Bath Business and Society

Research, analysis and comment on the role of business in society from Bath's School of Management

Topic: Research

Six tips for making interdisciplinary research work

  , , ,

📥  Business and society, Research, Sustainability

 

Interdisciplinary work holds lots of promise for business and society research, but it is also highly challenging. Sarah Glozer, Deputy Director of the Centre of Business, Organisations and Society, summarises the advice from our recent event about how to make it work in practice.

 

As universities, journals and funding bodies call for greater interdisciplinarity in our research, we brought an international group of academics together last night to debate one key question: how do we make interdisciplinary research work in the context of business and society research? Over food, drinks and a good dose of speed networking, we debated the challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinarity. Here are our top six tips for success.

 

1. Keep it practical. The best way to galvanise interdisciplinary interest around an issue is to get your hands dirty. See the issues first hand and focus on a specific problem or challenge with real-world impact. Trying to artificially force researchers together from different disciplines and expecting to see ‘something new’, risks getting stuck in the weeds. Get out there, find your common problem, and take it from there. This is about making it matter and developing problem-based teams.

 

2. Look for the easy wins. It is arguably easier to make novel contributions and have more meaningful impact in interdisciplinary teams. Knowing your respective subjects so well, it is easy to identify gaps when you start comparing across disciplines. We are trained to have deep areas of specialism, so let’s exploit these. Issues of business and society cannot be dealt with by each of us on our own, and so think about what skills you can bring to the table and don’t be afraid to make broad assertions early on to establish common ground.

 

3. Speak the same language. In interdisciplinary research, it is important to really integrate the scope of the work across the team, not just pay lip service to ‘collaboration’. Make sure that all parties are involved from the get go to avoid being perceived as convenient ‘add-ons’ and make sure to generate a shared package of work. This is about identifying capabilities (and points of disconnect) from the outset, and being transparent. This might even involve going back to basics… What’s the point? Why do we need an interdisciplinary perspective here? What’s the added value?

 

4. Set a goal. Interdisciplinarity requires a change in mindset. We need to be open minded and define a shared goal. In business, the goal of collaborative efforts is making money. In academia, what is the goal? More importantly, in business and society research who are our key stakeholders? Yes, we want to solve problems, yes, we want to generate good scholarship, but is there more to the project than this? An aligned goal and a joint framing of questions sets the core focus and breaks down silos.

 

5. Build relationships. We need to learn from each other and so we should base teams not just on skills, but also attitude. Interdisciplinarity teaches us to be tolerant, but most importantly, we learned last night that the best projects are those where we establish healthy ways of working. Let’s enjoy this. Interdisciplinary research can be exciting and stimulating. If it’s a pleasure, we are learning. And if we are learning, we are likely breaking new ground. The successful teams are those that embrace ignorance and aren’t afraid to get out of their comfort zone. It is easier to do this with researchers you can call friends, or where there is mutual respect for one another’s work.

 

6. Break the mould. Let’s be clear about the challenges. This isn’t easy, particularly for early career academics. We need to create the right environment and recognise that we have different measures of output in different disciplines. Are we talking impact, funding or journal rankings, or all three as measures of success? Whilst we have the intention to be interdisciplinary, the system can sometimes stifle creativity. How do we get the gatekeepers to really buy into this? How can we work to break the mould for early academic leaders of tomorrow?

 

Prof Andy Crane, panellists and guests at CBOS Interdisciplinary event, held at No15 Great Pulteney. Photo by Sarah Glozer.

 

To round off the event, the panellists were asked for their final comments on the question, ‘What advice would you give to inspire interdisciplinarity in business and society research?’

  •  “It’s about solving problems and changing the world. We have to be open to new perspectives.Adam Joinson, Professor of Information Systems, University of Bath

 

  • Listen, talk and form a gang. You can make a new field. Just look at the business ethics area which was formed from the interaction of moral philosophers and social scientists.Laura Spence, Professor of Business Ethics, Royal Holloway, University of London

 

  • Form educational systems across disciplines and learn from one another.Mette Morsing, Mistra Chair of Sustainable Markets and Scientific Director at Misum, Stockholm School of Economics

 

  • There are differences and diversity even within disciplines. Let’s recognise this and identify synergies. Don’t just focus on the lowest common denominator.Julie Barnett, Professor of Health Psychology, University of Bath

