Is management research visible outside the academic community?

Hamet, Joanne; Maurer, Frantz

doi:10.3917/mana.205.0492

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recognizing third parties' different roles in shaping the interaction between academia and management is not only of theoretical significance but also extends our view of the range of audiences available to academics when reaching out to management practitioners. Prior work has shown successes in how academics reach out to practitioner audiences by popularizing their academic work, taking part in public debate, or when sharing their expertise in public lectures (Hamet & Maurer, 2017;Rajaeian et al, 2018). Our findings indicate how targetting intermediary audiences creates new possibilities, including new scholarly responsibilities.…”

Section: Implications For Management Scholars: Reaching Out To Third Partiesmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…Popularization is mentioned as a successful knowledge transfer practice, including publishing, or being cited in professional journals (Hamet & Maurer, 2017;Rajaeian et al, 2018). Porter's models are mentioned as an example of academic consulting because they are widely used by consulting practitioners.…”

Section: Knowledge Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As future management practitioners, students will bring management knowledge into circulation when they start working, and with executive students, knowledge transfer goes even faster. Next to audiences, various outlets and communication practices are considered, such as teaching, training, presenting, authoring popular science books and publishing articles in practitioner journals or newspapers, as blogs or on websites (Beyer & Trice, 1982;Butler et al, 2015;Hamet & Maurer, 2017;Hughes et al, 2011;Moeini et al, 2019;Peng & Dess, 2010;Tucker & Lowe, 2014). The spoken word and direct contact are seen as particularly impactful for a practitioner audience (Beyer & Trice, 1982;Rynes et al, 2001).…”

Section: Knowledge Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Intermediaries in the relevance‐gap debate: A systematic review of consulting roles

Bouwmeester

Heusinkveld

Tjemkes

2021

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A highly contested issue in management science is its relevance to practice.Despite third parties' potentially significant role in changing the interaction between divided parties, the long-standing literature on the relevance gap has paid third parties little systematic attention. Drawing on a boundary-spanning perspective, and the concept of brokerage in particular, we review how the consultant role is discussed as an intermediary third party between management science and management practice. Based on a systematic literature review of 133 articles, we identify different intermediary consultant roles linking management science to management practice. Our findings detail how the practices associated with intermediary consultant roles performed by academics or practitioners relate to several key relevance criteria, how management knowledge flows when including intermediaries and how intermediaries in different roles relate to different audiences. Based on the findings, we develop a third-party model of intermediary consultant roles and knowledge flows. The model indicates the theoretical significance of third parties in shaping the interaction and knowledge flows between management science and management practice and has theoretical implications for understanding the persistence of the relevance gap. Regarding practical implications, we suggest how management scientists could target third parties as new key practitioner audiences. Considering third parties, and thus moving away from a two-party view, opens up promising directions for further research on the roles and role shifts of various intermediary actors and on how different intermediary audiences may appreciate different types of academic knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Management Scholars: Reaching Out To Third Partiesmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Knowledge Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowledge Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intermediaries in the relevance‐gap debate: A systematic review of consulting roles

Bouwmeester

Heusinkveld

Tjemkes

2021

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, with a tendency towards sophisticated quantitative methodologies, management research has led to the production of knowledge that is more of a conceptual nature than instrumental for practical applications (Hamet & Maurer, 2017). Academic research in management has lost much of its relevance for practitioners (Schultz, 2010).…”

Section: Bibliometric Studies In Management and Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Financial Times FT50 journal list select the best management and economics journals?

Fassin

2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ranking of academic journals and the considerable impact of journal lists have been increasingly criticized, especially in management research. To assess the effectiveness of peer review selection versus bibliometric assessment, a benchmark of the best management and economic journals is performed. Based on multiple indicators, the Financial Times FT50 list is compared to the 100 best ranked journals. The position of the FT journals in our aggregate bibliometric ranking confirms the effectiveness of the peer review of the FT. It also highlights the complementarity of peer review for research assessment with the metrics. The h-index emerges as the best predictor for FT membership, followed by the average citation. The Journal Impact Factor is refuted as a predictor for FT inclusion, while the SJR indicator seems to be more representative only for economics journals. The FT50 confirms the stability of the top-tier journals. It crowns journals' long-term reputation. The FT50 covers a good balance of subfields and also leaves room for a practitioner journal and openness for innovation. The dichotomy between economics and general management journals remains a concern for rankings and journal lists, as does the size of the selection and the quest for a balanced subdivision between subfields.

show abstract

“…As noted by Hamet and Maurer (2017), management research is still only scarcely visible outside of academia -in particular, there is very little media coverage for the work we do, partly due the generic but also heterogeneous drivers of media attention (Roulet & Clemente, 2018). Despite this lack of visibility, it is clear that management research has a lot to offer to tackle grand challenges (Bothello & Roulet, Forthcoming).…”

Section: The Stigma Of Management Research: Reconciling Rigour and Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Open-access Management Research at a Turning Point: Giving Relevance to a Stigmatized Object

Daudigeos¹,

Roulet²

2018

M@n@gement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is management research visible outside the academic community?

Cited by 13 publications

References 43 publications

Intermediaries in the relevance‐gap debate: A systematic review of consulting roles

Intermediaries in the relevance‐gap debate: A systematic review of consulting roles

Does the Financial Times FT50 journal list select the best management and economics journals?

Open-access Management Research at a Turning Point: Giving Relevance to a Stigmatized Object

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About