Abstract:We invoke the metaphor of the perfect storm and argue that several factors have converged to create what we label the irresponsible research perfect storm. Many of these issues can be fixed by applying management theories, but we argue this has not been done due to the existence of a research‐research gap. Akin to the research‐practice gap, the research‐research gap is a disconnect between the research academics are producing and the research academics ourselves are using to manage our own business schools, jo… Show more
“…All these recommendations are promising and laudable but mostly look into history (Bartunek, 2020) or the future (Aguinis et al, 2020a, 2020b; Aguinis, Archibold, & Rice, 2022; Balkin & Bresser, 2021; Harley & Fleming, 2021; Rasheed & Priem, 2020). My above findings, however, suggest that potential remedies to the “an A is an A” mentality could also be found in contemporary practices performed in business schools outside North America (cf.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of recent articles have provided a thought‐provoking discussion of the “an A is an A” mentality and the increasing primacy of journal publications taking hold at business schools (Aguinis et al, 2020a, 2020b; Aguinis, Archibold, & Rice, 2022; Balkin & Bresser, 2021; Bartunek, 2020; Harley & Fleming, 2021; Rasheed & Priem, 2020; Tourish, 2020a, 2020b; Wazir, El‐Bassiouny, & Schmidpeter, 2022). According to Aguinis et al (2020a, p. 135), this mentality has emerged as the new bottom line for valuing academic research conducted in business schools and can be summarized as follows: Faculty recruiting committees and promotion and tenure panels readily discuss how many A's a candidate has published and how many A's are needed for a favorable decision, while conversations about the distinctive intellectual value of a publication are often secondary to its categorical membership in journals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of recent articles have provided a thoughtprovoking discussion of the "an A is an A" mentality and the increasing primacy of journal publications taking hold at business schools (Aguinis et al, 2020a(Aguinis et al, , 2020bAguinis, Archibold, & Rice, 2022;Balkin & Bresser, 2021;Bartunek, 2020;Harley & Fleming, 2021;Rasheed & Priem, 2020;Tourish, 2020aTourish, , 2020bWazir, El-Bassiouny, & Schmidpeter, 2022). According to Aguinis et al (2020a, p. 135), this mentality has emerged as the new bottom line for valuing academic research conducted in business schools and can be summarized as follows:…”
With reference to recent debate about the increasing "an A is an A" mentality at business schools, I provide evidence on the prevalence of this mentality in North America versus other regions of the world (RoW). The evidence presented is derived from the data selection procedures employed in conducting systematic reviews of management research because a focus on specific journals in this selection can be seen as an artifact of the "an A is an A" mentality. My findings suggest that this mindset is more widespread in North American business schools and less so elsewhere. This implies that in order to find remedies against the detrimental effects of the "an A is an A" mentality, North American business school leaders and academics might find inspiration in other countries. In addition, I suggest that a part of the solution could also be directing PhD students toward a more inclusive selection of journals and articles in reviews of management research.