 

  •  “Impact, stimulation and let’s recognise power. What structures enable and constrain our activities?David Cooper, Professor in Accountancy, Alberta School of Business

 

Feature image by cactusbeetroot under CC BY-NC-2.0

 

Business schools still have work to do to prepare future managers for a "Better World"

  , , ,

📥  Business and society, Education, Research

 

 

The latest rankings exercise from Corporate Knights aims to show how far business schools are incorporating sustainability into their research and teaching. While the results show that progress is being made, there are also questions around how business schools engage with such exercises, and whether we're getting a truly global view of business school practice. In this piece, Annie Snelson-Powell questions what such rankings exercises really tell us about how future managers are being educated in sustainable business practice. 

October 16th saw the publication of the 2017 Corporate Knights Better World MBA ranking. This exercise provides an annual assessment of sustainability at all full-time MBA programmes that choose to opt into the Corporate Knights process of evaluation, and also includes the top Financial Times (FT) Global MBA programmes.

These global business schools are evaluated via a methodology which involves three key criteria: the presence of core courses on sustainability in the MBA curriculum; school affiliation with related institutes and centres; and the faculty’s research as gauged by the volume of related publications and citations.

The Corporate Knights report reminds us that the role of business schools in educating future leaders is particularly crucial as it’s these new managers who will shape how all types of organisations address sustainability through their decisions and actions.  The report suggests that both society and the business school sector may often fail to sufficiently recognise their responsibilities and opportunities offered by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

As scholars, we also question the actions and motivations of organisations in their approach to sustainability, including a critical concern for how business schools are addressing their responsibilities.  We look to activities at the most prestigious business schools in particular, since their actions serve to define and redefine what an ideal business school should do and hence eventually influence behaviour in the sector overall.  Our earlier research on UK business schools found that while some business schools were failing to implement sustainability, there were also examples of meaningful activity from many schools including the most prestigious.

These findings are echoed in this world-wide evaluation which shows that the six most highly ranked MBA programmes in the world all feature in the Better World MBA ranking this year.  In fact, of the 40 MBA programmes included in the Corporate Knights' list, 18 are also rated as top FT MBAs.  This link between prestige and sustainability is heartening and serves to indicate that we might expect an upward curve in the uptake of sustainability in the MBA as other business schools across the sector follow suit.

However, before we become too complacent about this important progress, questions remain.  Is this uptake of sustainability also reflecting the expertise of the prestigious business schools in becoming ever-more savvy at performing well in the whole suite of games relating to accreditations, rankings and evaluation?  Now that AMBA and other accreditation bodies stipulate that attention must be paid to sustainability, are these business schools merely delivering the minimum required to maintain their status and memberships?  Is signalling an interest in sustainability another means to sway stakeholders without fulsomely addressing some of the profound and inherent tensions faced by business theories and practice, such as the pursuit of maximum short-term profit versus a longer term sustainable means of doing business that respects the environment and society?

Looking more carefully at the MBA curriculum itself, arguably the most direct of the Corporate Knights' measures of the education a future leader will receive, eight of the top 40 Better World MBAs had only one or no core dedicated course on sustainability.  A previous post by our Sustainability & Management MSc students eloquently argues that this kind of education is a fundamental for all business students.  Even at these exemplar “greenest” schools, which should provide the best sustainability education for future managers, there is clearly still more that can be achieved.

Furthermore, this list of the greenest schools is a stark reminder of the over-emphasis on Western perspectives when it comes to thinking about sustainability and management education in general.  These rankings reveal that large geographic blind-spots remain in our assessment of sustainability in MBA programmes.  Of the 40 featured in the Better World MBA list, 39 are from North America, Australia or Europe.  That these regions alone can determine what an MBA for a better world should look like is doubtful.  We should explore how business schools in Africa, Asia and elsewhere in the world are viewing sustainability and seek to understand whether non-Western schools see any benefit in participating in this kind of assessment.  While progress has been made, there is still work to do in establishing a truly global understanding of what constitutes an MBA for a better world.

 

Image by H.Koppdelaney

 

Overseas anti-slavery initiatives flourish, but domestic governance gaps persist

  , ,

📥  Business and society, Modern slavery, Policy, Research, Supply chains

 

UK-based companies are ramping up efforts to combat slavery in their overseas supply chains. But according to Andrew Crane and Genevieve LeBaron, companies also need to be working harder to address the severe labour exploitation taking place at home.

