Introduction:thought leadership in brand management

This special issue contains eight articles developed from presentations at the fourth annual Thought Leaders' International Conference on Brand Management, held in Birmingham, UK in April 2008. Following a blind reviewing process, 65 papers were accepted and presented at the conference and all authors had the opportunity to revise their papers for possible inclusion in this special issue. A further round of double blind reviewing resulted in the selection of these eight articles. This introduction presents an overview of this thought-leading research into brand management.

Introduction : thought leadership in brand management

This JBR Special Issue contains ten articles developed from presentations at the Seventh Annual Thought Leaders' International Conference on Brand Management, held at Universitá della Svizzera italiana in Lugano, Switzerland in March 2011. The conference organizing committee received submissions and following a double blind reviewing process papers were accepted for presentation at the conference. After the conference all authors wishing to submit papers for this Special Edition had the opportunity to revise their papers and submit them. A further round of rigorous double-blind reviewing resulted in the selection of ten articles. This introduction presents an overview of this thought-leading research into brand management. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Introduction:thought leadership in brand management

This special issue contains fifteen articles developed from presentations at the sixth annual Thought Leaders' International Conference on Brand Management, held at Università della Svizzera italiana in Lugano, Switzerland in April 2010. The conference received 154 submissions and following a double blind reviewing process, a little under half of these, 75 papers, were accepted and presented at the conference. The authors of the accepted conference papers had the opportunity to revise their papers after the conference and submit them for possible inclusion in this special issue. A further round of rigorous double-blind reviewing resulted in the selection of these fifteen articles. This introduction presents an overview of this thought-leading research into brand management. © 2011.

Are school-of-thought words characterizable?

School of thought analysis is an important yet not-well-elaborated scientific knowledge discovery task. This paper makes the first attempt at this problem. We focus on one aspect of the problem: do characteristic school-of-thought words exist and whether they are characterizable? To answer these questions, we propose a probabilistic generative School-Of-Thought (SOT) model to simulate the scientific authoring process based on several assumptions. SOT defines a school of thought as a distribution of topics and assumes that authors determine the school of thought for each sentence before choosing words to deliver scientific ideas. SOT distinguishes between two types of school-of-thought words for either the general background of a school of thought or the original ideas each paper contributes to its school of thought. Narrative and quantitative experiments show positive and promising results to the questions raised above © 2013 Association for Computational Linguistics. © 2013 Association for Computational Linguistics.

“I thought I’d be safe there”:pre-empting blame in the talk of women reporting rape

One routine “common sense” means of explaining sexual violence is the ideologically facilitated tendency to blame the victim, and previous research has identified patterns of victim-blaming in the talk of perpetrators of rape, and also in that of the professionals who deal with rape in their day-to-day work. This article focuses on the discursive resources drawn on in police interviews by rape victims themselves as they attempt to account for their own behaviour in relation to the attack. It identifies and describes points within interviewees’ talk where they produce “accounts” (Potter and Wetherell, 1987), and considers what these tell us about the participants’ shared understanding of what is relevant to the on-going talk. Occasions when there is evidence of a mis-match in the understanding of the participants will also be discussed. The analyses illustrate that for the accounts of interviewees to be heard as relevant, a number of prevalent and problematic themes of victim-blaming must be assumed. Interviewees anticipate and pre-empt implications that various aspects of their own behaviour contributed to their attack, and interviewers vary in the level of skill they display at negotiating these shared understandings.