Review Research as Scientific Inquiry

This article and the related Feature Topic at Organizational Research Methods upcoming were motivated by the concern that despite the bourgeoning number and diversity of review articles, there was a lack of guidance on how to produce rigorous and impactful literature reviews. In this article, we introduce review research as a class of research inquiries that uses prior research as data sources to develop knowledge contributions for academia, practice and policy. We first trace the evolution of review research both outside of and within management including the articles published in this Feature Topic, and provide a holistic definition of review research. Then, we argue that in the plurality of forms of review research, the alignment of purpose and methods is crucial for high-quality review research. To accomplish this, we discuss several review purposes and criteria for assessing review research's rigor and impact, and discuss how these and the review methods need to be aligned with its purpose. Our paper provides guidance for conducting or evaluating review research and helps establish review research as a credible and legitimate scientific endeavor.

Partnering for Impact: A Grand Challenge and Design for Co-Creating a Just, Resilient and Flourishing Society

In this paper I elaborate on the design and dimensions of interorganisational collaborations particularly when the purpose of connecting is the co-creation of knowledge for impact. I extend recent accounts of co-creating knowledge and explain why co-creation is integral to the “common good” logic especially when the focus of partnering for impact embraces the marked improvements in action that constitutes the impact of collaboration. I then elaborate on “partnering for impact” as a collaborative design and explicate the axiology that this mode of co-creation calls for, marked by a fresh perspective on inclusiveness founded on isotimia and philotimia. I illustrate the manifestation of these dimensions in the GNOSIS approach of co-creating impact through the embeddedness of “re-search” as a common practice. I conclude by inviting greater reflexivity in the relationship between science and society when partnering for impact is intended to co-create a just, resilient and flourishing society.

A value creation model from science-society interconnections: Archetypal analysis combining publications, survey and altmetric data

The interplay between science and society takes place through a wide range of intertwined relationships and mutual influences that shape each other and facilitate continuous knowledge flows. Stylised consequentialist perspectives on valuable knowledge moving from public science to society in linear and recursive pathways, whilst informative, cannot fully capture the broad spectrum of value creation possibilities. As an alternative we experiment with an approach that gathers together diverse science-society interconnections and reciprocal research-related knowledge processes that can generate valorisation. Our approach to value creation attempts to incorporate multiple facets, directions and dynamics in which constellations of scientific and societal actors generate value from research. The paper develops a conceptual model based on a set of nine value components derived from four key research-related knowledge processes: production, translation, communication, and utilization. The paper conducts an exploratory empirical study to investigate whether a set of archetypes can be discerned among these components that structure science-society interconnections. We explore how such archetypes vary between major scientific fields. Each archetype is overlaid on a research topic map, with our results showing the distinctive topic areas that correspond to different archetypes. The paper finishes by discussing the significance and limitations of our results and the potential of both our model and our empirical approach for further research.

The relevance of management research debate: a historical view, 1876–2018

Purpose

This paper aims to map how the debate concerning the relevance of management research historically evolved to (a) determine if B-schools and management researchers have been uninterested bystanders, as critics posit, or if they have had a relevant role, and (b) discover if a pathway for management research becoming socially relevant has been established by such debate.

Design/methodology/approach

This study performed a citation network analysis of the scientific literature concerning the relevance of management research. The network had a total of 1,186 research papers published between 1876 and 2018.

Findings

The results show that from a minimal to peripheral role at the beginning and middle stages, management researchers have rather taken over this debate since the 1990s; the key components of the citation network reveal a strong convergence on what needs to be done, but no convergence on how to do it; and the debate has failed to generate actual change.

Originality/value

This study maps the debate concerning the relevance of management research since its historical inception using a method underused in management history research. It reveals the main path of the debate and the journals that echoed such debate.