 

The passage of the UK 2015 Modern Slavery Act has prompted companies to be more open about their efforts to combat forced labour in global supply chains. To date, hundreds of companies have published modern slavery statements as required by the Act. These statements depict the problem of forced labour as a hidden and illegal practice that is seeping into complex overseas supply chains, in spite of companies’ extensive efforts to protect human rights. Companies describe their efforts to prevent and address forced labour and human trafficking through the use of ethical auditing, certification schemes, supplier codes of conduct, awareness-raising and the installation of responsible sourcing managers. This is centred on vulnerable and faraway workers, such as in the Thai fishing industry or the Bangladeshi garments sector.

There is without doubt value in company efforts to combat forced labour in supply chains operating in countries where national regulatory enforcement of labour standards is weak. Seldom acknowledged, however, is the fact that the problem is not exclusive to developing countries in the global south, but is also prevalent in developed countries in the north, including the UK.

As we document in our research published in the journal Regulation & Governance, regulatory and enforcement gaps surround the use of forced labour in global supply chains as well as supply chains located within UK borders. Problems such as the weak enforcement of labour law, poor oversight over labour providers and limited transparency in labour supply chains – combined with immigration laws that render migrant workers vulnerable to forced labour – mean that forced labour continues to thrive in UK-based industries.

Many companies source from domestic supply chains in which forced labour is known to be a problem. These include the food, construction, garment and household goods industries, as well as those linked to services such as car washes and cleaning. Yet, companies reporting on their anti-slavery efforts rarely mention these UK-based supply chains or their vulnerable workforces, choosing instead to focus on workers in their sourcing networks overseas – instead of the presumably easier option of fighting forced labour at home.

This blind spot may stem from the assumption that the UK government is already handling the problem of forced labour within its borders, so companies do not need to. However, as highlighted in our research, design flaws in public regulatory initiatives and poor enforcement mean that regulatory gaps frequently referred to as ‘decent work deficits’ in the developing world could also occur in the UK.

The risk of forced labour in UK supply chains was acknowledged by department store chain John Lewis in its 2016-2017 Human Rights and Modern Slavery Report, following the high-profile 2016 conviction of one of its UK bed suppliers Kozee Sleep for exploiting a ‘slave workforce’ to make beds sold in John Lewis stores. The company report notes that UK workers are at risk of slavery, due to “informal recruitment in seasonal supply chains” and the “lack of scrutiny of labour providers”. However, it is not clear how exactly the company plans to address these risks.

The Kozee Sleep case also underscores the shortcomings of company initiatives to monitor labour and social standards. According to several newspaper reports, Kozee Sleep passed an ‘ethical’ audit just weeks before it got busted for forced labour. As The Independent reported, “ethical audits by a series of firms including John Lewis, Next, and Dunelm Mill failed to spot their supplier was employing foreign workers for less than £2 a day”. If ethical audits cannot detect forced labour in the UK, how effective are these tools abroad, where audit cheating and corruption are documented to be widespread?

Although the reports provide some detail about the initiatives that companies are taking to prevent and address forced labour, they very seldom report on theeffectiveness of those efforts. For instance, when problems like the Kozee Sleep case are acknowledged, companies often respond by making vague references to training programs to help suppliers and service providers share good practice, or to generic ethical auditing programs. For instance, Tesco’s modern slavery statement describes the requirement for all of its UK suppliers to attend a one-day training on modern slavery that “offers a support network where challenges and good practice can be shared among peers and experts”. While this may be a valuable initiative, the company does not report on how effective this program is in actually addressing the pattern of forced labour that has by now been well-documented in UK agricultural supply chains. This makes it difficult to assess whether or not progress is being made.

Big business has a long way to go if it is serious about reducing its reliance on forced labour in the developing world. But the governance gaps surrounding forced labour in global supply chains are not the only ones to persist in the wake of the Modern Slavery Act’s passage. Companies looking to fight forced labour should start with their domestic supply chains, where they have high visibility, traceability and control as well as strong state resources that they could mobilise, if they really wanted to.

 

This article was originally published under a Creative Commons Licence by Beyond Trafficking and Slavery on the Open Democracy website. Beyond Trafficking and Slavery seeks to help those trying to understand forced labour, trafficking and slavery by combining the rigour of academic scholarship with the clarity of journalism. 

