Suchergebnisse

In this article, Romeo V. Turcan was interviewed about the aftermath and sustainability of the EUniAM project he coordinated and implemented in Moldova between 2012-2015. Current and former ministers of education, university rectors, head of academy of science were also interviewed expressing their views on the sustainability of the EUniAM project.

Historically, bubbles have been understood primarily in financial-economic terms. In this exciting new work, Dholakia and Turcan argue that bubbles are also a socio-political and cultural phenomena, with intense and accelerating interactions of engineered hype and feverish expectations

Purpose
Fintech is an "untilled field" in which the relation between Fintechs and incumbents is yet to be understood. This paper aims to explore this relationship and advance its theoretical and practical understanding. It further contributes toward Fintech paradigm and research domain emergence that both to date remain yet elusive.


Design/methodology/approach
This paper adopted a multiple-case study strategy for the purpose of theory building. Seven players from the Fintech ecosystem in Quebec (Canada) were selected, representing financial institutions, Fintech start-ups and Quebec's financial cluster. Primary data was collected via in-depth interviews with ten respondents at the level of vice presidents, Managers, directors, chief executive officers and founders, and unobtrusive data – in the form of running records, mass-media news reports, presentations and proceedings from Fintech events. Data analysis was informed by grounded theory methods and techniques.


Findings
Grounded in data, this paper puts forward a typology of "comfort zoning" and its four types: nimbling, imperiling, cocooning and discomforting.


Research limitations/implications
Following the tenets of the grounded theory, four criteria are used to evaluate the emergent theory: fit, relevance, workability and modifiability. It is expected the interpretation and adoption of comfort zoning typology will be challenged, modified and enhanced by Fintech researchers and practitioners.


Practical implications
The comfort zoning typology would aid practitioners in their efforts to define and refine the domain of Fintech, problematize it and eventually enhance the relationship between Fintechs.


Originality/value
This paper fulfills an identified need to explore the relationship between Fintechs and incumbents and advance the theoretical and practical understanding of this relationship.

In this paper, we explore how, why and which structures are consequential to the organization of technology entrepreneurship. Technology entrepreneurship is a relatively unexplored field of research; yet body of research in this promising area of scholarly enquiry, both theoretically and empirically is emerging. Inspired by elements of the Grounded Theory research methods for data collection and data analysis we explore (i) the process of technology entrepreneurship at different levels: university, industry, and government, including the nature of tensions, obstacles and incentives, (ii) the relationships between key stakeholders from these three levels, and (iii) the meaning/reality that is construed by these stakeholders as a result of these relationships. The research was undertaken in four universities in the UK and one in Australia. Coding of the data revealed thirteen constructs, which are presented as an integrative model of technology entrepreneurship. From the emergent model of technology entrepreneurship we move to a higher level of theorizing and develop a framework of the organization of technology entrepreneurship.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the process of creation and legitimation of new industries. Specifically, the question we address is how to cross the gulf between no industry and embryonic industry in order for a new industry to emerge. In this, our focus is on the process of change from an initial condition in which an industry does not exist to a final condition in which it is institutionalized. We ground our discussion in a typology of legitimation. Both authors bring to the discussion their ethnographic experience in creating and legitimating new industries and new ventures such as software, consulting and NGO, as well as de-legitimating existing industries, such as military and power. The contribution of this paper lies in its combined theoretical and practical focus on a phenomenon that has received scant attention in academic research and has been inefficiently practiced by policy makers and development organizations.

Dholakia and Turcan present their interdisciplinary metatheory of bubbles with short case studies of minor and major bubbles. They comprehensively identify and exemplify constructs of the theory, set its temporal and contextual boundaries, and examine the underlying economic, psychological, and social dynamics assumptions, explaining how these elements are related. By doing so, they provide a partial window into the precarious nature of contemporary finance-driven capitalism and suggest some possible ways of overcoming the wrenching ups and downs of the prevalent system. The case studies and original research in Toward a Metatheory of Economic Bubbles have far-reaching implications for the study and practice of entrepreneurship and marketing, public and corporate finance, and public policies towards innovation, economy, and finance. It contributes to the defining issues for economic sociology that describe the relationship between the economic and the social.

