Nurturing Novelty: Toulmin's Greenhouse, Journal Rankings and Knowledge Evolution

Abstract

Reflecting on Toulmin's, 1972 conceptualization of the academic research process, we fast‐forward his thinking to the current climate of academic excellence and associated journal ranking lists. We argue that the formal and informal use of such rankings throughout the hierarchy of research institutions creates an artificial environment within which favoured ‘branches’ of knowledge continue to flourish at the expense of new conceptual saplings. This ‘greenhouse’ effect might result in the creation of a knowledge tree which is increasingly unfit to the external world for which it is intended. We thus step back and examine wider implications of these factors on the broader evolution of knowledge in the research process. In sum, we argue for a Toulminian explanation of the process by which journal ranking lists reduce academic innovation and creativity, bias academic selection and constrain dissemination processes in the academic community.

Developing Insights through Reviews: Reflecting on the 20th Anniversary of theInternational Journal of Management Reviews

“…After all, journals have a key role to play in incubating saplings of new knowledge (Renwick et al 2019;Toulmin, 1972). After all, journals have a key role to play in incubating saplings of new knowledge (Renwick et al 2019;Toulmin, 1972).…”

“…At IJMR we see ourselves as a home not only for those scholars who adopt more mainstream approaches to reviewing, such as organizing literatures, but those who follow newer (and therefore sometimes more challenging) paths in undertaking reviews. After all, journals have a key role to play in incubating saplings of new knowledge (Renwick et al 2019;Toulmin, 1972). As journal editors, we thus seek to encourage imaginative and innovative papers, in addition to more incremental-based research.…”

More than a quarter century of Creativity and Innovation Management: The journal's characteristics, evolution, and a look ahead

“…Despite the progressing debate about what constitutes scholarly impact nowadays (e.g., Aguinis, Shapiro, Antonacopoulou, & Cummings, ; Osterloh & Frey, ) and corresponding criticism of academic ranking systems (e.g., Adler & Harzing, ; Renwick, Breslin, & Price, ), the traditional assessment of a journal's impact and reputation remains based on its rankings. Vogel et al () differentiate three types of rankings according to methodological approaches: (1) citation‐based rankings, (2) expert‐based rankings and (3) hybrids of the aforementioned.…”

“…Despite the progressing debate about what constitutes scholarly impact nowadays (e.g., Aguinis, Shapiro, Antonacopoulou, & Cummings, 2014;Osterloh & Frey, 2020) and corresponding criticism of academic ranking systems (e.g., Adler & Harzing, 2009;Renwick, Breslin, & Price, 2019), the traditional assessment of a journal's impact and reputation remains based on its rankings. Vogel et al (2017) The most prevalent citation-based metric for journals is the 'Journal Impact Factor' (JIF) as published in the Journal Citation Reports ® , and depicts the "ratio between citations and recent citable items published" (Clarivate Analytics, 2019), reported for a citation window of two and five years, respectively.…”

Innovative scenario planning of petrochemical enterprises in the Iranian community

“…Future studies (FS) is one of the newest research fields that have been recently used because of the nature of the competition (Brem and Utikal, 2019; Walsh and Winsor, 2019; Van de Ven, 2017), rare resources and chaos world (Vukadin and Assarut, 2018; Richter et al , 2018). The complex nature of leading-edge phenomena and challenges calls for different approaches and innovative tools for planning and although traditional management capabilities are still needed, to succeed in such an unpredictable environment (Renwick et al , 2019; Goldsby and Zinn, 2016; Kieser et al , 2015). In recent years, academics and business researchers have welcomed studies in the realm of FS and now more systematically it is used by businesses to support long-term planning (Sarin et al , 2018).…”