A more extensive version of this piece was recently published in the academic journal Regulation and Governance. For download options, please see the Wiley Online Library.

Image by Nick Saltmarsh

 

Need versus beauty - how the "beauty premium" affects charitable giving

  , , ,

📥  Charity, Giving, Philanthropy, Research

 

Even though people believe that donations should be allocated based on the neediness of charity recipients, the recently published paper by Cynthia Cryder (University of Washington, St Louis), Simona Botti (London Business School) and Yvetta Simonyan (University of Bath) documents a “charity beauty premium” - the tendency of donors to favour more beautiful, but less needy, beneficiaries. In this piece, Yvetta Simonyan considers the implications for charitable giving. 

 

A few years ago, an article in the New Yorker drew readers’ attention to the fact that animals in need of conservation receive unequal attention and support. Pandas, for example, are sometimes viewed as “charismatic megafauna,” attracting disproportionally more money and attention than other endangered animals. The British naturalist Christopher Packham even offered to “eat the last panda” if it would improve the chances of less attractive species receiving more support.

Donors’ tendency to help more attractive causes extends beyond the domain of animal conservation: only 4% of $350 billion donated in the United States in 2014, went directly supporting the most pressing human needs in the developing world. By comparison, universities attracted almost twice as much.

Yet, when we asked people what is the single most important factor that affects their charitable giving, 46% indicated neediness of donation recipients (the second most popular answer was the impact, which was mentioned by 8% of the respondents). In another study, when we asked participants to evaluate photos from a fundraising website on the dimensions of attractiveness and neediness, they rated more attractive people as less needy. Combined, these two findings suggest that people should give less to beautiful recipients. But while some prior research investigations support that proposition, others, including the aforementioned examples from industry, suggest that attractive people are more likely to receive help than unattractive ones.

 

Want versus should

We propose that this incongruence exists because donors simultaneously hold two distinct preferences: a want preference for beautiful recipients and a should preference for the needy. Previous research showed that people hold want preferences that are based on affect and, sometimes, linked with desire. On the other hand, should preferences that are reason-based, logical, and more easily justified. For example, when choosing movies, consumers may hold a want preference to watch a comedy and a should preference to watch a documentary. In our research context, beautiful recipients offer intuitive appeal and immediate satisfaction, whereas needy recipients fit with a reasoned priority to help the most desperate individuals.

 

Deliberative or intuitive giving

We propose that donors’ want preferences for beautiful recipients are most likely to emerge when they choose intuitively, whereas donors’ should preferences for needy recipients are most likely to develop when they choose deliberatively. Research in psychology recognises distinctions in cognitive functioning between two types of processing. “System 1” processing, or quick intuitive processing depends on effortless automatic associations and tends to favour affect-rich options. By contrast, “System 2” processing, or deliberative processing operates slowly and depends on logical reasoning. So, when donors decide intuitively, they are more likely to select beautiful recipients in line with their want preferences; when donors decide deliberatively, they are more likely to select needy recipients in line with their should preferences.

We conducted several studies to test our propositions and to find the conditions under which the charity beauty premium effect is attenuated. In line with our predictions, when we asked people if they would like to donate to one (or more) of eight animals kept at a British conservation centre, the four animals that were rated (in a separate study) as more attractive were given almost twice as much money as the other four species that were rated as less attractive. Similarly, when we asked the potential donors to support charities working in developing countries, people demonstrated a preference to sponsor more attractive children over needier ones. So, given these instinctive preferences, how can we increase the chances of needier beneficiaries receiving help?

Our findings showed that people donate more to needier donation recipients when they are asked to make a deliberative rather than an intuitive decision. We also found that decision-makers tend to make deliberative decisions when they choose on behalf of someone else or when they are asked to evaluate the neediness of beneficiaries before deciding whom to help. Finally, the charity beauty premium effect disappears when the donors have above-average levels of empathy towards the recipients.

 

Implications for fundraisers

We do not know whether the individuals involved in decision-making on charitable giving felt any dissonance when making their choices, but we asked the study participants about their perceptions on how they want versus how they should donate. The responses indicate that, even though donors think they should give to needier beneficiaries, they want to give to more attractive recipients.

