Taylorizing business school research: On the 'one best way' performative effects of journal ranking lists

Human Relations

Volumn 66, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1051-1073

  Mingers, John ^a   Willmott, Hugh ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

journal lists; knowledge development; performance measurement; performativity; research evaluation; Taylorization; work culture

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880994723     PISSN: 00187267     EISSN: 1741282X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0018726712467048     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Ackerman F, et al.The case for Soft O.R.OR/MS Today. 2009;36:20.
2. Adler NJ,Harzing A-W.When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense of and nonsense of academic rankings.Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2009;8 (1): 72-95.
3. Baum JA.Free-riding on power laws: Questioning the validity of the impact factor as a measure of research quality in organization studies.Organization. 2011;18 (4): 449-466.
4. Becher TMilton Keynes: Open University Press; 1989:.
5. Bedeian AG.Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline.Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2004;3 (2): 198-216.
6. Bedeian AG,Van Fleet DD,Hyman HH.Scientific achievement and editorial board membership.Organizational Research Methods. 2009a;12 (2): 211-238.
7. Bedeian AG,Van Fleet DD,Hyman HH.Circle the wagons and defend the faith: Slicing and dicing the data.Organizational Research Methods. 2009b;12 (2): 276-295.
8. Bessant J,Birley S,Cooper C,Dawson S,Gennard J.The state of the field of business and management research: Reflections of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) Panel.British Journal of Management. 2003;14 (1): 51-68.
9. Bryson C.What about the workers? The expansion of higher education and the transformation of academic work.Industrial Relations Journal. 2004;35:38-57.
10. Burgess TF,Shaw NE.Editorial board membership of management and business journals: A social network analysis study of the Financial Times 40.British Journal of Management. 2010;21 (3): 627-648.
11. Checkland PSystems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley; 1981:.
12. Clarke C,Knights D,Jarvis C.Labour of love: Academics in business schools.Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2012;28 (1): 5-15.
13. Espeland WN,Sauder M.Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds.American Journal of Sociology. 2007;113 (1): 1-40.
14. Geary J,Marriott L,Rowlinson M.Journal rankings in business and management and the 2001 research assessment exercise in the UK.British Journal of Management. 2004;15:95-141.
15. Gendron Y.Constituting the academic performer: The spectre of superficiality and stagnation in academia.European Accounting Review. 2008;17 (1): 97-127.
16. Giacalone RA.Academic rankings in research institutions: A case of skewed mind-sets and professional amnesia.Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2009;8 (1): 122-126.
17. Gibbert M,Ruigrok W,Wicki B.What passes as a rigorous case study?.Strategic Management Journal. 2008;29:1465-1474.
18. Gillies DHow Should Research Be Organized?. London: College Publications; 2008:.
19. Grey C.Organizing studies: Publications, politics and polemic.Organization Studies. 2010;31 (6): 677-694.
20. Harley S,Lee F.Research selectivity, managerialism, and the academic labor process: The future of nonmainstream economics in UK universities.Human Relations. 1997;50 (11): 1427-1460.
21. HarveyCMorrisHKellyA (eds) (2008) Academic journal quality guide version 2. Introduction: context, purpose and methodology. Association of Business Schools available at http://www.the-abs.org.uk/files/ABS%20Journal%20Ranking%20Guide%20Introduction.pdf, accessed 20 October 2011.
22. HarveyCKellyAMorrisHRowlinsonM (eds) (2010) Academic journal quality guide version 4, Association of Business Schools available at http://www.the-abs.org.uk/files//absalphawintro.pdf, accessed 20 October 2011.
23. Harzing A-W,Metz A.Practicing what we preach: The geographic diversity of editorial boards.Management International Review. 2012;:.
24. Hinings C R.Thirty years of organization studies: Enduring themes in a changing institutional field.Organization Studies. 2010;31 (6): 659-676.
25. Hitt MA,Greer CR.The value of research and its evaluation in business schools: Killing the goose that laid the golden egg.Journal of Management Inquiry. 2012;21 (2): 236-240.
26. Hogler R,Gross MA.Journal rankings and academic research: Two discourses about the quality of faculty work.Management Communication Quarterly. 2009;23 (1): 107-126.
27. Hopwood AG.Changing pressures on the research process: On trying to research in an age when research is not enough.European Accounting Review. 2008;17 (1): 87-96.
28. Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice. Hopwood AGMiller P, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994:.
29. Research Assessment Exercise: A re-assessment.Science and Technology Committee. 2004;:.
30. Hussein S.Accounting journals and the ABS quality rankings.British Accounting Review. 2010;42 (1): 1-16.
31. Jack GA,Calás MB,Nkomo SM,Peltonen T.Introduction to special topic forum: Critique and international management: An uneasy relationship?.Academy of Management Review. 2008;33 (4): 870-884.
32. OR and the Social Sciences. Jackson MKeys P, ed. London: Plenum; 1989:.
33. Judge TA,Cable DM,Colbert AE,Rynes SL.What causes a management article to be cited - article, author or journal?.Academy of Management Journal. 2007;50 (3): 491-506.
34. Kacmar K,Whitfield J.An additional rating method for journal articles in the field of management.Organizational Research Methods. 2000;3:392-406.
35. Kanigel RThe One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. Boston, MA: MIT Press; 1995:.
36. Keenoy T.Facing inwards and outwards at once: The liminal temporalities of academic performativity.Time and Society. 2005;14 (2/3): 303-21.
37. KellyAMorrisHHarveyC (2009) Modelling the outcome of the UK business and management studies RAE 2008 with reference to the ABS journal quality guide. Association of Business Schools available from http://www.the-abs.org.uk/files//RAE2008_ABS2009_final.pdf, accessed 21 October 2011.
38. KnightsDClarkeCJarvisC (2011) It's a bitter sweet symphony, this life: Fragile academic selves, Bristol Business School Working Paper.
39. Knorr-Cetina KEpistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999:.
40. Lee N.Reflections on assessing academic quality in marketing and the UK REF.European Journal of Marketing. 2011;45 (4): 477-483.
41. Lee F,Elsner W.Publishing, ranking, and the future of heterodox economics.On the Horizon. 2008;16 (4): 176-184.
42. Macdonald S,Kam J.Ring a ring o' roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies.Journal of Management Studies. 2007;44:640-655.
43. Macdonald S,Kam J.Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies.Management Research News. 2008;31 (8): 595-606.
44. MacIntyre A.Social structures and their threats to moral agency.Philosophy. 1999;74:311-329.
45. Marsden R.The politics of organizational analysis.Organization Studies. 1993;14 (1): 93-124.
46. McWilliams A.,Siegel D,Van Fleet DD.Scholarly journals as producers of knowledge: Theory and empirical evidence based on data envelopment Analysis.Organizational Research Methods. 2005;8 (2): 185-201.
47. McWilliams A.,Lockett A,Katz A,Van Fleet DD.Who is talking to whom? The network of intellectual influence in management research.Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship. 2009;14 (2): 61-81.
48. Meriläinen S,Tienari J,Thomas R,Davies A.Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery.Organization. 2008;15 (4): 584-597.
49. Mingers J.Exploring the dynamics of journal citations: Modelling with s-curves.Journal Operational Research Society. 2008;59 (8): 1013-1025.
50. Mingers J,Burrell Q.Modelling citation behavior in management science journals.Information Processing and Management. 2006;42 (6): 1451-1464.
51. MingersJWatsonKScaparraP (2012) Estimating business and management journal quality from the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK. Information Processing and Management 00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2012.01.008.
52. Mingers J,Xu F.The drivers of citations in management science journals.European Journal of Operational Research. 2010;205 (2): 422-430.
53. Morris HChallenges and Controversies in Management Research. Lee BCassell C, ed. London: Routledge; 2011:30-55.
54. Morris H,Harvey C,Kelly A.Journal rankings and the ABS Journal Quality Guide.Management Decision. 2009;47 (9): 1441-1451.
55. Morris H,Harvey C,Kelly A,Rowlinson M.Food for thought: A rejoinder on peer review and RAE 2008 evidence.Accounting Education: An International Journal. 2011;20 (6): 561-573.
56. Nkomo SM.The seductive power of academic journal ratings: Challenges of searching for the otherwise.Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2009;8 (1): 106-112.
57. Özbilgin MF.From journal rankings to making sense of the world.Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2009;8 (1): 113-121.
58. Parker M.Reflections: Changing 'Poppleton' Business School.Journal of Change Management. in press;:.
59. Parker M,Thomas R.What is a critical journal?.Organization. 2011;18 (4): 419-428.
60. Peng MW,Dess GG.In the spirit of scholarship.Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2010;9 (2): 282-298.
61. Peters K,Daniels K,Hodgkinson GP,Haslam SA.Experts' judgements of management journal quality: An identity concerns model.Journal of Management. in press;:.
62. Piercy N.Commentary: Why it is fundamentally stupid for a business school to try to improve its Research Assessment Exercise score.European Journal of Marketing. 2000;34 (1/2): 27-35.