Systematic analysis of the methodological structure of the lean literature

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyse and evaluate the methodological structure of the lean literature, so that its characteristics and influence among academics and practitioners might be better understood. The authors define “methodological structure” to be comprising six categorical components: publication category, degree of methodological disclosure, research strategies and data collection instruments (DCIs), type of data collected and analysed and type of research informants.

Design/methodology/approach

This study is a systematic bibliometric analysis of the lean literature. It has a two-stage research design. The first stage involves the identification of the top 50 most highly cited publications on “Lean”, with the resultant reference details being entered into a focal population set (FPS) spread sheet. The second stage involves coding and adding the six component fields of the methodological structure for each of the FPS entries. Both citation analysis (CA) and publication counting are then used to analyse patterns in these six components of methodological structure.

Findings

The top 50 publications in the FPS represent over 52,700 citations. All are either journal papers or books, but books are the most influential. Based upon this FPS sample, the lean literature is found to be both largely atheoretical in nature and also methodologically weak. Over half of the FPS publications are viewpoint-type publications and 46% have no methodological disclosure. The lean literature is predominantly qualitative in nature. Where disclosed, the most common research strategy is the case study and the most common DCI is the interview. High- and mid-level managers are the most frequently encountered research informants, while shop floor workers are infrequently used.

Originality/value

This paper starts with the most extensive known systematic review of systematic reviews of the lean literature; the result of which is the characterisation of a number of gaps in this body of knowledge. One of these gaps is the lack of any previous CA. The paper then proceeds to address this gap by providing the first CA within the lean literature. This is also the most comprehensive known CA within the field of operations and supply chain management more generally. As a consequence of this analysis, previously unknown patterns and insights into the methodological structure of the lean literature are revealed.

Knowledge co-production in academic-practitioner research collaboration: An expanded perspective on power

Knowledge co-production within academic-practitioner research collaborations is a promising means to address the pressing issue of research impact. Yet current theorising is hampered by a limited appreciation of power in the relationship between research partners. In this study, we explore various types of power and their effects on knowledge co-production in government-funded research collaborations. Drawing on interviews with academics and practitioners working on Australian Research Council Linkage Scheme projects, we initially document the prominence of structural and normative types of power, alongside resource power. We further show that both structural and normative power fail to conform to key principles of knowledge co-production. As a result, many of the projects studied fell short of the knowledge co-production ideal. Our investigation leads us to identify a boundary condition: knowledge co-production theory in its current form is bounded by resource power conditions. Our expanded perspective provides for an elaboration of knowledge co-production theory. We also explore the implications of our findings for business schools in search of impact.

Partnering Up: Including Managers as Research Partners in Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews of academic research have not impacted management practice as much as many researchers had hoped. Part of the reason is that researchers and managers differ so significantly in their knowledge systems—in both what they know and how they know it. Researchers can overcome some of these challenges by including managers as knowledge partners in the research endeavor; however, doing so is rife with challenges. This article seeks to answer, how can researchers and managers navigate the tensions related to differences in their knowledge systems to create more impactful systematic reviews? To answer this question, we embarked on a data-guided journey of the experience of the Network for Business Sustainability, which had undertaken 15 systematic reviews that involved researchers and managers. We interviewed previous participants of the projects, observed different systematic review processes, and collected archival data to learn more about researcher-manager collaborations in the systematic review process. This article offers guidance to researchers in imbricating academic with practical knowledge in the systematic review process.

