis is to use the propositions that encapsulate the objectives of the study, and which have shaped the data collection. The researcher trawls through the evidence seek- ing corroboration or otherwise of the initial propositions, and then records relevant evidence and makes a judgement on whether the positions have been substantiated. This is where you discover whether the propositions were well formulated in the first place!!
In exploratory case studies that typically do not start with propositions, an alternative approach needs to be adopted. Here an alternative analytic strategy is to develop a descriptive framework for organising the case study. Thus a framework of sections reflecting the themes in the case study are de- veloped and evidence is gathered within relevant themes, and analysed and compared in these categories, in order to achieve a description of the case study that can be corroborated from multiple sources of evidence.
In general, there are no cookbook procedures that have been agreed for the analysis of case study results, but good case study analysis adheres to the following principles:
1. The analysis makes use of all of the relevant evidence
2. The analysis considers all of the major rival interpretations, and explores each of them in turn
3. The analysis should address the most significant aspect of the case study
4. The analysis should draw on the researchers prior expert knowledge in the area of the case study, but in an unbiased and objective manner.
Writing the Case Study Report
Writing the case study report can be a daunting task, because at this point the researcher needs to discriminate between what is to be included and the wealth of evidence that will not appear in the report, but stays in the case study database. Effective analysis of the results will assist in providing a structure. The task of writing a report or dissertation will appear less over- whelming if the researcher has observed the advice to all researchers which is to write up as the research proceeds. Drafts of literature review and meth- odology sections can be written in parallel with data collection. A key factor in determining the coverage and presentation of the case study report is the intended audience. Case studies have a range of potential audiences, includ-
24 Management Research News
Using
Case Studies
in Research
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
ing academic colleagues, policymakers, practitioner professionals, the gen- eral public, research supervisors and examiners, and funders of research. These different audiences have different needs. For example, for non- specialist audiences, the story that the case study tells may be most engaging, and they may seek in the case study a basis for action. For a dissertation as- sessor, mastery of methodology, and an understanding of the way that the re- search makes a contribution to existing knowledge will be important.
Alternative Perspectives on Case Studies
The guidance given in this article derives largely from the approach sug- gested by Yin, 1994. This approach is primarily positivistic in perspective, and can be characterised by the following positions:
1. The analytic approach to generalisation.
2. Theory should inform propositions, and propositions inform data collection and analysis.
3. The researcher acts as commentator, in representing and interpreting the case in a way that relates to previous theory.
There is an ongoing debate around each of these positions, which re- flects the different perspectives taken by the positivist and phenomenologi- cal schools of research philosophy and strategy (Gomm, 2000). In order to encourage continuing reflection on these matters it is useful to summarise some of the questions that can be posed:
1. Generalisation - Is generalisation necessary? The need for generalisation derives from a positivist approach in which generalisation on the basis of samples is the norm. Can case studies just be accepted as insights as they stand, with readers making their own interpretation, and taking the ideas from the case study into their own experience (sometimes called Naturalist ic generalisation). Alternatively, can case studies be used as the basis for the formulation of working hypotheses? If attempts to generalise are necessary, what does generalisation in this context mean?
2. Role of theory - Is it necessary to use theory to inform propositions, or can case studies be used as a basis for grounded theory development, in which the theory emerges through data collection and analysis?
3. Authenticity and authority - Whose voice is recorded in the case study report? Some researchers use case study as a method of ‘allowing the voices of participants to be heard’. This position is based on a rejection of any authority on the part of the study researcher. On the other hand, some would argue that the very act of conducting research undermines the authenticity of the voices to
Volume 25 Number 1 2002 25
Using
Case Studies
in Research
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
which researchers seek to listen, and that the very act of interacting with the participants changes the case study situation.
The three points above set the agenda for further development of un- derstanding and sophistication in approaches to case study research. The readings listed below offer numerous insights into the debate around case study research and the kind of knowledge that it claims to generate.
26 Management Research News
Using
Case Studies
in Research
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
Readings
Easton, G. (1992) Learning from case studies. 2nd edition, Hemel Hemp- stead: Prentice Hall.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) “Building theories from case study research.” Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp.532-550.
Hamel, J. (1993) Case study methods. California: Sage.
Ghauri, P., Gronhaug, K. and Kristianslund, I. (1995) Research methods in business studies: a practical guide. New York: Prentice Hall.
Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., Foster, P. (Eds.) (2000) Case study method: key issues, key texts. London: Sage Publications.