PurposeBubbles – technology, stock market, housing, and more – have punctuated modern economic history with some regularity, and seem to be happening with greater frequency in recent periods. Part of the authors' larger work on a meta‐theory of bubbles, this paper aims to compare and contrast bubbles in the fields of entertainment, technology, commodities, housing, and stock markets. It seeks to offer a typology of bubbles.Design/methodology/approachUsing the literature on bubbles and related socioeconomic phenomena, and experience‐based insights, the paper compares and contrasts bubbles in different fields, to derive inductively a typology of bubbles.FindingsThe paper finds six main types of bubbles, ranging from relatively harmless transient and playful bubbles for some movies at one end, to socially dangerous, contagious, irrational and punctured bubbles at the other end, for stock markets or real estate.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the dimensions that lead to bubbles can provide policymakers with some early intervention tools – to prevent dangerous bubbles.Social implicationsThe insights into dimensions and processes of bubble formation presented provide society with a way to judge actors (businesses, public policymakers) and institutions in terms of their roles in creating or managing bubbles.Originality/valueThe main contribution here is the development of two sets of dimensions – the immediate asset‐linked dimensions and somewhat removed but even more powerful meta‐dimensions – that contribute to the formation or collapse of bubbles.

Chapter 1. Politics and Curriculum Content in a Global Perspective: Addressing the Populism Tsunami; John E. Reilly and Romeo V. Turcan -- Chapter 2. Making Sense of Emerging Populist Agendas; Peter Scott -- Chapter 3. Challenges for the University: Recovering Authentic Liberal Culture during Ascendant and Populist Neoliberalism; Nikhilesh Dholakia, A. Fuat Fırat, Aras Ozgun, and Deniz Atik -- Chapter 4. The Origins of the Current 'Crisis' facing British Universities: Ideology or Incrementalism; John Baldock -- Chapter 5. The Paradox of Democracy; Samuel Rachlin -- Chapter 6. Modern Border Security; Rt Hon Bruce George, OBE -- Chapter 7. Management , Philosophy and Consciousness in the shaping of PBL; Michael Fast and Woodrow W. Clark II -- Chapter 8. Is University Management Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution for PBL Development and Critical Thinking?; Birgitte Gregersen -- Chapter 9. The Socially Engaged University: The Complexities of Business Relations under the New Political Paradigm; Olav Jull Sørensen -- Chapter 10. Stakeholder Politics and PBL Curriculum: A Learner Perspective; Maria Kriegsbaum and Bernadett Deak -- Chapter 11. Internships: Meeting Stakeholder Demand for Vocational Curriculum? Benefits and Costs of PBL Based Practice-Learning; Jesper Lindgaard Christensen -- Chapter 12. PBL: A Teaching and Learning Concept is Facing Artificial Intelligence; Ralph Dreher and Gesine Haseloff -- Chapter 13. PBL and Social Inclusion; Sofia Daskou and Nikolaos Tzokas -- Chapter 14. Establishing a Link between Meaning and Success via PBL: Rethinking Entrepreneurship and Communication; Kim Malmbak Møller, Mads, Lauridsen, and Jeppe Spedtsberg -- Chapter 15. Storytelling Sustainability in Problem-Based Learning; Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgensen and David M. Boje -- Chapter 16. Liquid Times - Newness and Uncertainty: An Innovative AAU PBL Response; Romeo V. Turcan -- Chapter 17. In my End is my Beginning; John E. Reilly and Romeo V. Turcan.

In this 'Speaking Out' paper, we challenge contemporary orthodoxies in the field of 'advanced structural' internationalization of universities by focusing on significant, but neglected issues and challenges which arise from the current substantive developments in this field. By referring to 'advanced structural' internationalization, we want to distinguish between what might be broadly defined as internationalization at home and internationalization abroad, which we consider 'structural'. 'Advanced structural' precisely because it involves transporting and re-engineering relations with governments, partners, students and other stakeholders and tends to be high risk, high commitment, and high cost. We 'look' at 'advanced structural' internationalization through the theoretical lenses of university autonomy. Since there is limited research at the intersection of international business and university autonomy, along with our experience, we draw on publicly available data relating to issues and challenges which arise from the pursuit of 'advanced structural' internationalization in higher education to construct an analytical narrative and ethical discourse appropriate to the radically changing structural, theoretical, and ideological realities we now face in this field. 'Advanced structural' internationalization poses serious ethical questions, which suggest that it does not have strong ethical foundations. In this conclusion, we are influenced by the degree of difference between university autonomy settings at home and the operation in the host country. The greater the disparity the more it is likely that the standards and practices which would be applied in the home environment fail to apply in the host. Hence, our thesis: 'advanced structural' internationalization of universities is unethical.