Gênese, Impacto e Identidade da Revista de Administração Contemporânea

RESUMO Contexto: como as pessoas e as organizações, os periódicos também apresentam uma identidade. Assim, pensar na identidade de um periódico científico remete, em primeiro lugar, a compreender como sua trajetória moldou suas preferências acerca do que seus membros entendem sobre ciência e academia. Em segundo lugar, remete a como ele se projeta na comunidade científica, tanto em termos de regras de julgamento sobre o que é considerado válido como pesquisa quanto da intensidade e do modo como ele impacta o conhecimento científico e a realidade social. Objetivo: diante desse contexto, buscamos, neste artigo, recuperar elementos distintivos da Revista de Administração Contemporânea (RAC) em sua gênese, ressaltando como tal período deixou uma impressão duradoura em sua identidade. Método: utilizamos textos históricos e depoimentos para embasar nossos argumentos, triangulando o material qualitativo com padrões de citação, de referência e de escrita científica para evidenciar a identidade e o impacto da RAC. Resultados: as análises apontam que a RAC, desde sua gênese, diferenciou-se pelo rigor teórico, metodológico e empírico. Isso refletiu, ao longo do tempo, em seu impacto e centralidade na comunidade acadêmica. Conclusão: defendemos que a eficácia na construção da identidade da RAC a levou a ser o periódico mais influente da área de administração.

The Transformative Professor: Adapting and Fostering Positive Change

Business school faculty can play a critical role in fostering resilience and change in their institutions. This article describes what it means to be a transformative professor and a catalyst for positive change. It suggests that this involves playing both leader and follower roles, such as builders, problem-solvers, and constructive disruptors; having a transformative mind-set; and utilizing multiple forms of intelligence.

Congratulations, You Got a Revise and Resubmit! Now What? The Impetus Behind and Lessons Learned from a Successful Years-long PDW Focused on the Peer Review Revision Process

For all the experiences researchers have with the publication process, questions continue to arise about how to best navigate the revise and resubmit gauntlet. This dialog captures insight from six years of Academy of Management professional development workshops, an action editor’s perspective on the process, and a qualitative exploration of revision derailers—topics focused on understanding and improving the predictability of the revise and resubmit process. In doing so, this dialog serves as a resource for new and accomplished scholars, reviewers, and editors to refocus the revision process on creating and disseminating knowledge throughout business-related fields. The three articles in this dialog first summarize the planning and execution of six professional development workshops (PDWs), the process from the perspective of an action editor, and a content analysis of rejections after an R&R, in order to highlight best practices authors can take to increase success throughout this process

The Impetus for Resilience and Change in Business Education and Management Research

In the past hundred years, business schools in the United States have had to be resilient and undergo change in order to address various challenges. They have faced issues pertaining to their legitimacy, rigor, and relevance. This article suggests that business schools are once again in a period of change that requires resilience and that these age old issues have to be reconsidered in this new environment, and it describes some of the economic, reputational, technological, and psychosocial threats and opportunities that are currently creating an impetus for change. The other articles that comprise this dialog series on Resilience and Change in Business Education and Management Research are also introduced.

Business schools’ competitive strategies: whose goals, which aims?

Purpose

This study reviews the literature on business-school (b-school) competition and competitiveness to extend our understanding of b-schools’ competitive strategies.

Design/methodology/approach

Both content and network analysis were used in the examination of the scholarly discourse.

Findings

The analyses distinguish three literature streams. The first concentrates on resources, capabilities and competencies; the second focuses on measures of competitiveness; and the third includes competitive dynamics and strategy discourse. The analysis shows that the conceptions of competitiveness are quite coherent concerning resources, capabilities and competencies. However, in the “measures of competitiveness” and “industry dynamics and strategy,” discourses were more diverse, indicating greater ambiguity in how the core competencies, capabilities and resources are portrayed as competitiveness outside the institutions. The literature suggests that the measures and indicators of competitiveness are ambiguous to external stakeholders and, furthermore, reflect institutional goal ambiguity.

Originality/value

The question of how, and to what extent, increasing competition in management education and research catalyzes unwelcome changes in the industry has been of great concern to management educators and scholars. This has given rise to a considerable body of literature referring to b-school competition. Despite its topicality, this discourse has remained theoretically fragmented and separate from the mainstream strategy literature. Therefore, this study provides a review and critical discussion of the current state of research on b-school competition, as well as proposes avenues for future research and tools for strategic management of b-schools.