Interestingly, when the respondents make decisions deliberatively (that is, when charity beauty premium effect is diminished), they are less willing to donate in the future, suggesting that deliberation may act as a double-edged sword – improving the chances of needier recipient in the short term, but reducing the likelihood of future donations. Such evidence suggests that encouraging deliberative giving may benefit less beautiful, but needier recipients, who are competing with more attractive beneficiaries. However, for recurring calls for charitable donations, using more beautiful images instead of encouraging the donors to choose deliberatively may be more beneficial.

 

Image by Thomas Lasserre

 

 

Corporate environmental impact - why self regulation isn't enough

  , , ,

📥  Business and society, Environment, Research

 

Globalisation, the demise of the state and rising stakeholder expectations have resulted in the proliferation of  a self-regulatory approach to managing corporate environmental impacts. Self-regulation is now a major feature of environmental protection and is largely synonymous with the management of corporate environmental responsibility. In this piece, Kostas Iatridis questions the wide belief that environmental self-regulation represents an effective means of addressing environmental challenges, and suggests this can be achieved only through a collaboration between public and private bodies.

 

The rise of self-regulation

The prevalence of neo-liberal economic views in running the economy, along with the transformation of our world into a global village, have promoted environmental self-regulation as an effective means of dealing with increasing environmental challenges. State regulation has been criticised as ineffective, non-flexible and costly. Instead, voluntary action has been used to advocate a market-fundamentalism that puts the workings of the market first. Environmental laws and institutions are expected to conform to the laws of the market in order not to restrain trade and economic profitability.

This shift towards market autonomy has resulted in new, prosperous markets. This in turn has facilitated the proliferation of voluntary self-regulatory tools for environmental protection (e.g. ISO 14001 and EMAS). Such tools have been endorsed by armies of consultants, policy makers, and auditors as a panacea to harmful environmental practice. Governments too have supported self-regulatory approaches as a means of facilitating corporate responsibility and some have even declared their incapacity in dealing with environmental issues.

Following the wide endorsement of self-regulatory tools, one might expect to find a positive relationship between their adoption and improvements in corporate environmental performance. Yet, studies have questioned the effectiveness of environmental self-regulation by suggesting that its adopters might not necessarily perform better than non-adopters. Critics highlight the commercial relationships formed between self-regulating firms and external auditors, as well as a lack of knowledge amongst auditors, as particularly problematic. They take the view that due to these issues, auditing mechanisms might not always be as robust as they should be, enabling firms to behave opportunistically and in their own interests.

Furthermore, the tendency of earlier studies to focus on firms’ motives for adopting such self-regulatory approaches, along with a belief that environmental certification is synonymous with improvements in environmental performance, have offered limited views on the real potential of self-regulation to reduce environmental impact.

 

Does self-regulation mean better environmental performance? 

It is only recently that discussions have moved towards the effectiveness of self-regulation in safeguarding environmental performance. Interesting views have emerged suggesting that the latter might depend on the institutional environment. In particular, it is suggested that stringent external environmental regulation might discourage firms from adopting environmental self-regulation in the first place. This is because, in such institutional contexts, the marginal gains in efficiency and strategic differentiation associated with environmental self-regulation are very small. In contrast, when firms operate in the weak institutional environments often found in developing countries, and seek to export to countries characterised by strong institutional regimes, they tend to adopt and substantively implement environmental self-regulation because of strong motivations to improve their internal efficiency.

These are important insights, making us think differently about environmental regulation. Self-regulation alone might not always serve the common interest, thus state regulation has a role to play. The times in which we live are challenging for governments, as globalisation has transformed many states into little more than transit stations in the world-wide trade of goods administered by multinational corporations. In many instances, states have lost the power to define the conditions that affect economic activities within their own territories. As a result, we have seen states retreating and, in the name of efficiency and cost cuts, passing more responsibilities over to the private sector. However, phasing out state regulation, as has been advocated by supporters of market autonomy, cannot ensure effective environmental protection. No single governance actor, private or public, has the independence, expertise or operational capacity to pursue effective environmental regulation. What is needed is cooperation between the public and private sectors.

 

Public-private cooperation

The big question is whether public governance actors have an appetite for taking this on. Recent developments, such as Trump’s decision to withdraw from Paris’ climate agreement, contrasted with Senate’s recent approval to fund the United Nations’ climate change body, not to mention Brexit as well as several geopolitical tensions, send contradictory messages and, in some instances, question whether environmental issues should even have a place on the international agenda.

