The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Grand theories as barriers to using IC concepts
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to answer the question “What are the barriers to the use of IC concepts?” by discussing and critiquing two contemporary grand theories about IC, being market‐to‐book ratios as a representation of IC and that disclosing IC leads to greater profitability. Design/methodology/approach: The paper reviews contemporary IC literature and explores reasons why these grand theories of IC hinder its adoption. Findings: The research finds that these grand theories mislead because they cannot be proven empirically. Therefore, managers should attempt to better understand the possible causal relationships between their people, processes and stakeholders (human, structural and relational capital) rather than adopting someone else's mousetrap. Practical implications: In order to improve the use of IC concepts they should be examined as differentiation theories of practice that take into account the agent (people) as a unit of analysis, the actual practice of IC and the resultant changes within an organisation, rather than trying to achieve the impossible generalisations of IC grand theories. Researchers need to conduct more critical and performative research into IC rather than ostensive research. Originality/value: Allows academics and practitioners to understand the barriers to implementing IC in organisations, potentially allowing for the development of better engineered IC practices rather than the development of additional IC models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Valuing the future: intellectual capital supplements at Skandia
Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H. T., & Bukh, P. N. (2001) · Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/09513570110403434 · Cited by 179
Metadata
- Authors
- Dumay, J. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Intellectual Capital
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2012-01-13
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-15
- ISSN
- 1469-1930 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069387323
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 52.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Grand theories as barriers to using IC concepts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/14691931211196187
- The paper
- Dumay, J. C. (2012). Grand theories as barriers to using IC concepts. Journal of Intellectual Capital. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931211196187
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.