高管危机警觉性是如何影响组织创新的？一个双中介模型

文章基于信息加工理论以及“信息→认知→行动”框架，探索并验证了高管危机警觉性与组织二元创新策略间（渐进式创新和突变式创新）的内在机制与路径模型，即组织响应和组织自省的双中介效应。本研究基于218家企业调研数据，所采用的层次回归、结构方程建模和Bootstrapping等方法的检验结果显示，高管危机警觉性正向影响组织渐进式创新和突变式创新；高管危机警觉性通过组织响应影响渐进式创新，通过组织自省影响突变式创新。研究结论为企业在危机下实现绿色创新与可持续发展提供理论与实践启示。     

Gradual stimulation of respondents' reflexivity: A research design for studying unreflexive consumers

In interpretive research accounts, reflexivity has been understood primarily in terms of the researcher's reflexivity, while the respondent's reflexivity has been considered only marginally. We regard this gap as critical and therefore introduce a research design for the gradual stimulation of respondents' reflexivity (GSRR), which we propose as a methodological tool for strengthening research validity. First, to frame our argumentation in the contemporary socio-technological context, we emphasize the need to focus on the respondent's reflexivity in the onto-epistemological conditions of the hybrid space and posthuman consumer culture, which unprecedentedly eliminate actors' abilities to monitor their actions reflexively. Second, we present and methodologically examine the GSRR as a 3-phase sequential mixed-method research design for stimulating respondents' reflexivity. GSRR's logic is as follows: the questionnaire captures what respondents think they are doing; the digital self-tracking diary captures what they are doing and what they often do not acknowledge (unreflexivity); the interviews use the previous phases' data to elicit respondents' reflexivity. Third, we present examples from our research practice to demonstrate the strengthening of data validity elicited from respondents by stimulating their reflexivity. We conclude by outlining the GSRR's possible future applications and directions.     

Reframing fundraising research: The challenges and opportunities of interpretivist research practices and practitioner researchers in fundraising studies

This paper examines interpretivism as an approach for researching fundraising practice as context and practice specific. In doing so, it highlights the agency of fundraisers and extends critical analysis of fundraising practice and its broader implications in ways that the dominant positivistic, functionalist literature does not. Building on previous comparisons of positivist and interpretivist approaches, we consider two fundraising studies, and benefits and challenges of using an interpretivist approach. These observations highlight both the complexity and messiness of interpretivist studies, and of the fundraising process. The paper concludes by discussing how these challenges can be managed through analytical iteration, adjustment, and pragmatism throughout the research process; while advocating for including more critical and dialectic approaches to research fundraising and fundraisers' broader practice.