Perry, C. (1998) “Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate re- search in marketing.” European Journal of Marketing, 32 (9/10), pp.785- 802.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000) Research methods for busi- ness students. 2nd edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Yin, R.K. (1994) Case study research: design and methods. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Volume 25 Number 1 2002 27
Using
Case Studies
in Research
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Aldene Meis Mason, Léo Paul Dana, Robert Brent Anderson. A Study of Enterprise in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut: Where Subsistence Self-Employment Meets Formal Entrepreneurship 83-98. [Crossref]
2. Guojun Zeng, Henk J. de Vries, Frank M. Go. Methodology 53-60. [Crossref] 3. KiernerAgnieszka, Agnieszka Kierner. 2018. Expatriated dual-career partners: hope and disillusionment. Journal of Global
Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research 6:3/4, 244-257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 4. Peter Musinguzi, Aske Skovmand Bosselmann, Mariève Pouliot. 2018. Livelihoods-conservation initiatives: Evidence of socio-
economic impacts from organic honey production in Mwingi, Eastern Kenya. Forest Policy and Economics 97, 132-145. [Crossref]
5. MoraisFlávio, Flávio Morais, FrancoMário, Mário Franco. 2018. The role of cooperative alliances in internationalization strategy. Journal of Strategy and Management 11:4, 461-482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. RahmanMohammed, Mohammed Rahman, LynesAdam, Adam Lynes. Ride to die: masculine honour and collective identity in the motorcycle underworld. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Kiho Kwak, Wonjoon Kim, Kyungbae Park. 2018. Complementary multiplatforms in the growing innovation ecosystem: Evidence from 3D printing technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 136, 192-207. [Crossref]
8. Sergio Rubio, Tânia Rodrigues Pereira Ramos, Manuel Maria Rodrigues Leitão, Ana Paula Barbosa-Póvoa. 2018. Effectiveness of extended producer responsibility policies implementation: The case of portuguese and spanish packaging waste systems. Journal of Cleaner Production . [Crossref]
9. Patricia O’Campo, Alix Freiler, Carles Muntaner, Elena Gelormino, Kelly Huegaerts, Vanessa Puig-Barrachina, Christiane Mitchell. 2018. Resisting austerity measures to social policies: multiple explanatory case studies. Health Promotion International 13. . [Crossref]
10. Chandan Dasgupta, Alejandra J. Magana, Camilo M. Vieira. 2018. Investigating the affordances of a CAD enabled learning environment for promoting integrated STEM learning. Computers & Education . [Crossref]
11. Nandipha Ngesi, Nhlanhla Landa, Nophawu Madikiza, Madoda P. Cekiso, Baba Tshotsho, Lynne M. Walters. 2018. Use of mobile phones as supplementary teaching and learning tools to learners in South Africa. Reading & Writing 9:1. . [Crossref]
12. Steve Haberlin. 2018. “Nature’s child” and “the diplomat”. Gifted Education International 34:3, 271-283. [Crossref] 13. Ahmed Sayem, Andreas Feldmann, Miguel Ortega-Mier. 2018. Investigating the influence of network-manufacturing
capabilities to the phenomenon of reshoring: An insight from three case studies. BRQ Business Research Quarterly . [Crossref] 14. Yacheng Yang, Hong Chen, Qingzhi Zhang, Jiasu Lei. 2018. The Commercialization of University and Research Institutes’
Science-Based Innovations: The Four Successful Chinese Cases. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management 03:03, 1850013. [Crossref]
15. KoladeOluwaseun, Oluwaseun Kolade. 2018. Venturing under fire. Education + Training 60:7/8, 749-766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. SmithsonCharlotte, Charlotte Smithson, RowleyJennifer, Jennifer Rowley, FullwoodRoger, Roger Fullwood. 2018. Promoting volunteer engagement in the heritage sector. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 8:3, 362-371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. AlexiouMelissa-Vasiliki, Melissa-Vasiliki Alexiou. 2018. Modeling guided tour participants’ experiences. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 12:3, 257-276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Gobinda Roy, Biplab Datta, Srabanti Mukherjee. 2018. Role of electronic word-of-mouth content and valence in influencing online purchase behavior. Journal of Marketing Communications 41, 1-24. [Crossref]
19. Christoph Merschbrock, M. Reza Hosseini, Igor Martek, Mehrdad Arashpour, Gerard Mignone. 2018. Collaborative Role of Sociotechnical Components in BIM-Based Construction Networks in Two Hospitals. Journal of Management in Engineering 34:4, 05018006. [Crossref]
20. Alexander Zimmermann, Sebastian Raisch, Laura B. Cardinal. 2018. Managing Persistent Tensions on the Frontline: A Configurational Perspective on Ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies 55:5, 739-769. [Crossref]
21. Jacqueline De Chabert-Rios, Cynthia S Deale. 2018. Taking the local food movement one step further: An exploratory case study of hyper-local restaurants. Tourism and Hospitality Research 18:3, 388-399. [Crossref]
22. Yasmine Sabri, Guido J.L. Micheli, Cali Nuur. 2018. Exploring the impact of innovation implementation on supply chain configuration. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 49, 60-75. [Crossref]
23. Kannan Govindan, Madan Shankar, Devika Kannan. 2018. Supplier selection based on corporate social responsibility practices. International Journal of Production Economics 200, 353-379. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
24. Susana Azevedo, Minelle Silva, João Matias, Gustavo Dias. 2018. The Influence of Collaboration Initiatives on the Sustainability of the Cashew Supply Chain. Sustainability 10:6, 2075. [Crossref]
25. Enrico Cagno, Alessandra Neri, Andrea Trianni. 2018. Broadening to sustainability the perspective of industrial decision- makers on the energy efficiency measures adoption: some empirical evidence. Energy Efficiency 11:5, 1193-1210. [Crossref]
26. Megumi Inoue, Catherine Tompkins, Kiersten Scruggs, Jennifer Robles. 2018. Advance Directives Information Delivery in Medicare/Medicaid-Funded Agencies: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care 188, 1-17. [Crossref]
27. Brendan Gray, Jodyanne Kirkwood, Mitra Etemaddar, Ella Monahan. 2018. Sustainable business models for community- based enterprises in Samoa and Tonga. Small Enterprise Research 25:2, 99-113. [Crossref]
28. Vandana Ahuja, Shirin Alavi. 2018. Using Facebook as a Digital Tool for Developing Trust amongst Consumers using Netnography and Social Media Analytics: A Study of Jet Airways. Journal of Relationship Marketing 6, 1-17. [Crossref]
29. Nir Kshetri. 2018. 1 Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. International Journal of Information Management 39, 80-89. [Crossref]
30. Gloria M. Boone, Jane Secci, Linda M. Gallant. 2018. Resistance: Active and Creative Political Protest Strategies. American Behavioral Scientist 62:3, 353-374. [Crossref]
31. Fernanda Sousa Melo Mary, Luiz Sproesser Renato, Lucas Campos-Silva Willerson, Souza Roberta. 2018. Business strategy and environmental practices: Evidence in the sugarcane energy sector in Brazil. African Journal of Business Management 12:2, 44-57. [Crossref]
32. Hector Chiboola, Sody M. Munsaka. 2018. Nature and role of traditional forms of counselling in Zambia: a case of Lusaka province. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 46:1, 79-90. [Crossref]
