American Marketing Association
Researchers from University of Arizona and University of Utah published a new paper in the Journal of Marketing that examines why most scholarly research is misinterpreted by the public or never escapes the ivory tower and suggests that such research gets lost in abstract, technical, and passive prose.
The study, forthcoming in the Journal of Marketing, is titled “Marketing Ideas: How to Write Research Articles that Readers Understand and Cite” and is authored by Nooshin L. Warren, Matthew Farmer, Tiany Gu, and Caleb Warren.
From developing vaccines to nudging people to eat less, scholars conduct research that could change the world, but most of their ideas either are misinterpreted by the public or never escape the ivory tower.
Schools highlight just a few of the ways their faculty are making a difference and their strategies for making impactful research the norm, not the exception.
How are business schools promoting research that improves business practice and changes society for the better? What does such research look like in real-world contexts? And how are schools quantifying its true impact?
Business school administrators and scholars are still working out how to respond to these complex questions, but the answers are becoming clearer. Not only have revised accreditation standards encouraged schools to place stronger emphasis on engagement and societal impact, but the pandemic has underscored, on an even larger scale, the important role that business research can play in helping humanity solve seemingly intractable problems.
The Price Leaders Pay for Cutting Ethical Corners
Asking employees to take questionable shortcuts can hurt their motivation and their performance.
Topics An
Member Free
Subscribe $75/Year
Image courtesy of Brian Stauffer/theispot.com
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for leaders to ask their employees to cross ethical lines. Consider the following examples from a pilot study we recently conducted: A sales representative at a retail company was asked to grant credit approval to unqualified customers who were friends of her supervisor; a field technician at a communications company was asked by management to close telephone repair tickets for elderly customers whose phones were not fixed; and an engineer in the transportation industry was asked to approve projects that he felt were at risk for structural failure.
Why do people post salacious photos or incendiary comments on social media, when the damage to their relationships, reputation and careers could be permanent? Why do we prefer to hire people who reveal unsavory information about themselves relative to those who simply choose not to disclose? Why are people more likely to disclose the fact that they cheated on their taxes on a website called “How BAD r U?” that clearly offers no privacy protection than on a sober-looking site with privacy safeguards? And why did Target face consumer ire for sending pregnancy-related coupons to a teenage customer it (correctly) inferred to be pregnant? Yet, how come Amazon can make product recommendations conspicuously based on users’ behavior without seemingly provoking privacy backlash? These questions are all manifestations of the privacy paradox: the apparent disconnect between people’s privacy preferences and behavior.
Kumon or Montessori? It may depend on your politics scienceblog.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from scienceblog.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.