Reviewing Management Learning: The field and the journal

We trace the origins and development of the management learning movement that has come to be closely associated with the journal Management Learning and explain how ideas that shaped the creation of business schools influenced the inception of this field. We then examine themes and trends that have been prevalent in the field in the second half of the journal’s 50-year history, through an analysis of its coverage over a 24-year period from 1994 to 2018. During this time, there has been a marked shift away from an applied focus on manager and management development towards a more theoretical perspective of the field, in keeping with trends in academic journals more generally. We focus on the journal’s contribution to the scholarship of management and organisational learning through an analysis of both strong and weak themes and its most cited papers. Finally, we propose ways in which our analysis of the past might offer new ways of thinking about our scholarship and we propose a future direction for the field and the journal that connects to the original intentions to shape organisational practice in order to address broader issues of social and economic exchange.

Knowledge Synthesis for Scientific Management: Practical Integration for Complexity Versus Scientific Fragmentation for Simplicity

Within the boundary of scientific knowledge for management, we discuss the divergence between practical demand for knowledge integration to solve complex problems and scientific fragmentation of academic knowledge for simplicity. We suggest the current incentives underlying elite scientific journals in management cause unintended knowledge fragmentation both between management and foundation disciplines, and within management. In the context of the overall management knowledge ecosystem, we recommend addressing three major constraints that limit our ability to reduce these fragmentations: First, new technologies could be introduced to assist researchers and editors in the development of a complete review of existing theories and evidence. Second, new publication outlets could be designed to serve as information technology–enabled, web-based knowledge synthesis platforms. Third, business schools could develop new incentive systems to enable and promote the use of these new initiatives. We suggest several limitations of our recommendations and discuss extensions into the yet untheorized/untested knowledge domain.

Approaching Impact Meaningfully in Medical Education Research

Medical education research faces increasing pressure to demonstrate impact and utility. These pressures arise amidst a climate of accountability and within a culture of outcome measurement. Conventional metrics for assessing research impact such as citation analysis have been adopted in medical education, despite researchers' assertion that these quantitative measures insufficiently reflect the value of their work. Every knowledge community has its own definitions of what counts as knowledge, how that knowledge should be produced, and how the quality of that knowledge production should be evaluated. Definitions of impact and knowledge shape and constrain researchers' foci and endeavors. Therefore, metrics that meaningfully evaluate the knowledge outputs of researchers need to be defined within each field. It is time for medical education research, as a field, to examine how to measure research impact and carefully consider the broader implications these measures may have. The authors discuss developments in research metrics more broadly, then critically examine impact metrics currently used in the medical education field and propose alternatives to more meaningfully track and represent impact in medical education research. Grey metrics and narrative impact stories to more fully capture the richness and nuanced nature of impact in medical education research are introduced. The authors advocate for a continual examination of how impact is defined, eschewing unquestioned use of conventional metrics. A new conversation is needed, as well as a research agenda to help medical education conceptualize and study metrics more appropriate for the field.

Rediscovering relevance

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to document the growing concerns about the lack of relevance of business school research, and offer suggestions for journal editors and faculty members in logistics and supply chain management.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper is a review of literature related to the relevance of business school research and an analysis of trends related to the editorial review boards of the three main logistics journals.

Findings

The current business school research model is unsustainable. The metrics used are driving the wrong behavior. Logistics journals, traditionally known for an emphasis on practical relevance, appear to be emulating the journals of other business functions at a time when there is a growing consensus that these journals are publishing, more often than not, research of little or no value to practicing managers or society.

Practical implications

The cost of faculty research at AACSB schools, which increasingly benefits no one but the authors, has been estimated at roughly US$3.8bn annually. Imagine the potential benefits if business school deans realigned the incentives to encourage faculty to produce credible research that is useful to business and society.

Originality/value

The hope is to influence senior logistics faculty with tenure to work with business executives or policymakers to identify long-term big idea projects that will impact business and society, and publish their research in the logistics journals. Traditionally, the editors of logistics journals included business executives on the editorial review boards and encouraged research of practical relevance. Journal editors should look back and realize what was good about the journals and not discard the good for current fads.