33. Nkululeko Sibanda. 2018. Theatre training and performance as gender mainstreaming strategies in Zimbabwe: the case of Amakhosi Theatre Productions. Theatre, Dance and Performance Training 9:1, 68-80. [Crossref]
34. Yuksel Ayden, Mehmet Demirbag, Ekrem Tatoglu. Introduction 1-10. [Crossref] 35. Oluwaseun E. Adegbite, Antonis C. Simintiras, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Kemefasu Ifie. 1. [Crossref] 36. Oluwaseun E. Adegbite, Antonis C. Simintiras, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Kemefasu Ifie. 95. [Crossref] 37. Chamindi Malalgoda, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Richard Haigh. 2018. Empowering local governments in making cities resilient
to disasters: research methodological perspectives. Procedia Engineering 212, 902-909. [Crossref] 38. Zheng Ma, Alla Asmussen, Bo Jørgensen. 2018. Industrial Consumers’ Smart Grid Adoption: Influential Factors and
Participation Phases. Energies 11:1, 182. [Crossref] 39. Brendan Gray, Jodyanne Kirkwood, Ella Monahan, Mitra Etemaddar. 2018. Internal factors influencing effective opportunity
identification in a Tongan social enterprise. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 1. [Crossref] 40. Cindy Cordoba. Luxury Fashion and Peace Restoration for Artisans in Colombia 173-192. [Crossref] 41. Inês Campos, Kiat Ng, Gil Penha-Lopes, Anders B. Pedersen, Alessio Capriolo, Marta Olazabal, Volker Meyer, Oliver
Gebhardt, Sabine Weiland, Helle Ø. Nielsen, Jenny Troeltzsch, Mark Zandvoort, Eliška K. Lorencová, Zuzana V. Harmáčkova, Pedro Iglesias, Ana Iglesias, André Vizinho, Milla Mäenpää, Anne-Mari Rytkönen, Roos M. den Uyl, David Vačkář, Filipe M. Alves. The Diversity of Adaptation in a Multilevel Governance Setting 49-172. [Crossref]
42. Berdousis Ioannis, Kordaki Maria. 2018. Gender and student course preferences and course performance in Computer Science departments: A case study. Education and Information Technologies . [Crossref]
43. Adam Poole. 2017. Interpreting and implementing the IB Learner Profile in an internationalised school in China: a shift of focus from the ‘Profile as text’ to the ‘lived Profile’. Journal of Research in International Education 16:3, 248-264. [Crossref]
44. Rob Jones. 2017. Enlightenment through engagement? The potential contribution of greater engagement between researchers and practitioners. Accounting Education 26:5-6, 414-430. [Crossref]
45. Majd Haddaji, Jose Albors-Garrigós, Purificación García-Segovia. 2017. Women Chefs’ Access Barriers to Michelin Stars: A Case-Study Based Approach. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology 15:4, 320-338. [Crossref]
46. McNallyMary-Anne, Mary-Anne McNally, CerboneDannielle, Dannielle Cerbone, MarounWarren, Warren Maroun. 2017. Exploring the challenges of preparing an integrated report. Meditari Accountancy Research 25:4, 481-504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Mourad Makaci, Paul Reaidy, Karine Evrard-Samuel, Valérie Botta-Genoulaz, Thibaud Monteiro. 2017. Pooled warehouse management: An empirical study. Computers & Industrial Engineering 112, 526-536. [Crossref]
48. MerikoskiHelena, Helena Merikoski, SavolainenPaula, Paula Savolainen, AhonenJarmo J., Jarmo J. Ahonen. 2017. Suppliers’ software development project start-up practices. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 10:4, 880-896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Shahriar Akter, Samuel Fosso Wamba. 2017. Big data and disaster management: a systematic review and agenda for future research. Annals of Operations Research 4. . [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
50. RetolazaJose Luis, Jose Luis Retolaza, San-JoseLeire, Leire San-Jose. 2017. Single case research methodology: a tool for moral imagination in business ethics. Management Research Review 40:8, 890-906. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. de LangeDeborah, Deborah de Lange, DoddsRachel, Rachel Dodds. 2017. Increasing sustainable tourism through social entrepreneurship. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29:7, 1977-2002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Bernard Walker, Huibert P. de Vries, Venkataraman Nilakant. 2017. Managing legitimacy: The Christchurch post-disaster reconstruction. International Journal of Project Management 35:5, 853-863. [Crossref]
53. HendersonJoan, Joan Henderson. 2017. Global cities, Tokyo, urban tourism. International Journal of Tourism Cities 3:2, 143-157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. N Shiburi, A Marnewick. Guideline for unstructured technology decision making - a case study 209-214. [Crossref] 55. Bernd Stahl, Michael Obach, Emad Yaghmaei, Veikko Ikonen, Kate Chatfield, Alexander Brem. 2017. The Responsible
Research and Innovation (RRI) Maturity Model: Linking Theory and Practice. Sustainability 9:6, 1036. [Crossref] 56. Sonya J. Morgan, Susan R. H. Pullon, Lindsay M. Macdonald, Eileen M. McKinlay, Ben V. Gray. 2017. Case Study
Observational Research: A Framework for Conducting Case Study Research Where Observation Data Are the Focus. Qualitative Health Research 27:7, 1060-1068. [Crossref]
57. Robsan M. Egne. 2017. Perceptions and practices of multicultural education among Ethiopian secondary teacher education program officials, teacher educators and prospective teachers. Teacher Development 21:3, 422-444. [Crossref]
58. Stuart Ferguson, Deborah Blackman. 2017. Translating innovative practices into organizational knowledge in the public sector: A case study. Journal of Management & Organization 5, 1-16. [Crossref]
59. LaudienSven M., Sven M. Laudien, DaxböckBirgit, Birgit Daxböck. 2017. Enhancing the understanding of international new ventures: a service-oriented perspective. Management Research Review 40:5, 494-516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Sam Carr, Ben Rockett. 2017. Fostering secure attachment: experiences of animal companions in the foster home. Attachment & Human Development 19:3, 259-277. [Crossref]
61. FrancoMário, Mário Franco, HaaseHeiko, Heiko Haase. 2017. Success factors in university sport partnerships: a case study. EuroMed Journal of Business 12:1, 87-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Dennis M. Ochieng, Oludayo O. Olugbara, Monique M. Marks. 2017. Exploring Digital Archive System to Develop Digitally Resilient Youths in Marginalised Communities in South Africa. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 80:1, 1-22. [Crossref]
63. HendersonJoan C., Joan C. Henderson. 2017. Street food, hawkers and the Michelin Guide in Singapore. British Food Journal 119:4, 790-802. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Venkatesh Mani, Catarina Delgado, Benjamin Hazen, Purvishkumar Patel. 2017. Mitigating Supply Chain Risk via Sustainability Using Big Data Analytics: Evidence from the Manufacturing Supply Chain. Sustainability 9:4, 608. [Crossref]
65. DuarteSusana, Susana Duarte, Cruz MachadoV., V. Cruz Machado. 2017. Green and lean implementation: an assessment in the automotive industry. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 8:1, 65-88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Susan W. Hardwick. Case Study Approach 1-6. [Crossref] 67. Joosung Lee, Jaejun Kim. 2017. BIM-Based 4D Simulation to Improve Module Manufacturing Productivity for Sustainable
Building Projects. Sustainability 9:3, 426. [Crossref] 68. Jan Krantz, Weizhuo Lu, Tim Johansson, Thomas Olofsson. 2017. Analysis of alternative road construction staging
approaches to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production 143, 980-988. [Crossref] 69. André Schmidt. 2017. Determinants of Corporate Voting – Evidence from a Large Survey of German Retail Investors.
