1,721,027 research outputs found
Empirical research on nonprofit boards: Main features and differences from the literature on corporate and public boards
No full text
The “risk” approach and the standards to fight corruption in public organizations
No full textThe prevention of corruption is analyzed through the study of corruption prevention plans. In Italy, the Law No. 190/2012 introduced a risk-management logic applied to fight against corruption. In this regard, the implementation of a risk-management process is instrumental to the identification and assessment of the risks to which an organization is exposed, and to the definition of a response strategy aimed at containing the adverse effects that potentially can be manifested. The chapter carries out a critical analysis of the risk management methodology applied to the preparation of the three-year corruption prevention plans
Moi(s) Montaigne, Bordeaux, 6 novembre-1er décembre 2023
No full textSixième Moi(s) Montaigne - 6 novembre – 1er décembre 2023 « Regarder le monde avec Montaigne » Invité du Moi(s) : Frédéric Tinguely À la fin d’une période qui fut celle des « grandes découvertes » et de l’invention de l’imprimerie et qui s’acheva dans les guerres de Religion et la faillite du rêve humaniste, Montaigne pose un regard complexe sur le monde: sceptique, critique, ironique, décalé, décentré… Ce sixième Moi(s) Montaigne invite les auditeurs à regarder le monde par les yeux de ..
6e "Moi(s) Montaigne" à Bordeaux (6 novembre - 1er décembre 2023)
No full textLa sixième édition du "Moi(s) Montaigne" se tiendra à Bordeaux entre le 6 novembre et le 1er décembre 2023, avec pour invité Frédéric Tinguely, de l'université de Genève. Un colloque autour de La Glose et l'Essai d'André Tournon se tiendra dans le cadre du "Moi(s)". Pour plus d'informations sur l'organisation du "Moi(s) Montaigne" et du colloque consacré à André Tournon, veuillez consulter le site du Centre Montaigne (ou cliquez ici)
Empirical research on nonprofit boards: main features and differences from the literature on corporate and public boards
No full textPurpose. Recent literature on nonprofit boards of directors has extensively investigated the composition, role, responsibilities, and characteristics of boards. Given the growing number of studies on nonprofit boards, which added new impulse to the debate on the role and characteristics of these players, it is time to analyze the state of the art and systematize the current knowledge. On the other hand, despite the presence of some literature reviews, a research comparing the debate among the nonprofit, private, and public sectors is still lacking. Using Gabrielsson and Huse’s (2004) framework, we wanted to identify factors that can influence research on nonprofit boards and compare our results with existing studies on private and public sector.
Methodology/Approach.
We conduct a systematic literature review, selecting empirical articles published in international scientific journals from 1992 to 2012.
Findings.
We found similarities and differences in relation to research on boards among sectors. As a common result, we found that evolutionary studies still remains a neglected area in all of three realms. Finally, whereas input–output studies prevail in the private sector and contingency studies prevail in the public sector, behavioral studies prevail in the nonprofit sector, demonstrating, also, that the sector itself can make a difference in the board’s research.
Research Limitations/Implications.
This literature review provides some suggestion for further research on boards for all of three sectors. For example, we suggest complementing research on boards on all three sectors, especially in relation to evolutionary studies.
Originality/Value of Paper.
This paper fills the need to clarify the status of research on nonprofit boards, in order to address scholars in the understanding of the phenomenon
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