To sustain the momentum of action for environmental protection, business leaders, academics, policy makers and civil society organisations need to acknowledge the questionable outcomes of environmental self-regulation and engage in discussions that promote collaboration. The recent crossing of the northern sea route without ice breakers signals the undisputable significance of environmental challenges and the necessity for finding the right mix of state and self-regulation to address them.

 

Image by Kris Krug

Social Media: Risky (Research) Business?

  , ,

📥  Research

 

Social media present valuable opportunities for management researchers, but also risky terrain for publication in mainstream journals. As the British Academy of Management kicks off this week with a pre-workshop on this very topic, Dr Sarah Glozer reflects on the risk of social media research and considers how it might be overcome.

 

Social media researchers within management spend a large portion of their time thinking about the risk to knowing (and unknowing) participants when designing their studies. Whilst preventing harm towards research participants should always be a priority in academic research, I would like to present a different contention: why are we not thinking about researcher risk? In a world of rising academic publishing expectations, this article considers if social media settings present risky contexts for management researchers.

 

Why research social media?

Social media, defined as Internet-based applications that build on the interactional capacity of ‘Web 2.0’, are proliferating day by day. A recent estimate suggests that there are around 400 global social media platforms, and that around one-third of the world’s population are now active social media users. Consequently, academic interest in social media continues to soar across disciplines, as seen in recent papers published in Business and Society, and a special issue announced by the Journal of Business Ethics.

Social media, then, present valuable opportunities for conceptual, empirical, technical and methodological research. Yet, despite nearly two decades since the first social media sites came to fruition, research within and into social media is still a niche pursuit within mainstream management journals, particularly that of a qualitative nature.

 

What is risk?

It is widely appreciated that research should not pose any risk of harm to participants. Harm can be psychological (e.g. embarrassment), economic (e.g. loss of property) and at the worst, physical (e.g. threat to life). The risk of harm is greater when social media users’ privacy/anonymity is breached, or when the nature of the data being handled is ‘sensitive’ (e.g. related to health issues). It is argued that within any research project, the potential for risk/harm should be minimised and the benefit to research maximised, with accepted ethical procedures designed to protect participants and researchers from harm. But what does risk look like in a researcher capacity?

 

What is researcher risk?

Back in July, I co-organised an event at The University of Nottingham with Dr. Chris Carter on publishing social media research. The event brought together social media researchers from across fields of accounting, computer science, employment relations, information systems, marketing, management, communication studies/corporate social responsibility and psychology. Through our conversations, three types of researcher risk came to light:

  • Technical risk related to procedural difficulties with using social media technology to collect and analyse data. Researchers voiced difficulty in maintaining research projects in the face of fluid and evolving ‘live’ social media settings (research has a ‘shelf-life’) and frustrations when large volumes of data crashed software programmes and information was lost.

 

  • Social risk related to the personal consequences of researching social media. Here researchers discussed the challenge of spending many hours immersed in online fora to develop deep, emic insights (to the detriments of personal relationships) and the pain of observing ‘hate speech’ (or even being on the receiving end of this).

 

  • Professional risk related to the challenges of being identified as a social media researcher; still arguably a niche pursuit in mainstream management research. It was within this category that researchers shared difficulties in navigating the complex milieu of Institutional Ethics Review Boards, journal reviewer/editor comments, ethical guidelines and legal precedent in order to get social media research ‘out there’ and published.

 

It is on this latter point that the risk of being a social media researcher became clear: there was a general feeling that we still need to legitimise social media research within the broad management discipline.

 

How can we reduce researcher risk?

As identified in a forthcoming chapter by Dr. Rebecca Whiting and Dr. Katrina Pritchard, we are in a state of flux and uncertainty regarding digital ethics. This has a clear impact on how social media research is judged, particularly given that there is still little consensus on what constitutes best practice across disciplines and institutions. Turning to published research often only fuels this confusion with topics such as participant anonymity being handled very differently by various journals; some advocate anonymity, others do not.

So where does accountability lie in reducing researcher risk? We are hoping to bring together researchers, reviewers and editors within management to regularly discuss and debate these issues and to reduce the ‘risky’ business of publishing social media research. There are number of ways you can join the debate:

 

Image by Ian Clark