Corporate trainers' credibility and cultural values: evidence from Canada and Morocco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Corporate trainers' credibility has been universally ignored by researchers and its significance has remained elusive across cultures. Thus, the purpose of this present paper is to examine variations of trainers' credibility determinants in Canada and Morocco. Design/methodology/approach A comparative qualitative study with in‐depth interviews and the grounded theory approach were adopted to carry out the research. Participants in the study consisted of 60 civil servants employed in various governmental departments in Canada and Morocco. Findings A framework identifying distinct categories based on common determinants of trainers' credibility was constructed for each respective country. These categories were attributed the following designations: qualifications, perceived competence, perceived justice and perceived confidence for the Canadian sample; and qualifications, perceived competence, and personal attributes for the Moroccan sample. Similarities surfaced regarding some of the determinants in both cultures such as qualifications, and competence. However, Canadian respondents emphasized trainers' performance, fairness and confidence, while Moroccan trainees valued wisdom (hikma), honesty (sidk), trust (amanah) and the trainer as a role model. Practical implications The findings indicate that cultural values ought to be considered in trainers' credibility in efforts to enhance the level of comprehension regarding credibility determinants that could impact training success and effectiveness. It is also recommended that organizations consider taking into account the determinants of credibility during the selection process of trainers who will be primarily tasked with delivering corporate training to employees locally or in various cultural settings. Originality/value The paper provides groundbreaking insights as it is the first study to investigate trainers' credibility across cultures by resorting to an emic approach to provide a cross‐cultural perspective on the subject.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".