Schmalenbach Business Review 18:1, 71-103. [Crossref] 70. Joan Catherine Henderson. 2017. Destination Development: Trends in Japan's Inbound Tourism. International Journal of
Tourism Research 19:1, 89-98. [Crossref] 71. E. Leahy, J. O’Flaherty, L. Hearne. 2017. The ‘tyranny of time’: getting to the heart of the impact of educational cuts on
the provision of guidance counselling in Ireland. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 45:1, 97-111. [Crossref] 72. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Alan Wilson. The Role of Internal Branding in the Delivery of Employee Brand Promise 91-108.
[Crossref] 73. Hany Elbardan, Ahmed Othman Rashwan Kholeif. An Interpretive Approach for Data Collection and Analysis 111-165.
[Crossref] 74. Unai Apaolaza, Aitor Lizarralde. Comprehensive Reorganization of Project Management: A Case Study 3-17. [Crossref] 75. Olja Jovanović, Marko Vladisavljević, Marija Branković, Iris Žeželj. Methods Section: Quantitative and Qualitative
Examination of Social Identities and Their Mutual Relations 53-67. [Crossref] 76. Norbert Edomah. 2017. Modelling Future Electricity: Rethinking the Organizational Model of Nigeria’s Electricity Sector.
IEEE Access 5, 27074-27080. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
77. Felipe Luis Palombini, Mariana Kuhl Cidade, Jocelise Jacques de Jacques. 2017. How sustainable is organic packaging? A design method for recyclability assessment via a social perspective: A case study of Porto Alegre city (Brazil). Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 2593-2605. [Crossref]
78. Marleen D. Wessels, Leontien W. M. Bossink, Annette A. J. van der Putten. 2017. The Effects of a Power-Assisted Exercise Intervention on Alertness in People With Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 16:3, 281-292. [Crossref]
79. Jan Hassink, Irini Salverda, Lenneke Vaandrager, Rosalie van Dam, Carlijn Wentink. 2016. Relationships between green urban citizens’ initiatives and local governments. Cogent Social Sciences 2:1. . [Crossref]
80. Nir Kshetri. 2016. Creation, deployment, diffusion and export of Sub-Saharan Africa-originated information technology- related innovations. International Journal of Information Management 36:6, 1274-1287. [Crossref]
81. Deborah Ann Blackman, Fiona Buick, Janine O'Flynn. 2016. From engaging to enabling: Could an asset-based approach transform Indigenous affairs?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 34:8, 1632-1651. [Crossref]
82. EstwickStacey Alicia, Stacey Alicia Estwick. 2016. The impact of principal-principal conflict on financial flexibility. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets 8:4, 305-330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Mark Turner, Sineenat Sermcheep, Seksan Anantasirijkiat, Piti Srisangnam. 2016. Small and medium-sized enterprises in Thailand: government policy and economic development. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 38:4, 251-269. [Crossref]
84. Lisa Smith, Patricia Rees, Noel Murray. 2016. Turning entrepreneurs into intrapreneurs: Thomas Cook, a case-study. Tourism Management 56, 191-204. [Crossref]
85. Sebastian Raisch, Michael L. Tushman. 2016. Growing New Corporate Businesses: From Initiation to Graduation. Organization Science 27:5, 1237-1257. [Crossref]
86. Andre Vilares Morgado, Luis Mota de Castro. 2016. Customer references and the buying of capital equipment for a project firm. Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation 2:3, 244-263. [Crossref]
87. Emanuele Invernizzi, Stefania Romenti, Grazia Murtarelli. Creating Shared Value through Communication: A Case Study Analysis of Barilla 181-201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
88. Susana Garrido Azevedo, Helena Carvalho, V. Cruz-Machado. 2016. LARG index. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23:6, 1472-1499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. Olufunmilola (Lola) Dada, Sarah Jack, Magnus George. 2016. University–Business Engagement Franchising and Geographic Distance: A Case Study of a Business Leadership Programme. Regional Studies 50:7, 1217-1231. [Crossref]
90. Sandeep Reddy, Timothy A. Carey, John Wakerman. 2016. A Realist Case Study of a Regional Hospital’s Response to Improve Emergency Department Access in the Context of Australian Health Care Reforms. Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology 3, 233339281663110. [Crossref]
91. J. Gleeson, J. O'Flaherty. 2016. The teacher as moral educator: comparative study of secondary teachers in Catholic schools in Australia and Ireland. Teaching and Teacher Education 55, 45-56. [Crossref]
92. Rima Bizri. 2016. Succession in the family business: drivers and pathways. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 22:1, 133-154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Jongsung Won, Jack C.P. Cheng, Ghang Lee. 2016. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South Korea. Waste Management 49, 170-180. [Crossref]
94. Kannan Govindan, K. Madan Shankar, Devika Kannan. 2016. Application of fuzzy analytic network process for barrier evaluation in automotive parts remanufacturing towards cleaner production – a study in an Indian scenario. Journal of Cleaner Production 114, 199-213. [Crossref]
95. Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch. 2016. Shaping Drug Policy in Poland. International Journal of Drug Policy . [Crossref] 96. Sandeep Reddy. 2016. Realist Evaluation of a remote hospital programme in the context of Australian health care reforms.
