Search results

The aim of this article is to provide Dr Bailey Jackson's perspective on institutional and systemic barriers to full inclusion of diverse faculty in higher education through the lens of the multicultural organizational development (MCOD) model. Dr Jackson is renowned for his work on social justice, diversity and multiculturalism.

This is a personal interview with Dr Bailey Jackson. This interview provides insight on institutional level change efforts through the MCOD framework, a perspective on why institutions get stuck on the way to becoming healthy multicultural institutions, and the effect on moving the needle on faculty diversity in institutions of higher education.

The institutional obstacles and barriers tend to be centered around misalignment with the mission, vision and core values, and how those are formulated to include diversity and inclusion. Faculty diversity is only one component in dealing with the health of any organization or the academy as a whole. If institutions focus on diversity faculty in an unhealthy system, they will encounter limitations on how much the institution will develop on the MCOD continuum. The health of the overall system is going to affect the approach to faculty diversity.

Dr Jackson provides insight on his work with the MCOD framework and specifically the overall health of the institution as critical to faculty diversity initiatives. Questions to help institutions begin to assess themselves and identify changes required to move toward Multicultural within the context of faculty diversity are provided.

Through a series of questions, insight from Dr Jackson on why institutions get stuck in moving the needle on faculty diversity through the lens of the MCOD framework is gained.

Universities are large, complex and highly hierarchical organisations with deeply engrained gendered values, norms and practices. This chapter reflects on the experiences of two universities in initiating structural change towards gender equality as supported by the TARGET project. A common aspect thereby is the lack of a national policy in higher education and research providing specific support for implementing gender equality policies. The process of audit, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the first gender equality plan (GEP) in each of these universities was conceived as a first step in a long journey, providing a framework for engaging different institutional actors and fostering reflexive, evidence-based policy making. The analysis deals with reflexivity and resistance and seeks to draw lessons from bottom-up and top-down experiences of GEP implementation. It is the result of shared reflection between the GEP ‘implementers’ in the two universities and the team who provided support and acted as ‘critical friends’.

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 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.