Academics and universities worldwide have increasingly been subjected to monitoring and evaluation of research outputs. Research impact has become a buzzword, and the use of metrics for research evaluation has become an integral part of the academic landscape. The adverse impact of this audit culture is well documented (Adler and Harzing 2009; Mingers and Willmott 2013). A reversal of this trend, however, is unlikely; it is therefore important for academics to be aware of these debates. This chapter provides a brief introduction into research impact, based on my academic research in the area, over 12 years of user support for Publish or Perish (Harzing 2007) – a free software program for citation analysis – and my presentations and blogposts on the topic.
Anne-Wil Harzing, B. Sebastian Reiche and Markus Pudelko
Scholars performing intercultural survey research encounter a number of challenges that reach beyond those typical for domestic research. This chapter explores the specific issues that arise during intercultural survey research, differentiating between the key stages of the research process: determining the study population and data access, survey development, survey and data collection process, data analysis, and publication of results. For each stage, we review the relevant literature, offer illustrations that draw on examples from our own research, and provide suggestions for improving the quality of intercultural survey research.
Lena Zander, Audra I. Mockaitis, Anne-Wil Harzing, Willhelm Barner-Rasmussen, Cordula Barzantny, Srabani Roy Choudhury, Anabella Davila, Joyce De Leon, Alvaro Espejo, Rita Ferreira, Axèle Giroud, Kathrin Köster, Yung-Kuei Liang, Michael J. Morley, Barbara Myloni, Joseph O.T. Odusanya, Sharon L. O’Sullivan, Ananda Kumar Palaniappan, Paulo Prochno, Ayse Saka-Helmhout, Sununta Siengthai, Ayda Uzunçarşılı Soydaş and Linda Viswat
The field of cross-cultural leadership has seen a boom in empirical research over the last few decades, yet there are still few large-scale studies that seek explanations for leadership behavior. Earlier research has provided knowledge and awareness about differences and similarities in leadership attitudes, ideals, perceptions and preferences across countries and cultures, but to predict leadership behavior remains difficult. In this chapter, leader’s ‘action intent’ is proposed as a ‘close-to-action’ concept in contrast to the more ‘far-from-action’ concepts used in earlier leadership research. Importantly, for ‘close-to-action’ concepts to be able to provide better predictions these need to provide contextual and situational cues. In our study, carried out in 22 countries, respondents have ranked their preferred action alternative for six specific leadership scenarios. We find inter-country and intra-country variation in action intent for each scenario and meaningful correlations with culturally endorsed leadership ideals. Drawing on our empirical illustration we provide implications from our findings for global leadership. And although there are no simple answers as to how to predict leadership behavior, we posit that using ‘action intent’ as a leadership measure will generate a better understanding and provide stronger predictions of leader behavior globally.