International Journal of Healthcare Management 9:1, 40-46. [Crossref] 97. Atish Sircar, Jennifer Rowley. Social Media and Megachurches 695-700. [Crossref] 98. Osden Jokonya. 2016. Towards a Critical Systems Thinking Approach during IT Adoption in Organisations. Procedia
Computer Science 100, 856-864. [Crossref] 99. Dawn Keig, O. C. Ferrell. The Marketing Ethics Course: Current State and Future Directions 248-250. [Crossref]
100. ADAM LYNES, DAVID WILSON. 2015. Driven to Kill: British Serial Killers and their Occupations. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 54:5, 413-433. [Crossref]
101. Natalie S. Blencowe, Jane M. Blazeby, Jenny L. Donovan, Nicola Mills. 2015. Novel ways to explore surgical interventions in randomised controlled trials: applying case study methodology in the operating theatre. Trials 16:1. . [Crossref]
102. Aliaksandr Palonnikau, Dzmitry Karol, Olga Kalachikova, Zhanna Volkova, Alexandra Solonenko. 2015. Educational Research in Changing University. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214, 684-692. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
103. David Talbot, Olivier Boiral. 2015. Strategies for Climate Change and Impression Management: A Case Study Among Canada’s Large Industrial Emitters. Journal of Business Ethics 132:2, 329-346. [Crossref]
104. Osden Jokonya. Validating Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) during IT Adoption in Organizations 509-516. [Crossref] 105. Adam Lynes, David Wilson. 2015. Driving, Pseudo-reality and the BTK: A Case Study. Journal of Investigative Psychology
and Offender Profiling 12:3, 267-284. [Crossref] 106. Elaine Sio-ieng Hui, Chris King-chi Chan. 2015. Beyond the Union-Centred Approach: A Critical Evaluation of Recent
Trade Union Elections in China. British Journal of Industrial Relations 53:3, 601-627. [Crossref] 107. Neetha Philip. 2015. Culture and poverty: a case study of a girl with special educational needs from a poor community in
South India. Support for Learning 30:3, 205-222. [Crossref] 108. Sandra Martínez, Ander Errasti, Martin Rudberg. 2015. Adapting Zara’s ‘Pronto Moda’ to a value brand retailer. Production
Planning & Control 26:9, 723-737. [Crossref] 109. Anahita Malek, Carlos Costa. 2015. Integrating Communities into Tourism Planning Through Social Innovation. Tourism
Planning & Development 12:3, 281-299. [Crossref] 110. Jason Canning, Pauline Anne Found. 2015. The effect of resistance in organizational change programmes. International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 7:2/3, 274-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 111. Angela Bargenda. 2015. Corporate heritage brands in the financial sector: The role of corporate architecture. Journal of Brand
Management 22:5, 431-447. [Crossref] 112. Jessica Y.T. Yip, Rongbin W.B. Lee, Eric Tsui. 2015. Examining knowledge audit for structured and unstructured business
processes: a comparative study in two Hong Kong companies. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:3, 514-529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
113. Michael Morales, Doral Edward Sandlin. 2015. Managing airborne relief during international disasters. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 5:1, 12-34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. Jane Simms. 2015. Features of Posttraumatic Growth Among Victims of the Northern Irish “Troubles”. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 55:2, 127-152. [Crossref]
115. Janja Nograšek, Mirko Vintar. 2015. Observing organisational transformation of the public sector in the e-government era. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 9:1, 52-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
116. Ruth D. Barber, Alexis Coulourides Kogan, Anne Riffenburgh, Susan Enguidanos. 2015. A Role for Social Workers in Improving Care Setting Transitions: A Case Study. Social Work in Health Care 54:3, 177-192. [Crossref]
117. Isabelle Aoun, Laurent Tournois. 2015. Building holistic brands: an exploratory study of Halal cosmetics. Journal of Islamic Marketing 6:1, 109-132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. William Ritchie, Brent I. Brantley, Marshall Pattie, Bruce Swanson, Joshua Logsdon. 2015. Expatriate Cultural Antecedents and Outcomes. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 25:3, 325-342. [Crossref]
119. Otuo Serebour Agyemang, Emmanuel Aboagye, Joyce Frimpong. 2015. Left to their fate: rights of minority equity holders in Ghanaian firms. Society and Business Review 10:1, 40-66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
120. Joel Chigada, Patrick Ngulube. 2015. Knowledge management practices at selected banks in South Africa. SA Journal of Information Management 17:1. . [Crossref]
121. Erica D. Spangenberg. 2015. Examples of cultural artefacts in the preparation of a mathematics lesson. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie 34:1. . [Crossref]
122. Bart van Hoof, Marcus Thiell. 2015. Anchor company contribution to cleaner production dissemination: experience from a Mexican sustainable supply programme. Journal of Cleaner Production 86, 245-255. [Crossref]
123. Vasilis Hervatis, Alan Loe, Linda Barman, John O'Donoghue, Nabil Zary. 2015. A Conceptual Analytics Model for an Outcome-Driven Quality Management Framework as Part of Professional Healthcare Education. JMIR Medical Education 1:2, e11. [Crossref]
124. Andrzej Lis, Agata Sudolska. 2015. Absorptive Capacity and Its Role for the Company Growth and Competitive Advantage: The Case of Frauenthal Automotive Toruń Company. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation 11:4, 63-91. [Crossref]
125. J.M. Denolf, J.H. Trienekens, J.G.A.J. van der Vorst, S.W.F. Omta. 2015. The role of governance structures in supply chain information sharing. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15:1, 83-99. [Crossref]
126. Eveliina Sivlen, Rauno Pirinen. Utilization of the integration readiness level in the context of industrial system projects 701-710. [Crossref]
127. Edith Andresen, Heléne Lundberg, Joakim Wincent. 2014. Processes in collaborative entrepreneurship: a longitudinal case study of how multiple actors exploit a radically new opportunity. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10:4, 713-726. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
128. Osden Jokonya, Jan H. Kroeze, John A. van der Poll. A Framework to Assist Organizations with IT Adoption Governance 1007-1014. [Crossref]
