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.
Botti, S., Giesler, M., Stefano, P. and Walker, R. (2020). "Consumers and Artificial Intelligence: An Experiential Perspective", Journal of Marketing.
AbstractArtificial intelligence (AI) helps companies offer important benefits to consumers, such as health monitoring with wearable devices, advice with recommender systems, peace of mind with smart household products, and convenience with voice-activated virtual assistants. However, although AI can be seen as a neutral tool to be evaluated on efficiency and accuracy, this approach does not consider the social and individual challenges that can occur when AI is deployed. This research aims to bridge these two perspectives: on one side, the authors acknowledge the value that embedding AI technology into products and services can provide to consumers. On the other side, the authors build on and integrate sociological and psychological scholarship to examine some of the costs consumers experience in their interactions with AI. In doing so, the authors identify four types of consumer experiences with AI: (1) data capture, (2) classification, (3) delegation, and (4) social. This approach allows the authors to discuss policy and managerial avenues to address the ways in which consumers may fail to experience value in organizations’ investments into AI and to lay out an agenda for future research.
Belk, R., Humayun, M. and Gopaldis, A. (2020). "Consumer Reception of New Technologies", International Journal of Business Anthropology, 10(1), 49-65.
Belk, R., Humayun, M. and Gopaldis, A. (2020). "Artificial Life", Journal of Macromarketing, 40(2), 221-236.
AbstractIn this article, we explore how the history and myths about Artificial Life (AL) inform the pursuit and reception of contemporary AL technologies. First, we show that long before the contemporary fields of robotics and genomics, ancient civilizations attempted to create AL in the magical and religious pursuits of automata and alchemy. Next, we explore four persistent cultural myths surrounding AL—namely, those of Pygmalion, Golem, Frankenstein, and Metropolis. These myths offer several insights into why humanity is both fascinated with and fearful of AL. Thereafter, we distinguish contemporary approaches to AL, including biochemical or “wet” approaches (e.g., artificial organs), electromechanical or “hard” approaches (e.g., robot companions), and software-based or “soft” approaches (e.g., digital voice assistants). We also outline an emerging approach to AL that combines all three of the preceding approaches in pursuit of “transhumanism.” We then map out how the four historical myths surrounding AL shape modern society’s reception of the four contemporary AL pursuits. Doing so reveals the enduring human fears that must be addressed through careful development of ethical guidelines for public policy that ensure human safety, dignity, and morality. We end with two sets of questions for future research: one supportive of AL and one more skeptical and cautious.
Belk, R. and Bhattacharyya, A. (2019). "Consumer Resilience and Subservience in Technology Consumption by the Poor", Consumption, Markets and Culture, 42 (5/6), 489-507.
AbstractConsumer technology theorists have explored technology consumption primarily through a de-linked, individualistic lens. We augment existing theories on technology consumption by widening the scope of the theorizing lens to include the role of class-based societal domination on consumption by the oppressed. We show that the poor respond to oppression by practices that go beyond non-compliance and subterfuge. We highlight the overlooked phenomenon of Consumer Resilience, and unveil the practices of Subservience in technology consumption by the poor in India. These are consumption practices that help the dominated classes appease those dominating them, at the expense of their own dignity and well-being.
Agrawal, Dhwani, Natalia Jureczek, Gajane Gopalakrishnan, Margaret Natalie Guzman, Michael McDonald, and Henry M. Kim (2018). "Loyalty Points on the Blockchain", Business and Management Studies, 4(3), 80-92.
AbstractAlthough some organizations are contemplating the potential impact of blockchain technology in today‟s economy, blockchain, itself, is quickly emerging to be a disruptive force. This is especially true in the circumstance of loyalty programs. Blockchain is a public, digital, and distributed database solution providing decentralized management of transactional data. This technology is transforming society in ways that were previously unimaginable. Whether it be the way individuals use their phones, cars, or the healthcare system, blockchain is applicable for a variety of economic sectors and transactions. Although many may argue that blockchain is in its early development stage, it still possesses the power to revolutionize industries and consumer habits at a global scale. Through implementation of blockchain for loyalty networks, companies eliminate the limitations and inefficiencies while elevating the customer experience with secure and immediate redemption options from a variety of vendors. Despite evolving rapidly, its implementations provide better security, privacy, performance, usability, data integrity, and scalability, to name a few. Hence, blockchain is likely to entice any individual for instantaneous incentives for every purchase. This paper aims to analyze the current, traditional loyalty programs and the challenges associated with them. It highlights how blockchain can resolve these challenges and provide a better experience. This report further explores the various types of loyalty programs that currently exist in the blockchain ecosystem and provides potential future implementations. Finally, the paper analyzes the implementation of coupons in comparison with loyalty points programs, highlighting the vast spread of blockchain implementation.
Belk, R. (2014). "Sharing Versus Pseudo-Sharing in Web 2.0", The Anthropologist, 18(1), 50.
AbstractThe Internet has opened up a new era in sharing. There has also been an explosion of studies and writings about sharing via the Internet. This includes a series of books, articles, and web discussions on the topic. However, many of these apparent cases of sharing are better characterized as pseudo-sharing — commodity exchanges wrapped in a vocabulary of sharing. The present paper reviews subsequent research and theorizing as well as controversies that have emerged surrounding sharing and what is best regarded as pseudo-sharing — a wolf-insheep’s-clothing phenomenon whereby commodity exchange and potential exploitation of consumer co-creators present themselves in the guise of sharing. The paper begins with a pair of vignettes that highlight some of the contested meanings of sharing. By detailing four types of pseudo-sharing and four types of sharing that are specifically enabled or enhanced by Internet technologies, the paper argues that pseudo-sharing is distinguished by the presence of profit motives, the absence of feelings of community, and expectations of reciprocity. It concludes with a discussion of theoretical, practical, and ethical implications of pseudo-sharing and offer suggestions for future research.
Denegri-Knott, J. and Zwick, D. (2012). "Tracking Prosumption Work on eBay: Reproduction of Desire and the Challenge of Slow Re-McDonaldization", American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 439-458.