The First 20 Years of Organizational Research Methods: Trajectory, Impact, and Predictions for the Future

We analyze the trajectory of Organizational Research Methods ( ORM) during the first 20 years of its existence (i.e., 1998-2017). First, beginning with the inaugural volume, we review the editorials to create a qualitative account regarding ORM’s journey as narrated by the journal’s leaders in their own voices. Second, we examine the composition of the five senior editorial teams (i.e., editors and associate editors), including their qualitative-quantitative, micro-macro, and disciplinary orientation, as well as the types of articles published by ORM along the qualitative-quantitative and micro-macro distinctions. Third, we describe the 27 feature topics (i.e., set of articles addressing a common issue) published by ORM. Fourth, we offer information regarding ORM’s impact and influence based on impact factor data, journal lists, and other indicators (e.g., ORM articles that have received awards from professional organizations, most cited ORM articles out of a total of 484). Fifth, we identify the most frequently published ORM authors (and their disciplinary background) out of a total of 884 who have published at least one article. Finally, we discuss implications and outline opportunities and challenges as well as possible future directions for ORM. Overall, our review and analysis of the first 20 years of ORM allowed us to create a historical record for future generations, gain qualitative and quantitative insights into ORM’s trajectory and its impact and influence over time, and make predictions for the future of the journal and, more broadly, research on methodological issues.

Revisiting impact in the context of workplace research: a review and possible directions

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to revisit the scholarly impact agenda in the context of work-based and workplace research, and to propose new directions for research and practice.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper combines a contemporary literature review with case vignettes and reflections from practice to develop more nuanced understandings, and highlights future directions for making sense of impact in the context of work-based learning research approaches.

Findings

This paper argues that three dimensions to making sense of impact need to be more nuanced in relation to workplace research: interactional elements of workplace research processes have the potential for discursive pathways to impact, presence (and perhaps non-action) can act as a pathway to impact, and the narrative nature of time means that there is instability in making sense of impact over time.

Research limitations/implications

The paper proposes a number of implications for practitioner-researchers, universities/research organisations, and focusses on three key areas: the amplification of research ethics in workplace research, the need for axiological shifts towards sustainability and the need to explicate axiological orientation in research.

Originality/value

This paper offers a contemporary review of the international impact debate in the specific context of work-based and workplace research approaches.

Citation Counts and More Citation Counts: Useful? Interesting? or Counterproductive?

In their focal article, Aguinis et al. (2017) categorized the 6,654 unique citations, summed across the six introductory industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology texts, in various ways. They then suggested how such data could be used to (a) infer the “state” of the scientist–practitioner divide; (b) document the extent of the movement of I-O psychologists to management schools; (c) evaluate the future prospects of I-O psychology as a field; and (d) provide guidance in how to define, measure, and reward “scholarly impact” (quotation marks added). This crosses the line from interesting toverycounterproductive.

Most Frequently Cited Sources, Articles, and Authors in Industrial-Organizational Psychology Textbooks: Implications for the Science–Practice Divide, Scholarly Impact, and the Future of the Field

Most future industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology practitioners and researchers initially enroll in an introductory I-O psychology course during their junior or senior year of undergraduate studies, making introductory textbooks their first in-depth exposure to the field and an important knowledge base. We reviewed and analyzed the 6,654 unique items (e.g., journal articles, book chapters) published in 1,682 unique sources (e.g., scholarly journals, edited books, popular press publications) and authored by 8,603 unique individuals cited in six popular I-O psychology textbooks. Results showed that 39% of the top-cited sources are not traditional academic peer-reviewed journals, 77% of the top-cited articles were published in cross-disciplinary journals, and 58% of the top-cited authors are affiliated with business schools and not psychology departments. These results suggest that the science–practice divide in I-O psychology may develop later—perhaps after graduates obtain employment as either practitioners or researchers. Also, results suggest I-O psychology is closer to business and management than social psychology and psychology in general. We discuss additional implications for the science–practice divide, how to define and measure scholarly impact, and the future of I-O psychology as a field, including the movement of I-O psychologists to business schools and the sustainability of I-O psychology programs in psychology departments.

