Search results

Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School.

This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics.

Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank.

This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and traditions.

Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes.

This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers.

The purpose of this paper is to determine which software systems business school administrators use to support accreditation efforts and how administrators select and use these systems. This study also provides best practice suggestions from institutions using faculty data management systems to support accreditation efforts.

This study used a sequential explanatory design using an internet-based survey for business school administrators involved with accreditation reporting with follow-up interviews with survey respondents.

There are four major software vendors that most respondents use for managing reporting of faculty research activity and sufficiency. The location of the school appears to influence the system selected. For assurance of learning reporting, most schools used an in-house or manual system. Respondents highlighted the importance of doing a thorough needs analysis before selecting a system.

Although respondents were geographically diverse, having a larger sample with schools in developing regions would provide greater generalizability of results.

This study gives business school leaders a comprehensive overview of the business schools’ data management systems, criteria used in system selection and best practices for system selection and implementation, faculty engagement and ongoing maintenance.

This study addresses the limited attention given to resources and best practices for selecting and implementing faculty data management software for accreditation in the academic and industry literature despite the significant investment of resources for schools and the importance such systems play in a successful accreditation effort.

The issues associated with the production and dissemination of management research have been widely debated amongst administrators, scholars and policymakers for decades. However, few studies to date have examined this issue at the level of the individual scholar. The purpose of this paper is to view a management scholar’s choice of knowledge dissemination (KD) outlets as a legitimacy judgment embedded in their social structure and community norms.

To explore this, the authors conduct a sequential mixed-methods study. The study uses qualitative methods, including one-on-one interviews (n=29) and five workshops (n=79) with administrators, management scholars, students and external community members (practitioners and policymakers). In addition, the authors analyzed the KD outcomes of 524 management scholars at seven Canadian universities drawn from a stratified sample of business schools.

The results of the research demonstrate the complex interaction between individual scholar-level factors, including socialization (degree type and practitioner experience) and tenure, and the institutional-level factors, such as strategic orientation and accreditation, and how these influence KD judgments. Specifically, the authors find that institutional factors (such as tenure and promotion) are a central predictor of scholarly KD; in contrast, the authors find that individual-level factors including degree, professional experience and career stage influence non-scholarly KD.

The results suggest that as management scholars face increasing pressure to demonstrate impact beyond academia, it may be more difficult than simply adapting the reward system. Specifically, the authors suggest that administrators and policymakers will have to consider individual factors, including their academic training (including interdisciplinary training), previous practitioner experience and career stage.

This paper proposes the development of a student-led pedagogic tool in an undergraduate development economics module offered in a UK business school. It uses the developing country informal sector as an illustrative example. The informal sector plays a huge role in contributing towards job creation, income generation, and poverty alleviation in developing countries. The overall goal of the tool is to propose recommendations of mechanisms that can be used to incentivise the informal sector to embed responsible management in their practice. The tool is to be jointly developed with students and other stakeholders in a developing country. Students are expected to acquire skills related to researching pertinent topics in the development economics field, critiquing policies and frameworks developed by global intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations, and engaging with global stakeholders who are directly and indirectly impacted by these policies and frameworks. The paper highlights the connection between development economics, the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the United Nations (UN) Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME). The development of the tool also provides an avenue for business school students to bridge current gaps in educational institutions in developing countries in engaging with the PRME. The activities discussed in the paper present opportunities for business schools to be innovative and flexible in how they deliver responsible management education. This can ultimately expand the diversity of stakeholder involvement in contributing towards the SDGs and responsible management.

India is the first country to have mandated compulsory corporate social responsibility (CSR) spends through changes in its legislative framework. Focus has thus shifted from the “why” to the “how” of CSR and, therefore, a shift in the “locus” of CSR responsibility from the “influencer” chief executive officer toward the “implementer” CSR professionals. The purpose of this paper is to study the role of management education in developing individual competencies among the implementers and impacting effective CSR implementation.

This paper, using a case study design, studies the role of management education in developing individual competencies among the implementers and impacting effective CSR implementation. Building on theoretical frameworks, this paper carries out an exploratory research of an Indian business school’s management education program for development practitioners. It uses qualitative inputs gathered from relevant stakeholders of the program to understand the role of management education in facilitating the paradigm shift in CSR in the Indian context.

The paper finds that the program has impacted outcomes at three levels, namely through developing key individual CSR-related competencies; impacting participants’ professional performance; and organizational impact in effective CSR implementation.

The case study provides a roadmap to business schools for designing and implementing programs for CSR professionals.

Extant research in the Indian context is silent on key competencies required for CSR implementation and also on the role of management education in developing the same. Such competencies can ensure the efficiency of the expected large CSR spends by private corporates under the new legal requirements and alter the country’s social development path.