63. RAE (2006) Panel criteria and working methods: I38 Business and Management Studies, available at http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2006/01/docs/i36.pdf, accessed 20 October 2011.
64. RAE (2009) RAE 2008 Subject Overview Reports: I36 Business and Management Studies, available at http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2009/ov, accessed 20 October 2011.
65. RafolsILeydesdorffLO'HareANightingalePStirlingA (2011) How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinarity: The case of innovation studies in business and management, Working Paper, Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, available at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ir28/IDR/Rafols2011-Rankings&IDR.pdf, accessed 27 August 2011.
66. Rowlinson M,Harvey C,Kelly A,Kestinova D,Morris H.Business history in the UK Research Assessment Exercise.European Business History Association, Newsletter. 2010;31:4-10.
67. Rowlinson M,Harvey C,Kelly A,Morris H.The use and abuse of journal quality lists.Organization. 2011;18 (4): 443-446.
68. Rowlinson M,Hassard J,Mohun SChallenges and Controversies in Management Research. Cassell CLee B, ed. London: Routledge; 2010:.
69. Sauder M,Espeland WN.The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change.American Sociological Review. 2009;74 (1): 63-82.
70. Saunders J,Wong V.Manoeuvring towards research decline: The RAE and the decline of Britain's international research standing.European Journal of Marketing. 2011;45 (4): 484-512.
71. Saunders J,Wong V,Saunders C.The research evaluation and globalization of business research.British Journal of Management. 2011;22:401-419.
72. Special topic forum: Critical scholars in the machinery of publishing: Experiences, reflections, alternatives. 2012;28 (3): 205-256.
73. Scandura TA,Williams EA.Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research.Academy of Management Journal. 2000;43 (6): 1248-1264.
74. Sharplin AD,Mabry RH.The relative importance of journals used in management research: An alternative ranking.Human Relations. 1985;38 (2): 139-149.
75. Singh G,Haddad KM,Chow CW.Are articles in top management journals necessarily of higher quality?.Journal of Management Inquiry. 2007;16 (4): 319-331.
76. Starbuck WH.How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication.Organization Science. 2005;16 (2): 180-200.
77. Taylor J.The assessment of research quality in UK universities: Peer review or metrics?.British Journal of Management. 2011;22 (2): 202-217.
78. Thomas H,Wilson AD.'Physics envy', cognitive legitimacy or practical relevance: Dilemmas in the evolution of management research in the UK'.British Journal of Management. 2011;22:443-456.
79. Tourish D.Leading questions: Journal rankings, academic freedom and performativity: What is, or should be, the future of leadership?.Leadership. 2011;7 (3): 367-381.
80. Tranfield D,Starkey K.The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: Towards policy.British Journal of Management. 1998;9 (4): 341-353.
81. Budget. London:; 2006 2006:.
82. TruexDCuellarMVidgenRTakedaH (2011) Emancipating scholars: Reconceptualizing scholarly output. 7th International Critical Management Studies Conference, Naples available at http://www.organizzazione.unina.it/cms7/proceedings/proceedings_stream_13/Truex_et_alii.pdf, accessed 13 November 2011.
83. Van Fleet DD,Kacmar KM,Griffin RW,Ford RC,Duncan WJ.Towards finding the balance of art and science in management: A market approach to valuing management research.Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship. 2011;16 (1): 3-27.
84. WellsP (2010) The ABS rankings of journal quality: An exercise in delusion. Working Paper, The Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society, Cardiff Business School available at http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/010610_ABS_Rankings.pdf, accessed 21 October 2011.
85. Willcocks L,Whitley EA,Avgerou C.The ranking of top IS journals: A perspective from the LSE.European Journal of Information Systems. 2008;17:163-168.
86. Willmott HC.Managing the academics: Commodification and control in the development of university education in the UK.Human Relations. 1995;48 (9): 993-1028.
87. Willmott HC.Commercialising higher education in the UK: The state industry and peer review.Studies in Higher Education. 2003;28 (2): 129-141.
88. Willmott HC.Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS list.Organization. 2011;18 (4): 29-44.
89. Worthington F,Hodgson J.Academic labour and the politics of quality.Higher Education: A Critical Evaluation of the Conditions of Possibility of Resistance, Critical Quarterly. 2005;47 (1-2): 96-110.
90. Worrell DL.Assessing business scholarship: The difficulties in moving beyond the rigor-relevance paradigm trap.Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2009;8 (1): 127-130.