Centres and Peripheries: Research Styles and Publication Patterns in ‘Top’USJournals and theirEuropean Alternatives, 1960–2010

Abstract

In view of recent literature, suggesting a growing international ascendancy of US‐style scholarship but also a decreasing US dominance in journal publications, I ask two questions with regard to management and organization studies: (1) whether there has been an increasing convergence towards US‐style research; and (2) whether the purported decline in the relative amount of US publications has been uniform across leading journals based in the USA and Europe. In addressing these questions, I take a historical perspective and draw upon the centre–periphery model of international scholarship, arguing that convergence or fragmentation in styles of research and variations in publication patterns have evolved through the interplay between processes of influence by the centre (i.e., the USA) and imitative or competitive responses by the periphery. Empirically, the study spans the period 1960–2010 and is confined to ‘top’ US‐based journals and their main European alternatives. The findings answer the first question with a ‘no, other than a greater tendency towards the US‐style when educational or collaborative ties to the USA are involved and by the recently emerging parts of the periphery’. The second question again is answered with a ‘no, the decline has been much less in “top” US journals relative to the ones based in Europe’.

Methodology‐as‐Technique and the Meaning of Rigour in Globalized Management Research

“…This hegemony positions researchers from peripheral locations, especially those who speak a language other than English, as subaltern (Meriläinen et al ., ). Management knowledge within the Western centre is dominated by ‘US‐style research’ (Üsdiken, ) and is based predominantly on a positivist functionalist orthodoxy (Grey, ). Üsdiken's () analysis of articles in ‘top’ US journals finds a steady decline in qualitative articles and no suggestion of novelty in the periphery (non‐US/Europe), in terms of methods employed.…”

“…Management knowledge within the Western centre is dominated by ‘US‐style research’ (Üsdiken, ) and is based predominantly on a positivist functionalist orthodoxy (Grey, ). Üsdiken's () analysis of articles in ‘top’ US journals finds a steady decline in qualitative articles and no suggestion of novelty in the periphery (non‐US/Europe), in terms of methods employed. He concludes that the periphery ‘appears to be poised to contribute increasingly to an even greater dominance of US‐style research across the world (cf.…”

“…He concludes that the periphery ‘appears to be poised to contribute increasingly to an even greater dominance of US‐style research across the world (cf. Baum, )’ (Üsdiken, , p. 784), despite an increasing number of non‐US‐based academics publishing in ‘A’ journals. This suggests that institutional shifts driven by business school accreditation and ranking systems have incentivized the spread of this ‘research paradigm’ across the globe (Mingers and Willmott, ).…”

“…Management knowledge within the Western centre is dominated by 'US-style research' (Üsdiken, 2014) and is based predominantly on a positivist functionalist orthodoxy (Grey, 2010). Usdiken's (2014) analysis of articles in 'top' US journals finds a steady decline in qualitative articles and no suggestion of novelty in the periphery (non-US/Europe), in terms of methods employed.…”

Qualitative Data Analysis: Exploring Themes, Metaphors and Stories

“…There has been a long tradition within European management research of the use of a range of approaches to inform the collection and analysis of qualitative data (e.g., Knoblauch et al ., ; Erikkson and Kovalainen, ), accompanied by evidence that European journals are more favourable to qualitative research than their US counterparts (Üsdiken, ). However, although there has been extensive debate about the use of various philosophical traditions in qualitative research (Prasad, ; Duberley et al ., ), there has been relatively little discussion about the comparative merits of different data analytic strategies.…”