The Higher-Ed Organizational-Scholar Tension: How Scholarship Compatibility and the Alignment of Organizational and Faculty Skills, Values and Support Affects Scholar's Performance and Well-Being

Scholars and institutions alike are concerned with academic productivity. Scholars not only further knowledge in their professional fields, they also bring visibility and prestige to themselves and their institutions, which in turn attracts research grants and more qualified faculty and graduate students. Many studies have been done on scholar productivity, and many of them focus on individual factors such as gender, marital status, and individual psychological characteristics. Also, a few studies are concerned about scholars' well-being. We propose a causal model that considers the compatibility of the scholarship dimensions valued by scholars and institutions and their academic alignment with actual institutional recognition and support. We test our causal model with data from a survey of 803 faculty participants. Our findings shed light on how the above academic factors affect not just academic productivity but also a scholar's well-being. Importantly, we show that academic alignment plays a crucial mediating role when predicting productivity and well-being. These results have important implications for university administrators who develop, and faculty who work under, policies designed to foster professional development and scholarship.

Where are the dedicated scholars of management learning and education?

The vibrancy of a field is predicated on the attraction and sustained efforts of increasing numbers of dedicated scholars. However, in management education research, historically this level of dedicated research appears to have been entrusted to a hearty relative few. In this essay, I examine some commonly presented objections to focusing one’s research attention on issues of the scholarship of teaching and learning in the management realm. Then, I present counterarguments that, although at one time may have been legitimate concerns, increasingly are unfounded. I transition to arguing that some scholars having a dedicated emphasis on management education research is a good, and perhaps even necessary, thing as management education becomes more global. I conclude my discussion by noting pressing opportunities and need areas for further accelerating the development of new management education scholars.

The Impact of Interpersonal Discrimination and Stress on Health and Performance for Early Career STEM Academicians

The present study examines the consequences of perceived interpersonal discrimination on stress, health, and performance in a sample of 210 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) academicians. Using a path model, we test the relation that perceived interpersonal discrimination has on stress and the relation of stress to physical health maladies and on current and future performance. In so doing, we assess the link between discrimination and decrements in performance over time. Additionally, we test supervisor social support as a moderator of the discrimination-stress relation. Findings support relations between perceived interpersonal discrimination and stress, which in turn relates to declines in physical health and performance outcomes. Moreover, supervisory support is shown to mitigate the influence of interpersonal discrimination on stress in STEM academicians.

Žižekian ideas in critical reflection: The tricks and traps of mobilising radical management insight

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine how deeper psychosocial structures can be examined utilising a contemporary provocative theory within workplace reflection to generate more radical insights and innovation.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper outlines a provocative theory and then presents case examples of how deeper structures can be examined at the micro, meso and macro levels.

Findings

Deeper psychosocial structures are the forces that keep the status quo firmly in place, but deeper examination of these structures enable radical insights and therefore the possibility of innovation.

Research limitations/implications

Deep psychosocial structures shape and constitute daily action, and so work-based and practitioner researchers can be tricked into thinking they have identified new ways of working, but may be demonstrating the same workplace behaviours/outcomes. Workplace behaviours, including emotional responses to apparent change, are key indicators of deeper structures.

Practical implications

Ideas and processes for examining deeper structures can be integrated into daily reflective practices by individuals, within organisational processes, and wider, system processes. However, because deeper structures can appear in different forms, we can be tricked into reproducing old structures.

Social implications

Examining deeper structures increases the possibilities for more radical insights into workplace structures, and therefore, how to potentially mobilise innovations which may better serve people and planet.

Originality/value

This paper is the first to examine the work of Slavoj Žižek in the context of work-based learning.