Profiling people’s perceptions of retail management careers

PurposeRetail management has acquired the attention of scholars and practitioners, with many international and prestigious journals specifically relating to the topic. Also, top-tier journals in other disciplines have proposed special issues on the new advances in retailing, with emphasis on the role of new and smart technologies. On the one hand, the research in retailing seems to be prolific; on the other hand, the interest in retail education (from a research and university perspective) seems to be more limited. The purpose of this paper is to capture the (mis)match between the leading universities' offerings and job demand in the UK. In this way, the paper identifies opportunities for educators and researchers to educate future career-ready professionals in retailing and improve research in retail education.Design/methodology/approachThe research evaluates the offer of UK retail education in terms of programmes/courses, focusing on the Russell Group universities for the academic year 2020/2021 (September starts) and the demand of certain skills and competences by the largest retailers in the UK. The study utilizes secondary data based on the courses/programmes specifically related to the retail sector and on the job opportunities through the leading UK grocery retailers.FindingsThe findings reveal the extent of the gap between the university educational offerings and the requirements from retailers.Originality/valueTo the best of authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first attempt to capture and compare multiple evidence bases related to academic curriculums and employers' requirements for specific retail competencies.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is interested in retail education? The (mis)match between the leading universities’ offerings and job demand in the UK

Pantano

Pizzi

Rogers

2020

“…It is a statistical classification method primarily used for inductive research (Punj and Stewart, 1983), including retail-specific research (e.g. Gunn et al , 2017). While cluster analysis shares similarities with other classifying techniques by dividing homogeneous groups of consumers, this approach often requires no pre-assignment of consumers into categories (Beane and Ennis, 1987).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profiling gifters via a psychographic segmentation analysis: insights for retailers

Quach

Lee

2021

Self Cite

PurposeThe aim of this study is to profile types of gifters via a set of psychographic consumption traits (frugality, gratitude, market mavenism and novelty seeking) and identify differences among the groups regarding their gift-purchasing behavior.Design/methodology/approachBased on the data from 193 participants, the authors seek to identify and profile unique consumer segments (gifters) generated from the four psychographic consumption traits. Second, once the segments are established, the authors analyze how the segments differ across 16 unique gift-purchasing behaviors.FindingsThe data generated four distinct consumer segments: experiential gifters, considerate gifters, convenience gifters and astute gifters. Across the segments, there were differences in their gift consumption behavior (e.g. time/effort spent, desire for customization, gift presentation, derived joy, purchasing frequency, eco-friendliness, seeking assistance, regifting and more).Research limitations/implicationsUS-based sample was collected via an online panel in January; this may restrict the generalizability of the research, given that gift consumption customs may vary across different countries. Thus, future research should include participants from other geographic regions to increase the external validity of the research.Practical implicationsRetail managers can use this knowledge to devise marketing strategies focused on the gift-purchasing behaviors of each group.Originality/valueSegmenting clusters based on differences in consumption traits provides insights to retailers looking to build a competitive advantage, particularly in a gift purchasing context.

“…There is a need to move away from generic to contextualised approaches towards entrepreneurship teaching and learning education (Mehlhorn et al, 2015;Lourenço et al, 2013). Business schools, the traditional providers of entrepreneurial education, have tended to provide standardised approaches that are not relevant to all students across different disciplines (Gunn et al, 2017), which can create barriers to the effective embedding of entrepreneurial education in non-business fields, including for example humanities, arts and agriculture, that show considerably higher propensities towards graduate entrepreneurship (Zamfir et al, 2013). Best practice models towards delivering entrepreneurship education in non-business fields remain a subject of debate.…”

Section: Ijrdm 488mentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurial capacity-building in HEIs for embedding entrepreneurship and enterprise creation – a tripartite approach

Towers

Santoso²,

Sulkowski

et al. 2020

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to conceptualise entrepreneurial capacity-building as an integrated approach within the international higher education sector. Whilst university–enterprise collaboration is recognised as being essential to promoting graduate employability and entrepreneurship, the lack of an integrated approach towards embedding entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial capacity-building with an entrepreneurial skill and mind-set prevails in the higher education sector. With reference to the retail sector, increasingly competitive job markets and the need for entrepreneurial capacity-building place growing pressures on universities to nurture career-ready graduates with entrepreneurial acumen.Design/methodology/approachThe theoretical paper presents a rationale for embedding entrepreneurship education into university curricula and for promoting university–business collaboration. Secondly, it reviews the extent to which entrepreneurial capacity-building is institutionally embedded to foster graduate entrepreneurship, university–business collaboration and business incubation within one strategic framework. Finally, the paper proposes five propositions within a tripartite approach that can foster graduate entrepreneurs with entrepreneurial skills and mind-set, useful for existing enterprises and start-ups. The implications for these propositions are discussed.FindingsThe authors propose five propositions with a tripartite approach that can foster graduate entrepreneurs with entrepreneurial skill and mind-set, skills for creating enterprises and university–enterprise collaboration within one strategic framework.Practical implicationsIncreasingly competitive job markets and the need for entrepreneurial capacity-building place growing pressures on universities to nurture career-ready graduates with entrepreneurial acumen in social science (e.g. retail, business management and accountancy) and science (e.g. pharmacy, architecture and engineering) programmes centred within the tripartite approach.Originality/valueWhilst university–enterprise collaboration is recognised as being essential to promoting graduate employability and entrepreneurship, the tripartite integrated approach embeds entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial capacity-building with an entrepreneurial skillset and mind-set in the international higher education sector.