No abstract

In urban geography research there is a small supply of articles which reflect upon the aims and motives of entrepreneurs when they enter neighbourhoods that are undergoing a process of gentrification. The aim of this paper is to better understand the explanatory factors behind the timing of entrepreneurial changes that take place during the commercial gentrification process in Tallinn’s post‐industrial neighbourhoods. Based on thirty in‐depth interviews, we propose an explanation from the supply perspective that highlights the dynamics behind motivation‐based influences. By modifying the diffusion of the innovation theory developed by Rogers we are able to show how, during the different phases of the process, groups of pioneers, early adopters, the early and late majority, and laggards enter a neighbourhood that is being gentrified by varying objectives, and associate the dynamics behind the process with the follower effect that is being shaped by knowledge diffusion, a specific market niche, and physical co‐location.

Considering the resources that countries invest in training people at doctorate level we can easily claim that PhDs are among the most invested 'brains' in each country. Yet what is missing from the discussion is what happens with their career after they gain their PhD. Based on two studies we reveal the job-related movements (career) of PhDs from Estonia. The results signpost a great share of heterogeneity across research fields-a diversity that has considerable effect on how universities can manage their academic workforce and their career, but also, factors that shape movements between the academic and non-academic labour market.

Purpose This paper aims to compare employee well-being, information flow and relationships with co-workers and supervisors for people working at home and working in different office types before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design/methodology/approach A nationwide study of 2,845 Estonian office workers in autumn 2019 and 2,972 in spring 2020 was carried out. Findings It was discovered that in normal circumstances, people at home had similar results to those in a cell office or activity-based office. Open-plan offices were found to be the worst in respect to the facets of work studied. However, in the context of the pandemic, the playing field became more level in some respects and worse in the case of activity-based offices. Practical implications When telework is well arranged both in terms of facilities and organising the necessary communication and information flow, then it is a viable alternative to working in an office. What is more, employers need to pay more attention to the physical and social work conditions in open-plan offices and also activity-based offices in the context of a pandemic. Originality/value Previous studies have only compared telework with working in an office in general. Comparing working at home with different kinds of offices gives valuable insights.

No abstract