IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

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


  • Cotton, John L.
  • Stewart, Alex


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

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Kedia, Ben L. & Englis, Paula D., 2011. "Transforming business education to produce global managers," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 325-331, July.
    2. Seelos, Christian & Mair, Johanna, 2005. "Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 241-246.
    3. 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.
    4. Wright, Thomas A., 2011. "And Justice for All: Our Research Participants Considered as Valued Stakeholders," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(03), pages 495-503, November.
    5. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(04), pages 479-502, October.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    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.


    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.