129. Kannan Govindan, Susana G. Azevedo, Helena Carvalho, V. Cruz-Machado. 2014. Impact of supply chain management practices on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 212-225. [Crossref]
130. Rob Jones. 2014. Bridging the Gap: Engaging in Scholarship with Accountancy Employers to Enhance Understanding of Skills Development and Employability. Accounting Education 23:6, 527-541. [Crossref]
131. D. Thresh Kumar, Murugesan Palaniappan, Devika Kannan, K. Madan Shankar. 2014. Analyzing the CSR issues behind the supplier selection process using ISM approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92, 268-278. [Crossref]
132. Joan C. Henderson. 2014. Hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup: opportunities and challenges for Qatar. Journal of Sport & Tourism 19:3-4, 281-298. [Crossref]
133. Erica C. Boling, Erica Holan, Brent Horbatt, Mary Hough, Jennifer Jean-Louis, Chesta Khurana, Hindi Krinsky, Christina Spiezio. 2014. Using online tools for communication and collaboration: Understanding educators' experiences in an online course. The Internet and Higher Education 23, 48-55. [Crossref]
134. Everton Drohomeretski, Sergio Gouvea da Costa, Edson Pinheiro de Lima. 2014. Green supply chain management. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 25:8, 1105-1134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
135. Barbara Bigliardi, Francesco Galati, Alberto Petroni. 2014. How to effectively manage knowledge in the construction industry. Measuring Business Excellence 18:3, 57-72. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
136. Damianos Giannakis, Michael J. Harker. 2014. Strategic alignment between relationship marketing and human resource management in financial services organizations. Journal of Strategic Marketing 22:5, 396-419. [Crossref]
137. Brendan James Gray, Suzanne Duncan, Jodyanne Kirkwood, Sara Walton. 2014. Encouraging sustainable entrepreneurship in climate-threatened communities: a Samoan case study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 26:5-6, 401-430. [Crossref]
138. Paul Jones, Geoff Simmons, Gary Packham, Paul Beynon-Davies, David Pickernell. 2014. An exploration of the attitudes and strategic responses of sole-proprietor micro-enterprises in adopting information and communication technology. International Small Business Journal 32:3, 285-306. [Crossref]
139. Paul Jones, Joanne Scherle, David Pickernell, Gary Packham, Heather Skinner, Tom Peisl. 2014. Fool's Gold? The Value of Business Awards to Small Businesses. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 15:2, 89-100. [Crossref]
140. Ellen Enkel, Sebastian Heil. 2014. Preparing for distant collaboration: Antecedents to potential absorptive capacity in cross- industry innovation. Technovation 34:4, 242-260. [Crossref]
141. Te Gao, Semiha Ergan, Burcu Akinci, James H. Garrett. 2014. Proactive Productivity Management at Job Sites: Understanding Characteristics of Assumptions Made for Construction Processes during Planning Based on Case Studies and Interviews. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 140:3, 04013054. [Crossref]
142. Nauman Zafar, Edin Arnautovic, Ali Diabat, Davor Svetinovic. 2014. System Security Requirements Analysis:A Smart Grid Case Study. Systems Engineering 17:1, 77-88. [Crossref]
143. Paula Luciana Bruschi Sanches, André Gustavo Carvalho Machado. 2014. Estratégias de inovação sob a perspectiva da Resourced-Based View: análise e evidências em empresas de base tecnológica. Gestão & Produção 21:1, 125-141. [Crossref]
144. Grant MacKerron, Maneesh Kumar, Vikas Kumar, Ann Esain. 2014. Supplier replenishment policy using e-Kanban: A framework for successful implementation. Production Planning & Control 25:2, 161-175. [Crossref]
145. Siti Aisyah Panatik Abdul Rahman, Syaharizatul N. Muktar. 2014. Building Communities of Practice and Knowledge Management at Malaysian Muslim-Dominated Organisations: Toward a Research Agenda. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 19-25. [Crossref]
146. Osden Jokonya. A study of users' perception of soft systems approaches during IT adoption in organizations 542-546. [Crossref]
147. Nor Aida Abdul Rahman, T.C. Melewar, Amir M. Sharif. 2014. The establishment of industrial branding through dyadic logistics partnership success (LPS): The case of the Malaysian automotive and logistics industry. Industrial Marketing Management 43:1, 67-76. [Crossref]
148. S.G. Azevedo, P. Prata, P. Fazendeiro. The role of radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies in improving process management and product tracking in the textiles and fashion supply chain 42-69. [Crossref]
149. Sandra Martínez, Miguel Mediavilla, Jenny Bäckstrand, Carolina Bernardos. Alignment of the Purchasing Strategy to the Business Strategy: An Empirical Study on a Harbour Cranes Company 51-58. [Crossref]
150. Mary Dempsey, Ralph Riedel, Martina Kelly. Serious Play as a Method for Process Design 395-402. [Crossref] 151. H. C. Greatwood, A. Daly-Smith, S. McGregor, J. McKenna. 2013. Year 7 dietary intake: a comparison of two schools with
middle-high socio-economic status. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 26:6, 563-569. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
152. Acácia Cristina Mendes Malhado, Rainer Rothfuss. 2013. Transporting 2014 FIFA World Cup to sustainability: exploring residents’ and tourists’ attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 5:3, 252-269. [Crossref]
153. Barry Barnes, John H. Humphreys, Jennifer D. Oyler, Stephanie S. Pane Haden, Milorad M. Novicevic. 2013. Transcending the power of hierarchy to facilitate shared leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 34:8, 741-762. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
154. Claudia Chackelson, Ander Errasti, David Ciprés, Fernando Lahoz. 2013. Evaluating order picking performance trade-offs by configuring main operating strategies in a retail distributor: A Design of Experiments approach. International Journal of Production Research 51:20, 6097-6109. [Crossref]
155. Susana G. Azevedo, Kannan Govindan, Helena Carvalho, V. Cruz-Machado. 2013. Ecosilient Index to assess the greenness and resilience of the upstream automotive supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 56, 131-146. [Crossref]
156. Husam Suleiman, Davor Svetinovic. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of the security quality requirements engineering (SQUARE) method: a case study using smart grid advanced metering infrastructure. Requirements Engineering 18:3, 251-279. [Crossref]
