Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!
The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:
- Faculty Member’s Name;
- Area of Expertise;
- Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
- Journal Name; and
- Date Range.
At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.
If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Fiolleau, K., Libby, T. and Thorne, L. (2020). "The Right Stuff: Are Not-For-Profit Managers Really Different? ", Journal of Governmental & Nonprofit Accounting , 9(1), 76-93.
AbstractIn response to public pressure for accountability in the not-for-profit (NFP) sector, attempts have been made to adopt for-profit controls. These have generated mixed results. While many have argued that employees attracted to the NFP sector are “different,” little prior empirical evidence backs up this claim. To address this gap, we review the literature to identify claimed individual characteristics that might differ and use the survey method to examine whether these differences exist between the groups of responding managers working in the NFP and for-profit sectors. NFP respondents exhibit lower levels of narcissism, lower levels of entitlement, less extroversion, and a more externally oriented locus of control than their for-profit counterparts. In exploratory multivariate analysis, best predictors of NFP membership include extroversion, locus of control, conscientiousness, and moral reasoning. Rather surprisingly, the groups did not differ on altruism or tolerance for ambiguity. Implications for control system design are discussed.
Packard, G. with 184 co-authors (2018). "Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Sample and Setting", Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443-490.
AbstractWe conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.
Bell, C., Fiksenbaum, L., Greenglass, E.R. and Marjanovic, Z. (2011). "Psychometric Evaluation of the Financial Threat Scale (FTS) in the Context of the Great Recession", Journal of Economic Psychology, 36, 1-10.