IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bushor/v56y2013i3p323-331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

Author

Listed:
  • Cotton, John L.
  • Stewart, Alex

Abstract

Business school publications are widely criticized for their lack of managerial or teaching relevance. One reason for this criticism is that business school scholarship is typically evaluated purely in terms of one type of work: academic journal articles that are meant to be read by other scholars. However, academics produce multiple types of publications, and business schools serve a wider range of stakeholders. These other stakeholders are often central to the schools’ purposes and may be critical in acquiring resources. These stakeholders probably prefer to see scholarship that is relevant for students or for practitioners. They may prefer scholarship that is ethically relevant or regionally relevant and otherwise different from the model that dominates U.S. journals. Technologies are now available to measure the impact of writings in a much wider range of venues than covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index in the Web of Science. Moreover, a wider range of measures, such as the size of writings’ readership, may be needed. We consider these issues and present some recommendations, arguing that faculty evaluations should follow an intentional strategy and not necessarily conform to the traditional default.

Suggested Citation

  • Cotton, John L. & Stewart, Alex, 2013. "Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 323-331.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:56:y:2013:i:3:p:323-331
    DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681313000116
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carroll, Archie B., 1991. "The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 39-48.
    2. Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision‐Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, February.
    3. Ram Mudambi & Mike Peng & David Weng, 2008. "Research rankings of Asia Pacific business schools: Global versus local knowledge strategies," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 171-188, June.
    4. David, Fred R. & David, Meredith E. & David, Forest R., 2011. "What are business schools doing for business today?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 51-62.
    5. Elliott, Clifford J. & Goodwin, Jack S. & Goodwin, James C., 1994. "MBA programs and business needs: Is there a mismatch?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 55-60.
    6. P Naudé & S Henneberg & Z Jiang, 2010. "Varying routes to the top: identifying different strategies in the MBA marketplace," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(8), pages 1193-1206, August.
    7. Rakesh Khurana, 2007. "Introduction to From Higher Aims to Hired Hands The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession," Introductory Chapters, in: From Higher Aims to Hired Hands The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession, Princeton University Press.
    8. Carmelo Cennamo & Pascual Berrone & Luis Gomez-Mejia, 2009. "Does Stakeholder Management have a Dark Side?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 491-507, November.
    9. Kedia, Ben L. & Englis, Paula D., 2011. "Transforming business education to produce global managers," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 325-331, July.
    10. Seelos, Christian & Mair, Johanna, 2005. "Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 241-246.
    11. Wright, Thomas A., 2011. "And Justice for All: Our Research Participants Considered as Valued Stakeholders," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 495-503, November.
    12. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 479-502, October.
    13. David, Fred R. & David, Meredith E. & David, Forest R., 2011. "What are business schools doing for business today?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 51-62, January.
    14. Vikas Mittal & Lawrence Feick & Feisal Murshed, 2008. "Publish and Prosper: The Financial Impact of Publishing by Marketing Faculty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 430-442, 05-06.
    15. Richard L. Daft & Arie Y. Lewin, 2008. "Perspective---Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies: Idea Migration and Academic Journal Evolution," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 177-183, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pucciarelli, Francesca & Kaplan, Andreas, 2016. "Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 311-320.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Montserrat Entrialgo & Víctor Iglesias & Frank Müller, 2019. "Are European Part-Time MBA Programs Designed to Foster Entrepreneurial Minds? An Exploratory Study," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Aaltola, Pasi & Manninen, Ari, 2021. "Drawing the premises for personalized learning: Illustrations of management and accounting," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    3. Mike W. Peng, 2019. "Global competition and diffusion of the “A” list," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Michael Pirson, 2019. "A Humanistic Perspective for Management Theory: Protecting Dignity and Promoting Well-Being," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 39-57, September.
    5. Anagnostopoulou, Seraina C. & Tsekrekos, Andrianos E. & Voulgaris, Georgios, 2021. "Accounting conservatism and corporate social responsibility," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    6. Franck Aggeri & Aurélien Acquier, 2005. "La théorie des stakeholders permet-elle de rendre compte des pratiques d'entreprise en matière de RSE ?," Post-Print halshs-00645708, HAL.
    7. Jose-Luis Godos-Díez & Roberto Fernández-Gago & Laura Cabeza-García, 2015. "Business Education and Idealism as Determinants of Stakeholder Orientation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 439-452, October.
    8. Kopp, Ursula, 2013. "Systemische Nachhaltigkeitskompetenzen für Führungskräfte – Erfahrungen mit Aufstellungsarbeit in der Managementaus- und weiterbildung," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 67(2), pages 126-151.
    9. Víctor Meseguer-Sánchez & Emilio Abad-Segura & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & Valentín Molina-Moreno, 2020. "Examining the Research Evolution on the Socio-Economic and Environmental Dimensions on University Social Responsibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-30, July.
    10. Seo, Kwanglim & Moon, Joonho & Lee, Seoki, 2015. "Synergy of corporate social responsibility and service quality for airlines: The moderating role of carrier type," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 126-134.
    11. Hans-Jörg Schlierer & Andrea Werner & Silvana Signori & Elisabeth Garriga & Heidi Weltzien Hoivik & Annick Rossem & Yves Fassin, 2012. "How Do European SME Owner–Managers Make Sense of ‘Stakeholder Management’?: Insights from a Cross-National Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 39-51, August.
    12. Bongani Munkuli & Renee Horne, 2018. "Financial Markets Value Reputation for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – A Study of the South African Mining Sector," Africagrowth Agenda, Africagrowth Institute, vol. 15(2), pages 17-22.
    13. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Academic rankings and research governance," IEW - Working Papers 482, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    14. Meredith E. David & Fred R. David & Forest R. David, 2021. "Closing the Gap between Graduates’ Skills and Employers’ Requirements: A Focus on the Strategic Management Capstone Business Course," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research Governance in Academia: Are there Alternatives to Academic Rankings?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2009-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    16. Emilio Abad-Segura & Francisco Joaquín Cortés-García & Luis J. Belmonte-Ureña, 2019. "The Sustainable Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Global Analysis and Future Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-24, September.
    17. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    18. Daniel L Gamache & François Neville & Jonathan Bundy & Cole E Short, 2020. "Serving differently: CEO regulatory focus and firm stakeholder strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1305-1335, July.
    19. Y. Fassin, 2008. "The Stakeholder Model Refined," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/529, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    20. Michael O. Erdiaw-Kwasie & Khorshed Alam & Md. Shahiduzzaman, 2017. "Towards Understanding Stakeholder Salience Transition and Relational Approach to ‘Better’ Corporate Social Responsibility: A Case for a Proposed Model in Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 85-101, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:bushor:v:56:y:2013:i:3:p:323-331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.