“…All these recommendations are promising and laudable but mostly look into history (Bartunek, 2020) or the future (Aguinis et al, 2020a, 2020b; Aguinis, Archibold, & Rice, 2022; Balkin & Bresser, 2021; Harley & Fleming, 2021; Rasheed & Priem, 2020). My above findings, however, suggest that potential remedies to the “an A is an A” mentality could also be found in contemporary practices performed in business schools outside North America (cf.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of recent articles have provided a thought‐provoking discussion of the “an A is an A” mentality and the increasing primacy of journal publications taking hold at business schools (Aguinis et al, 2020a, 2020b; Aguinis, Archibold, & Rice, 2022; Balkin & Bresser, 2021; Bartunek, 2020; Harley & Fleming, 2021; Rasheed & Priem, 2020; Tourish, 2020a, 2020b; Wazir, El‐Bassiouny, & Schmidpeter, 2022). According to Aguinis et al (2020a, p. 135), this mentality has emerged as the new bottom line for valuing academic research conducted in business schools and can be summarized as follows: Faculty recruiting committees and promotion and tenure panels readily discuss how many A's a candidate has published and how many A's are needed for a favorable decision, while conversations about the distinctive intellectual value of a publication are often secondary to its categorical membership in journals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of recent articles have provided a thoughtprovoking discussion of the "an A is an A" mentality and the increasing primacy of journal publications taking hold at business schools (Aguinis et al, 2020a(Aguinis et al, , 2020bAguinis, Archibold, & Rice, 2022;Balkin & Bresser, 2021;Bartunek, 2020;Harley & Fleming, 2021;Rasheed & Priem, 2020;Tourish, 2020aTourish, , 2020bWazir, El-Bassiouny, & Schmidpeter, 2022). According to Aguinis et al (2020a, p. 135), this mentality has emerged as the new bottom line for valuing academic research conducted in business schools and can be summarized as follows:…”
With reference to recent debate about the increasing "an A is an A" mentality at business schools, I provide evidence on the prevalence of this mentality in North America versus other regions of the world (RoW). The evidence presented is derived from the data selection procedures employed in conducting systematic reviews of management research because a focus on specific journals in this selection can be seen as an artifact of the "an A is an A" mentality. My findings suggest that this mindset is more widespread in North American business schools and less so elsewhere. This implies that in order to find remedies against the detrimental effects of the "an A is an A" mentality, North American business school leaders and academics might find inspiration in other countries. In addition, I suggest that a part of the solution could also be directing PhD students toward a more inclusive selection of journals and articles in reviews of management research.
“…University education is often mentioned as insufficiently teaching entrepreneurial skills such as design thinking, critical thinking, and problem-based ownership (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Parker, 2018; Römgens et al, 2020). Moreover, in many universities, teaching practices are directed and governed by professors who seem to be disconnected from the needs of students and potential employers given the research-practice gap (Aguinis, Archibold, & Rice, 2022; Denning, 2018; Miller et al, 2011; Wetherbe, 2013).…”
We address the ongoing concern that entrepreneurship education (EE) is not preparing students sufficiently well for jobs in the 21st-century. We argue that many criticisms leveled against EE for not effectively addressing the entrepreneurial skills gap are due in part to EE’s emphasis on the roles of specific stakeholder groups separately (i.e., universities and their leaders, instructors, students, potential employers) rather than a shared focus on developing valuable graduates. Stated differently, there are competing and conflicting “ownerships” over the entrepreneurial skills gap. We enhance current pedagogical methods by offering a learning innovation called extreme pedagogy. Extreme pedagogy takes place when all stakeholders have a collective intention and ownership in producing graduates with relevant entrepreneurial skills. We describe extreme pedagogy’s conceptual foundation based on psychological ownership theory, the effective of use of extreme ownership in military contexts, and the role of universities and their leaders, instructors, students, and potential employers in the implementation of extreme pedagogy. We then summarize themes from a workshop involving entrepreneurial leaders across industries on EE challenges and the role of extreme pedagogy in addressing them. We close by describing anticipated benefits of extreme pedagogy for all EE stakeholders.
“…The Point illustrates the principles of responsible research; emphasizes the interplay between scientific freedom and responsibility; and it suggests a set of norm‐guided actions to strengthen our research ecosystem. The first Counterpoint, by Aguinis et al (2022), warns that management scholars face a perfect storm of irresponsible research caused by some eight factors – all of which are self‐inflicted; created by choices we made, or allowed others to make for us. Being solution‐oriented, this Counterpoint advances four recommendations to face, quell, or avoid irresponsible research by narrowing what they label the research‐research gap (i.e., when we do not practice what our research recommends).…”
This Point‐Counterpoint (PCP) on the Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) movement features three essays on the roles of science and scholars in addressing problems that are significant to both business and society. This introduction discusses three areas that seem to hinder the RRBM movement. The first is that the movement seeks to ‘own the responsible research domain’. A second is that using societal impact to adjudicate whether a single study is ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’ can be irresponsible. A final hindrance are some unintended consequences of overstressing societal impact. Despite these concerns, the three essays bring tremendous clarity and hope to scholars who want their studies to make the world a better place.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
