Eleanor B. Williams’s research while affiliated with University of North Carolina at Charlotte and other places

Purpose Oppositional organizational identities are fraught with conflict and often evoke powerful social and cultural identities. Such identities may be a divisive force among consumers. The purpose of this paper is to understand how consumers construct frames that facilitate identification with oppositional organizational identities. Design/methodology/approach The authors use online reviews from TripAdvisor.com and Yelp.com of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, USA. The Creation Museum is an ideal research context due to its location within American public discourse regarding religion and science. Through a grounded theory approach of the reviews, the authors propose three identity frames. Findings The data suggest that consumers primarily construct three frames to identify with the Creation Museum: transformational experiences, interpretive bricolage and oppositional scripts. Together, these frames engender resonance and facilitate consumer identification. Originality/value This paper is one of the first to examine how oppositional organizational identities garner consumer support. Given that consumers are increasingly attentive to organizational processes and the ubiquity of information technology, which reduces the costs of information and interaction, the study provides a much more holistic perspective on oppositional organizational identity and offers a multitude of future avenues for further research.

In describing measures used in their research, authors frequently report having adapted a scale, indicating that they changed something about it. Although such changes can raise concerns about validity, there has been little discussion of this practice in our literature. To estimate the prevalence and identify key forms of scale adaptation, we conducted two studies of the literature. In Study 1, we reviewed the descriptions of all scales (N = 2,088) in four top journals over a 2-year period. We found that 46% of all scales were reported by authors as adapted and that evidence to support the validity of the adapted scales was presented in 23% of those cases. In Study 2, we chose six scales and examined their use across the literature, which allowed us to identify unreported adaptations. We found that 85% of the administrations of these scales had at least one form of adaptation and many had multiple adaptations. In Study 3, we surveyed editorial board members and a select group of psychometricians to evaluate the extent to which particular adaptations raised concerns about validity and the kinds of evidence needed to support the validity of the adapted scales. To provide guidance for authors who adapt scales and for reviewers and editors who evaluate papers with adapted scales, we present discussions of several forms of adaptations regarding potential threats to validity and recommendations for the kinds of evidence that might best support the validity of the adapted scale (including a reviewer checklist).