1,721,268 research outputs found
Conceptual and Empirical Challenges in the Study of Firm Growth
No full textWhen the first author reviewed the literature on small firm growth in the mid 1980’s for his disserta-tion work, he noted that surprisingly few studies had focused on that specific problem (Davidsson 1989a; 1989b). Today, this is no longer true. In recent years ever more comprehensive lists of studies have been compiled and reviewed. Storey (1994) compiled results from more than 25 studies. Delmar (1997) scrutinized the operationalizations of growth in 55 studies. The second author of the present manuscript recently reviewed and classified close to 70 studies for his dissertation work (Wiklund, 1998), while Ardishvili, Cardozo, Harmon & Vadakath (1998) included in their classification a full 105 published and unpublished studies focusing on new and/or small firm growth. \ud
However, rather than presenting a set of solid generalizations on the causes and effects of growth, these reviewers all tend to come up with relatively critical accounts. These criticisms concern both theoretical and methodological shortcomings. (Storey, 1994, p. 5; 125, Cooper, 1995, p. 120; Delmar (1997, pp. 205; 212; Wiklund, 1998, pp. 6-7; 19; Ardishvili et al, 1998, p. 1) \ud
In addition to the above evaluations of research specifically on growth, we also have the observation that longitudinal designs are generally lacking in entrepreneurship research (Cooper 1995, p. 112; Wik-lund 1998, p. 7). In the latest ‘State-of-the-Art’ volume, several authors mentioned the lack of longitu-dinal studies in entrepreneurship research as a major impediment (Aldrich & Baker, 1997, p. 389; Sex-ton, 1997, p. 407) \ud
As a result of the shortcomings pointed out by the critics, it is still true today that knowledge about what facilitates and hinders growth is still scattered and limited. The same is true for insights into the process of firm growth. Apparently, the large number of empirical studies has not given a very high yield of generalizable knowledge. This suggests that researchers who set out to contribute meaningfully to this line of empirical research have a number of challenges to deal with. On the basis of the criticism summarized above we would suggest that some of the more important challenges are the following:\ud
• to develop a satisfactory basic research design\ud
• to apply a well-founded conceptualization of growth, which in turn requires a well thought-out con-ceptualization of ‘the firm’\ud
• to adequately match this conceptualization with the purpose of the study, the theories used, and the operationalization of growth.\ud
\ud
In the remainder of this chapter we will elaborate our views on these challenges. In the next section we will argue that growth studies need to be longitudinal, and why this is so. We will then turn to the conceptualization of the firm and the unit of analysis in growth studies, which turns out to be a really difficult problem. After that we discuss theoretical perspectives and how these match with different conceptualizations of the firm. Finally, we turn to operationalization issues, i.e. the choice of growth indicators, specific ways to model growth trajectories, and the distinction between organic and acquired growth. Throughout, we also discuss how these issues relate to different purposes, i.e. whose knowl-edge interests the study aims to satisfy
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe 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
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Refining gear measurement uncertainty calculations by using the WelchSatterthwaite equation for effective degrees of freedom
No full textWhen carrying out any form of precision measurement, early consideration should be given to the uncertainty of the measurement results. The primary reference document for evaluation is the "ISO Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement". When dealing with variable measurement data on a continuous scale, the structure and mathematical methods will remain similar over different instruments, however the specific sources of error and uncertainty will be dependent upon the instrument and nature of the quantity under study. Various mathematical models are used to calculate uncertainty (such as partial derivatives and the MonteCarlo method). In gear measurement BS ISO 18653:2003 addresses traceability, calibration intervals, sources of measurement uncertainty or errorsincluding mechanical alignment and drift (among others). Basic instrument checks include environmental factors and methods to evaluate gear uncertainty. The UK National Gear Metrology Laboratory (NGML) utilises the "spreadsheet model"to evaluate measurement uncertainty. The evaluation of gear dimensions defined in ISO 1328-1:2013 requires specific elements of the gear (profile, lead or helix, and pitch) to be considered independently, so a series of spreadsheets are utilised. Since each of the various sources of uncertainty generally have a small number of repeat checks (if any), applying the Welch-Satterthwaite equation allows effective degrees of freedom (veff) to be calculated for all the sources related to the specific element under study. This will result in a working model which can calculate a coverage factor (k) based on a confidence interval that will compensate for any number of repeat measurements (n) from each source, and therefore result in a more statistically sound outcome
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
- …
