No abstract

Purpose Engagement is a construct that varies according to the subject, object and context; this has been used to justify the coexistence of a variety of construct definitions and scales. Instead of proposing a new scale, this paper aims to create a procedure for comparing scales and to use it to evaluate brand engagement measures in social media. Design/methodology/approach This study first defines a procedure for the selection, standardization and comparison of scales; this procedure considers both the classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT). The authors apply the procedure in a survey of 233 respondents to compare three scales for measuring consumer engagement with brands in social media. Findings The establishment of a procedure for scale comparison is useful in assisting researchers to choose specific measures. Results showed that the three scales have similar characteristics, but Vivek et al.’s (2014) scale is recommended when better discrimination between construct dimensions is required, Hollebeek et al.’s (2014) scale could be used as a one-dimensional scale and Dessart et al.’s (2016) reduced scale has better ability to capture information for the affective and cognitive dimensions. None of the scales were very efficient in discriminating weakly and strongly engaged individuals. Originality/value This study makes a substantive contribution by proposing a procedure for scale comparison that considers CTT and IRT and shows the advantages, limitations and recommendations for using three different scales of consumer engagement.

Recuperamos a trajetória do ensino e da pesquisa em administração no Brasil para discutir desafios atuais quanto à construção da relevância da produção cientí-fica. A análise da trajetória da RAE revela tensões entre pesquisa e tradição da formação profissional, ou, ainda, entre rigor e relevância: de uma revista que refletiria o pensamento da FGV-EAESP, voltada à classe emergente dos administradores, carentes de conhecimento especializado e relevante, a uma ferramenta essencial ao debate e à divulgação científica, agora já no círculo acadêmico especializado. Essa inflexão caracterizou-se pela implantação progressiva de critérios e procedimentos acadêmicos e pela ênfase crescente no rigor teórico-metodológico. Porém, a questão da relevân-cia e do impacto do conhecimento produzido sugere reflexões importantes à comunidade científica. Entre as questões que levantamos, estão: de que problemas tratamos? Como o fazemos? Quais as contribuições de nossos textos? Para quem escrevemos? Que diálogos promovemos junto a outras esferas da sociedade?Abstract We recover the educational and research trajectory of the administration field in Brazil to discuss current challenges regarding the relevance of scholarly production. The analysis of RAE's history reveals tensions between research and the tradition of professional training, or even between rigor and relevance: from a journal which reflected the thinking of FGV-EAESP, focused on the emerging class of managers, who lacked specialized and relevant knowledge, to an essential debate forum and scientific publication, now for specialized academic circles. This change was characterized by the progressive introduction of academic criteria and procedures and a growing emphasis on theoretical and methodological rigor. However, the issue of the relevance and impact of the knowledge created suggests important questions to the scientific community. Among the issues we raise there are the following: what problems do we address? How do we do it? What are the contributions of our texts? For whom do we write? Which dialogues with other spheres of society do we promote? keywords Education and research in Administration, rigor, relevance, scholarly production, scientific journals.Resumen Recuperamos la trayectoria de la enseñanza y de la investigación en administración en Brasil para discutir los desafíos actuales en relación con la construcción de la relevancia de la producción científica.

Purpose This paper aims to conceptualize two dimensions of active innovation resistance (AIR): cognitive active resistance and emotional active resistance. A scale to measure this construct is proposed and tested. Design/methodology/approach Three studies were conducted, with sample sizes of 195, 190 and 186, to test the discriminant, convergent, nomological and criterion validity of the proposed AIRc+e scale and to analyze its explanatory and predictive power. Data were gathered using the online platform of a US-based research company. Findings The authors provide evidence that AIR is a two-dimension construct comprising a cognitive and an emotional dimension. AIR was modeled as a third-order construct, comprising two second-order constructs, cognitive active resistance and emotional active resistance. The impact of adding an emotion dimension to active resistance was therefore assessed, and the results indicated that the explanatory and predictive power of the AIR measure improved as expected. Practical implications Consumers are most likely to resist innovations launched onto the marketplace, either prior to or after evaluating them. A better understanding of the reasons behind their resistance to innovation, as well as of its mechanisms, is of great importance in decreasing an innovation’s chances of failure. Originality/value This study proposes that incorporating emotion into the assessment of AIR will result in a deeper understanding of adoption and rejection behavior, expanding the current knowledge of consumer behavior in innovation-related, new product adoption and decisions.