Marketing i Zarządzanie

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Problemy Zarządzania, Finansów i Marketingu

ISSN: 2450-775X     eISSN: 2353-2874    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/miz.2017.49-09
CC BY-SA   Open Access 

Issue archive / nr 3 (49) 2017
Zaufanie w sieciach B+R ‒ perspektywa neuromarketingu
(Trust in R&D Networks ‒ Neuromarketing Perspective)

Authors: Katarzyna Róża Baran
Politechnika Lubelska, Wydział Elektrotechniki i Informatyki

Marek Jakubowski
Politechnika Lubelska, Wydział Zarządzania
Keywords: trust R&D networks neuromarketing
Data publikacji całości:2017
Page range:15 (97-111)
Klasyfikacja JEL: L00 M00 O30
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

Marketing activities carried out in the subjects of the science sector, allow for effective identification of needs and expectations as well as functional implementation of results in the R&D networks of universities. In an effort to strengthen and support marketing efforts, researchers seek innovative solutions that can impact on networked (R&D) cooperation based on trust. The level of trust is influenced by many factors. The use of methodological models to describe a variety of defined trust allows for better objectivity. Given the increasing interdisciplinarity of science, it is legitimate to consider the prospect of neuromarketing in the direction of trust in R&D networks. The paper focuses on trust, R&D networks, universities marketing activities and the neuromarketing perspective that supports trust-based R&D cooperation of universities.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Baaken, T., Davey, T., Rossano, S. (2016). Marketing – making a difference for entrepreneurial universities. W: C. Plewa, J. Conduit (red.), Making a difference trough marketing (s. 247–265). Singapore: Springer.
2.Baruk, J. (2015). Zarządzanie działalnością innowacyjną w organizacjach naukowych i badawczo-rozwojowych. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, 17 (3), 121–145.
3.Boudreau, Ch., McCubbins, M.D., Coulson, S. (2009). When institutions induce trust: Insights from EEG and timed-response experiments. Pobrano z: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1301770..
4.Butler, J.V., Giuliano, P., Guiso, L. (2016). The right amount of trust. Journal of the European Economic Association, 13 (5), 1155–1180.
5.Christiansen, J.K., Vendelo, M.T. (2003). The role of reputation building in international R&D project collaboration. Corporate Reputation Review, 5 (4), 304–329.
6.Cox, J.C., Kerschbamer, R., Neururer, D. (2016). What is trustworthiness and what drives it? Games and Economic Behavior, 98, 197–218.
7.Das, T.K., Teng, B. (2000). Instabilities of strategic Alliance: an internal tensions perspective. Organization Science, 11 (1), 77–101.
8.Davenport, S., Davies, J., Grimes, C. (1999). Collaborative research programmes: building trust form difference. Technovation, 19, 169–187.
9.Duchon, D., Dunegan, K.J., Barton, S.L. (1989). Framing the problem and making decisions: The facts are not enough. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36 (1), 25–27.
10.Fadzal, C.W., Mansor, W., Khuan, L.Y. (2012). Analysis of EEG signal from right and left hand writing movements. W: 2012 IEEE Control and System Graduate Research Colloquium (s. 354–358). Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia: IEEE.
11.Gulati, R., Nickerson, J.A. (2008). Interorganizational trust, governance choice and exchange performance. Organization Science, 19 (5), 688–708.
12.Heikkinen, M.T., Tahtinen, J. (2006). Managed formation process of R&D networks. International Journal of Innovation Management, 10 (3), 271–298.
13.Jakubowski, M.A., Charlak, M. (2016). Paradygmat kognitywistyczny w badaniach procesów zarządzania i nauczania w szkole wyższej. W: H. Rarot (red.), Humanistyka a nauki ścisłe (s. 112–128). Lublin: Politechnika Lubelska.