157. O. C. Ferrell, D. L. Keig. 2013. The Marketing Ethics Course: Current State and Future Directions. Journal of Marketing Education 35:2, 119-128. [Crossref]
158. Rodreck David, Patrick Ngulube, Adock Dube. 2013. A cost-benefit analysis of document management strategies used at a financial institution in Zimbabwe: A case study. SA Journal of Information Management 15:2. . [Crossref]
159. John H. Humphreys, Jane W. Gibson, Jennifer D. Oyler. 2013. Upward defiance in organizations: management lessons from the Battle of Blair Mountain. Journal of Management History 19:3, 304-327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
160. Benjamin Karatzoglou. 2013. An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to Education for Sustainable Development. Journal of Cleaner Production 49, 44-53. [Crossref]
161. Susana G. Azevedo, Helena Carvalho, Susana Duarte, V. Cruz-Machado. 2012. Influence of Green and Lean Upstream Supply Chain Management Practices on Business Sustainability. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59:4, 753-765. [Crossref]
162. Robert Ebo Hinson, Prince Kodua. 2012. Examining the marketing‐corporate social responsibility nexus. International Journal of Law and Management 54:5, 332-344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
163. Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, Patricia Santos, Davinia Hernández-Leo, Josep Blat. 2012. 4SPPIces: A case study of factors in a scripted collaborative-learning blended course across spatial locations. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 7:3, 443-465. [Crossref]
164. Susana G. Azevedo, Kannan Govindan, Helena Carvalho, V. Cruz-Machado. 2012. An integrated model to assess the leanness and agility of the automotive industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 66, 85-94. [Crossref]
165. Aggeliki Tsohou, Maria Karyda, Spyros Kokolakis, Evangelos Kiountouzis. 2012. Analyzing trajectories of information security awareness. Information Technology & People 25:3, 327-352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
166. Joanna Scott-Kennel, Zoe von Batenburg. 2012. The role of knowledge and learning in the internationalisation of professional service firms. The Service Industries Journal 32:10, 1667-1690. [Crossref]
167. Levent Altinay, Maureen Brookes. 2012. Factors influencing relationship development in franchise partnerships. Journal of Services Marketing 26:4, 278-292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
168. Stephen Chaney, Chris Ryan. 2012. Analyzing the evolution of Singapore's World Gourmet Summit: An example of gastronomic tourism. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:2, 309-318. [Crossref]
169. Nigel Bairstow, Louise Young. 2012. How channels evolve: A historical explanation. Industrial Marketing Management 41:3, 385-393. [Crossref]
170. D. Queiruga, J. González Benito, G. Lannelongue. 2012. Evolution of the electronic waste management system in Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production 24, 56-65. [Crossref]
171. Chris Ryan. Cross-Case Analysis 543-558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 172. Maria Kapsali. 2011. How to implement innovation policies through projects successfully. Technovation 31:12, 615-626.
[Crossref] 173. Susana G. Azevedo, Helena Carvalho, V. Cruz Machado. 2011. The influence of green practices on supply chain performance:
A case study approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47:6, 850-871. [Crossref] 174. Katarzyna Gadomska-Lila. 2011. Methodology of Research into Organisational Culture. Kwartalnik Ekonomistów i
Menedżerów 21:3, 11-25. [Crossref] 175. Helen T. Wagner, Susan C. Morton, Andrew R.J. Dainty, Neil D. Burns. 2011. Path dependent constraints on innovation
programmes in production and operations management. International Journal of Production Research 49:11, 3069-3085. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
176. Stephen M. Wigley, Aikaterini‐Konstantina Provelengiou. 2011. Market‐facing strategic alliances in the fashion sector. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 15:2, 141-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
177. Maria Kapsali. 2011. Systems thinking in innovation project management: A match that works. International Journal of Project Management 29:4, 396-407. [Crossref]
178. Helen Wagner, Sue Morton, Chris Backhouse. Only room for an ideas man - or is there more to CI for the less creative? 487-491. [Crossref]
179. Robert Hinson. 2010. The value chain and e-business in exporting: Case studies from Ghana’s non-traditional export (NTE) sector. Telematics and Informatics 27:3, 323-340. [Crossref]
180. Roland K. Yeo, Moktar Y. Ajam. 2010. Technological development and challenges in strategizing organizational change. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 18:3, 295-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
181. Ellen Enkel, Oliver Gassmann. 2010. Creative imitation: exploring the case of cross-industry innovation. R&D Management 40:3, 256-270. [Crossref]
182. Kalle Piirainen, Samuli Kortelainen, Kalle Elfvengren, Markku Tuominen. 2010. A scenario approach for assessing new business concepts. Management Research Review 33:6, 635-655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
183. Barbara Caemmerer, Alan Wilson. 2010. Customer feedback mechanisms and organisational learning in service operations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 30:3, 288-311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
184. H. T. Wagner, S. C. Morton, C. J. Backhouse. Belonging in the team, or chosen to be in the ‘in-group’ of the supervisor - which promotes more discretionary effort? 664-669. [Crossref]
185. Roland K. Yeo. 2009. Electronic Government as a Strategic Intervention in Organizational Change Processes. Journal of Change Management 9:3, 271-304. [Crossref]
186. Suku Bhaskaran, Helen Jenkins. 2009. Case study of processing firm‐distributor firm outsourcing alliance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20:6, 834-852. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
187. Dirk Reiser, Stuart Crispin. 2009. Local perceptions of the reimaging process. Journal of Place Management and Development 2:2, 109-124. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
188. Suku Bhaskaran, Emilija Gligorovska. 2009. Developing and sustaining joint enterprises in a transitional economy. British Food Journal 111:7, 643-659. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
