Antecedent factors of violation of information security rules

Cappellozza, Alexandre; Moraes, Gustavo Hermínio Salati Marcondes de; Perez, Gilberto; Simões, Alessandra

doi:10.1108/rausp-02-2021-0022

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cappellozza, Moraes, Perez, and Simões (2022), in their article “Antecedent factors of violation of information security rules,” show that employees' moral disengagement and perceived penalty predict the intention to violate organisational information security policies. Given the findings, the authors propose some practical implications.…”

Section: Types Of Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Advice for management researchers on discussing the implications of an article

Cordeiro

Parente²

2022

RAUSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing the Discussion section of an academic article is a challenge for most scholars, especially beginners. Upon reaching this research stage, authors often run out of steam, facing the Discussion as an obligation rather than a chance of strengthening their contribution and relevance (Geletkanycz and Tepper, 2012). Consequently, it looks more like a summary of the results than a forum in which authors address the "so what?" question and explain in-depth the implications of their manuscripthow it advances knowledge and practice related to a theme.We call the authors' attention to the difference between the presentation of the resultsa section in which they describe what the data showand the discussion of the results and their implicationswhich encompasses a deep and reflective text that enlightens the effects/ utility of the research for theory and practice. In contrast to the Results section, Discussion "explains why the results are meaningful in relation to previous, related work and the research question that was explored [. . .] it deals with the claims that might be made, especially new knowledge claims" (Swales and Feak, 2012, pp. 309, 365).Every top-tier journal requires a discussion of the implications, which can be presented within several sections, such as the Discussion of the results, Discussion, Implications, Conclusion/Final remarks and so on. The term used is just a detail of journals' or authors' style. Most important is to be aware that any complete discussion is constituted of several elements (e.g. theoretical/practical implications, study limitations and future research) and that the discussion of the implications is indispensable (Geletkanycz and Tepper, 2012). In this sense, research implication is a necessary condition for a fruitful discussion. Building a discussion without thinking about how the results may generate implications for different domains can be counterproductive. However, in our experience as associate editors of the RAUSP Management Journal, we have noticed that authors have difficulty showing how the research implications articulate with the study's results and research domain.This editorial offers suggestions to help authors build a more critical and reflective discussion of implications. Our focus is on theoretical, practical and social implications, mandatory for manuscripts submitted to RAUSP Management Journal. First, we define these types of implications. Then, three articles published in RAUSP Management Journal are presented as examples of insightful discussions. We finish by offering bits of advice for building substantial discussions and delivering guiding questions that can help authors to gauge whether the crucial elements of the discussion have been covered.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%