Key Authors in Business and Management Education Research: Productivity, Topics, and Future Directions

Abstract

Previous studies of author productivity in business and management education (BME) research have focused on single disciplinary areas, and even single journals. This study is the first to examine the productivity of BME scholars across multiple disciplinary areas (i.e., accounting, economics, finance, information systems, management, marketing, and operations/supply chain management). We analyzed a pool of 17 BME journals with the highest hg‐index, by including the top three journals in the accounting and information systems areas, the top two journals in each of the other disciplinary areas, and an interdisciplinary BME journal. This examination covered a 10‐year period (2005‐2014), 4,464 articles and 9,617 article co‐authors. We identified 7,209 unique authors in this pool and ranked their productivity to create a “Key Authors” list. Each of the top 99 authors had five or more articles in our database. Our findings indicate the potential for cross‐disciplinary dissemination of research ideas and opportunities for scholars to enhance their research profile, because even a small increase in productivity can lead to substantial movement in the BME rankings of authors.

Critical Thinking and Reflective Learning in the Marketing Education Literature: A Historical Perspective and Future Research Needs

“…Following the methodology established by Gray et al (2012), we utilized a four-step process to identify and classify critical thinking/reflective learning papers published in three marketing education journals: Journal of Marketing Education (JME), Marketing Education Review (MER), and the Journal of Advancement of Marketing Education (JAME). We also included the Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE), which is widely regarded as the top management education journal (Arbaugh, Asarta, Hwang, Fornaciari, & Bento, 2017). We used the following process to derive our categorization rubric: Journals considered: All articles published in JME, MER, JAME, and AMLE Search database included: EBSCO Host, ABI Inform, and Google Scholar Search terms used: Critical thinking, critical reflection, reflection, and active processing Time period covered: From inception of the journal through the end of 2016 Search process: We used a sequential search process: identifying titles, then abstracts, then author-identified Stating results, justifying procedures, presenting arguments Philosophical assessment Self-regulation Self-examination, self-correction…”

Next Steps in Business and Management Education Scholarship

“…Arbaugh and colleagues launched a multiyear (and ongoing) project to map BME as a research field, studying it across traditional disciplinary silos in order to help document and stimulate the vibrancy and growth of the field as a whole (Arbaugh et al, 2017, Arbaugh et al, 2018; Asarta et al, 2018; Fornaciari et al, 2017; Hwang et al, 2019). A particularly interesting aspect of this broad research agenda was that it made it possible not only to obtain a summative picture of the most productive BME scholars and institutions but also to study how that picture evolved over the years.…”

“…A final research agenda question that deserves additional scrutiny is whether being an editor of a top BME journal, or having an academic tie to one, increases the chances of scholars to “hit” those top journals. The rankings generated by Arbaugh and colleagues (Arbaugh et al, 2017, Arbaugh et al, 2018) are somewhat informative for this purpose as a number of the editors, associate editors, and members of the editorial boards of the 17 top journals examined appear in the rankings, with some members of the editorial teams only publishing BME scholarship in their respective journals. Additionally, several authors appear in the rankings due to papers published in collaboration with the members of those editorial teams.…”

Planning academic publications - the role of the researcher and the development of publishable proposals

“…Por mais que seja possível se manter partícipe em mais de uma conversa, o efeito da atenção diminuída, o descompasso na mudança de um tema para outro e o processamento limitado de informações em mais de uma conversa sugere que o foco aconteça em uma conversa específica. A combinação de elementos de outra conversa é bem-vinda, desde que contribua com a conversa principal escolhidao que pode ser uma estratégia ousada, mas bemsucedidavide resultados de disseminação interdisciplinar cruzada de ideias de pesquisa (Arbaugh et al, 2017). Comparando-se às ciências sociais aplicadas, a conversa em ciências naturais tem restrições mais simples.…”