14.Jakubowski, M.A., Charlak, M., Gryniewicz-Jaworska, M. (2014). Some problems with measuring productivity and management in higher education. W: E. Bojar, J. Słoniec (red.), Sustainable development in the regions and countries: management and marketing (s. 81–91). Lublin: Politechnika Lubelska.
15.Kołodziej, M., Tarnowski, P., Majkowski, A., Rak, R.J., Dec, D. (2015). Rejestracja i analiza sygnału EEG na użytek neuromarketingu. Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, 5, 9–12.
16.Kovac, K., Kuhn, M.M, Jong, N. (2016). Neuromarketing: The effect of attitudes on the perception of external business communication. W: L. Petruzzellis, R. Winer (red.), Rediscovering the essentiality of marketing, developments in marketing science: Proceedings of the academy of marketing science (s. 95–96). Switzerland: Springer.
17.Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L., Gaeth, G.J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.
18.Liu, Y.J., Yu, M., Zhao, G., Song, J., Ge, Y., Shi, Y. (2016). Real-time movie-induced discrete emotion recognition from EEG signals. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, PP (99). Pobrano z: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2660485.
19.Marshall, R.S., Nguyen, T.V., Bryant, S.E. (2005). A dynamic model of trust development and knowledge sharing in strategic alliances. Journal of General Management, 31 (1), 41–57.
20.Mayer, R.C., Gavin, M.B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5), 874–888.
21.Przewodnik dla ośrodków badawczo-rozwojowych. Zagadnienia wybrane (2012). COWI, EPRD Policy & Development. Pobrano z: www.projektsims.eu/sites/default/files/ aktualnosci/pliki_do_pobrania/przewodnik_jaspers.pdf.
22.PytlikZillig, L.M., Kimbrough, Ch.D. (2016). Consensus on conceptualizations and definitions of trust: Are we there yet? W: E. Shockley, T.M.S. Neal, L.M. PytlikZillig, B.H. Bornstein (red.), Interdisciplinary perspective on trust (s. 17–47). Switzerland: Springer.
23.Resnick, H.E., Sawyer, K., Huddleston, N. (2015). Trust and confidence at the interfaces of the life sciences and society: Does the public trust science? A workshop summary. Washington: The National Academies Press.
24.Roberts, M.R., Reid, G., Schroeder, M., Norris, S.P. (2013). Casual or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 22 (5), 624–641.
25.Sankowska, A. (2015). Analiza zaufania w sieciach badawczo-rozwojowych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
26.Sankowska, A. (2013). Zaufanie w sieci badawczo-rozwojowej jednostek naukowych. Rola jednostki inicjującej. Nauki o Zarządzaniu, 14 (1), 80–88.
27.Skala, H.J. (1975). Non-archimedean utility theory. Netherlands: Springer.
28.Solomon, M.R. (2017). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. United States: Pearson.
29.Sonnenwald, D.H. (2004). Managing cognitive and affective trust in conceptual R&D organization. W: M.L. Huotari, M. Iivonen (red.), Trust in knowledge management and systems in organizations (s. 82–106). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.
30.Stanton, S.J., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Huettel, S.A. (2017). Neuromarketing: Ethical implications of its use and potential misuse. Journal of Business Ethics, 144 (4), 799–811.
31.Sztompka, P. (2007). Zaufanie: fundament społeczeństwa. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Znak.
32.Tanino, T. (1988). Fuzzy preference relations in group decision making. W: J. Kacprzyk, M. Roubens (red.), Non-conventional preference relations in decision making (s. 54–71). Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer.
33.Tyler, T.R. (2016). Trust in the twenty-first century. W: E. Shockley, T.M.S. Neal, L.M. PytlikZillig, B.H. Bornstein (red.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on trust (s. 203‒2015). Switzerland: Springer.
34.Wrona, K. (2014). Neuromarketing i jego rola w budowaniu marki, wprowadzaniu innowacji produktowych oraz w przekazach reklamowych. Marketing i Rynek, 3, 193–211.
35.Zaheer, A., Harris, J. (2008). Interorganizational trust. W: O. Shenkar, J. Reuer (red.), Handbook of strategic alliances (s. 169–197). Thousand Oaks: Sage.