189. Ander Errasti, Roger Beach, Chike Oduoza, Unai Apaolaza. 2009. Close coupling value chain functions to improve subcontractor manufacturing performance. International Journal of Project Management 27:3, 261-269. [Crossref]
190. Riadh Azouzi, Robert Beauregard, Sophie D’Amours. 2009. Exploratory case studies on manufacturing agility in the furniture industry. Management Research News 32:5, 424-439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
191. Oliver Krone, Antti Syväjärvi, Jari Stenvall. 2009. Knowledge integration for enterprise resources planning application design. Knowledge and Process Management 16:1, 1-12. [Crossref]
192. Chee Yew Wong, Sakun Boon-itt. 2008. The influence of institutional norms and environmental uncertainty on supply chain integration in the Thai automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics 115:2, 400-410. [Crossref]
193. Loi Teck Hui, Quek Kia Fatt. 2008. Academic Rigour, Managerial Relevance and Triangulation of Research Methods. Industry and Higher Education 22:4, 253-259. [Crossref]
194. Maryati Mohd. Yusof, Jasna Kuljis, Anastasia Papazafeiropoulou, Lampros K. Stergioulas. 2008. An evaluation framework for Health Information Systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit). International Journal of Medical Informatics 77:6, 386-398. [Crossref]
195. Ranis Cheng, Tony Hines, Ian Grime. 2008. Desired and perceived identities of fashion retailers. European Journal of Marketing 42:5/6, 682-701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
196. Steen Nielsen, Erland H. Nielsen. 2008. System dynamics modelling for a balanced scorecard. Management Research News 31:3, 169-188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
197. David C. Ireland, Damian Hine. 2007. Harmonizing science and business agendas for growth in new biotechnology firms: Case comparisons from five countries. Technovation 27:11, 676-692. [Crossref]
198. LYDIA KILCULLEN, PHIL HANCOCK, H. Y. IZAN. 2007. User Requirements for Not-For-Profit Entity Financial Reporting: An International Comparison. Australian Accounting Review 17:43, 26-37. [Crossref]
199. Fadi Kattan, Richard Pike, Mike Tayles. 2007. Reliance on management accounting under environmental uncertainty. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 3:3, 227-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
200. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Alan Wilson. 2007. The role of internal branding in the delivery of employee brand promise. Journal of Brand Management 15:1, 57-70. [Crossref]
201. Elisa Martinelli, Gianluca Marchi. 2007. Enabling and inhibiting factors in adoption of Electronic-Reverse auctions: A longitudinal case study in grocery retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 17:3, 203-218. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
202. Ander Errasti, Roger Beach, Aitor Oyarbide, Javier Santos. 2007. A process for developing partnerships with subcontractors in the construction industry: An empirical study. International Journal of Project Management 25:3, 250-256. [Crossref]
203. LYDIA KILCULLEN, PHIL HANCOCK, H. Y. IZAN. 2007. User Requirements for Not-For-Profit Entity Financial Reporting: An International Comparison. Australian Accounting Review 17:41, 26-37. [Crossref]
204. Niels N. Grünbaum. 2007. Identification of ambiguity in the case study research typology: what is a unit of analysis?. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 10:1, 78-97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
205. M. Webster, R. Beach, I. Fouweather. 2006. E‐business strategy development: an FMCG sector case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11:4, 353-362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
206. Robert A. Opoku. 2006. Gathering customer feedback online and Swedish SMEs. Management Research News 29:3, 106-127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
207. M.Mohd. Yusof, R.J. Paul, L.K. Stergioulas. Towards a Framework for Health Information Systems Evaluation 95a-95a. [Crossref]
208. Somchai Numprasertchai, Barbara Igel. 2005. Managing knowledge through collaboration: multiple case studies of managing research in university laboratories in Thailand. Technovation 25:10, 1173-1182. [Crossref]
209. Patrick Ngulube. 2005. Research procedures used by Master of Information Studies students at the University of Natal in the period 1982–2002 with special reference to their sampling techniques and survey response rates: A methodological discourse. The International Information & Library Review 37:2, 127-143. [Crossref]
210. Patrick Ngulube. 2005. Research procedures used by Master of Information Studies students at the University of Natal in the period 1982–2002 with special reference to their sampling techniques and survey response rates: A methodological discourse#. International Information & Library Review 37:2, 127-143. [Crossref]
211. H. A. Bassioni, A. D. F. Price, T. M. Hassan. 2005. Building a conceptual framework for measuring business performance in construction: an empirical evaluation. Construction Management and Economics 23:5, 495-507. [Crossref]
212. Barbara Igel, Somchai Numprasertchai. 2004. Managing knowledge for innovation: Multiple case studies of science-based R&D in Thailand. Innovation 6:3, 404-415. [Crossref]
213. Suku Bhaskaran. 2004. Strategic experimentation and innovation in rural Australia. British Food Journal 106:2, 141-152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
214. John Pratten, Christopher Lovatt. 2003. Sex discrimination in the licensed trade: a study of the differing attitudes to legal matters. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 15:7, 379-385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
215. B. Igel, S. Numprasertchai. Knowledge management in university R&D in Thailand 463-467. [Crossref] 216. Chi Maher. Public Policy 126-146. [Crossref] 217. Chi Maher. Public Policies Impact on Third Sector Social Enterprises in UK Regions 246-266. [Crossref] 218. Michael S. Dillard. Views of Technology Importance for Developmental Students at the Community College Level 196-216.
[Crossref] 219. Algan Tezel, Zeeshan Aziz, Chuxiong Jiang. BIM Based Design Management of a Building Project Collaboratively Designed
With a Foreign Design Firm in China 902-927. [Crossref] 220. Tenisha Tevis. The Challenges and Responsibilities of White Women in Leadership 125-143. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by S
am H
ou st
on S
ta te
U ni
ve rs
ity A
t 0 6:
02 0
8 N
ov em
be r
20 18
( PT
)
