Playing in the academic field: Non-native English-speaking academics in UK business schools

Śliwa, Martyna; Johansson, Marjana

doi:10.1080/14759551.2013.828725

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Horn (2017, p. 3) puts it, “[s]cholars who wish to be taken seriously must develop an Anglophone fluency, and this at an exceptionally high level.” Of course, few of us are able to develop such fluency in practice. Nonnative speakers, thus, find themselves taking part in a game whose language and conventions ultimately do not work to their advantage (see, for example, Meriläinen et al, 2008; Sliwa & Johansson, 2015).…”

Section: Englishizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of course, one may hold the view that English is the language of global academe and, thus, of little relevance to the discussion, but our own experience as academics shows otherwise. Moreover, a number of recent language-sensitive management studies of academia reveal how levels of competence in English are uneven across countries and that the act of writing and publishing in English is a source of anxiety and tension within and between local academic communities (Boussebaa & Brown, 2017; Horn, 2017; Meriläinen, Tienari, Thomas, & Davies, 2008; Pudelko & Tenzer, 2019; Sliwa & Johansson, 2015; Steyaert & Janssens, 2013; Tietze & Dick, 2013). It follows that the question of English requires more attention in the debate about the politics of journal rankings and management knowledge production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Englishization and the Politics of Knowledge Production in Management Studies

Boussebaa

Tienari

2019

Journal of Management Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns have been voiced in recent years about the widespread use of US-dominated journal rankings in business schools. Such practice is seen to have the effect of spreading globally a US-style scholarly monoculture and reconstituting different forms of scholarship as "inferior". In this paper, we explore the ways in which the English language is implicated in these processes. Drawing on language-sensitive studies of academic work and our own experiences as non-native speakers of English, we argue that the use of US-dominated rankings is not just hierarchizing and homogenizing the global field of management but also contributing to its Englishization. This, in turn, we contend, furthers the homogenization of the field while also producing significant language-based inequalities and inducing demanding, quasi-colonial forms of identity work by those being Englishized.

show abstract

Section: Englishizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Englishization and the Politics of Knowledge Production in Management Studies

Boussebaa

Tienari

2019

Journal of Management Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This leaves Indian management scholars, including those working in Anglophone contexts, in a situation where they are constructed as the 'native' who is trying to be white -'almost the same, but not quite'. Manoj's quote suggests language use is related to the academic 'habitus', a distinctive system of thought, feeling, language and behaviour (Bourdieu, 1988) which management scholars inhabit (Śliwa and Johansson, 2015). This includes style, accent and pronunciation, in addition to vocabulary and grammar, which is used to demonstrate one's ability to conform to English-speaking academic rules (Tietze & Dick, 2013).…”

Section: Linguistic Dominationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Beyond Mimicry: Developing Hybrid Spaces in Indian Business Schools

Kothiyal

Bell

Clarke

2018

AMLE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the identity work of Indian management educators and scholars as they seek to establish, maintain and revise a sense of self in the context of business school globalization. We show how globalization, combined with the historical legacy of colonialism, renders Indian scholars precarious in their interactions with Western business schools. Based on a qualitative interview study, we explore how Indian business school scholars perform their identities in the context of neo-colonial relations, which are characterised by the dominance of English language and a pressure to conform to research norms set by globally-ranked journals. Drawing on postcolonial theory, our argument focuses on mimicry as a distinctive form of identity work that involves maintaining difference between Western and non-Western identities by 'Othering' Indian scholars, while simultaneously seeking to transform them. We draw attention to ambivalence within participants' accounts, which we suggest arises because the authority of Western scholarship relies on maintaining non-Western scholars in a position of alterity or 'not quite-ness'. We suggest that hybridity offers an opportunity to disrupt and question current practices of business school globalization and facilitate scholarly engagement that reflects more diverse philosophical positions and worldviews. Business school globalization, its antecedents, processes and consequences, is of enduring interest to management educators and scholars (Doh, 2010). Across North America, Western Europe, Australia and Japan, globalization of business schools is being driven by increased geographical mobility of academics and students and the rising number of institutions seeking international certification from professional bodies (Hardy & Tolhurst, 2014). As well as presenting management educators with cultural challenges related to programs and pedagogical practice (Hardy & Tolhurst, 2014), globalization influences management scholarship. The challenges that arise from globalization are related to the increased significance of international certification assessments (Romero, 2008), and business school rankings (Gioia & Corley, 2002; Collet & Vives, 2013) which incorporate assessments of faculty research quality based on the status of journals they publish in (Adler & Harzing, 2009; Mingers & Willmott, 2013). Rankings and accreditation systems generate isomorphic pressure, in the form of coercive, mimetic and normative processes that shape global business schools in ways which limit the diversity of scholarship (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013). Understood in these terms, business school globalization is a potentially universalising force that encourages cultural convergence and increasing sameness by introducing de-territorialized market logics (Ritzer, 2007). Business school globalization is also constituted through asymmetric, neo-colonial relations between countries in the Western core and peripheral, non-Western nations (Mir et al., 2004; Srinivas, 2012; Cooke and Alcadipani, 2015). In addi...

show abstract

“…"it suggests" rather than "it proves") (Habib Bajwa et al, 2016). Secondly, the awareness of the non-native speaker status may undermine scholar's confidence in his or her ability to meet the expectations of top journals' reviewers (Horn, 2017;Śliwa & Johansson, 2014Śliwa & Johansson, , 2015 resulting in the abandonment of such attempts thus contributing to decrease in the supply of research from Poland.…”

Section: Communication Barriermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multiple reasons have been suggested as responsible for this state of affairs such as underfunding and excessive teaching loads (Dobija & Hałas-Dej, 2017;Obłój, 2008), deficiencies of the peer review system (Jia et al, 2012;Tsui, 2013) associated with parochialism of management science community (March, 2005(March, , 2007, and communication barrier (Horn, 2017;Śliwa & Johansson, 2014Śliwa & Johansson, , 2015 associated with the need to author papers in English. In this article, I contribute to the understanding of this problem by advancing another explanation that points to a less obvious but potentially equally important factor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalized Publishing Practices as a Barrier to Participation in the Global Management Discourse

Hensel¹,

Warsaw²

2018

IJCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Eastern European authors in general, and Polish authors in particular hardly ever publish their work in the top management journals. For instance, out of the 3710 Administrative Science Quarterly papers available in the Web of Science, only 6 (0.16%) were authored or co-authored by scholars residing in the Eastern Europe, including none residing in Poland. The situation is not much better when we take a look at European management journals: Organization Studies features only 24 papers (0.87% of all OS papers available in WoS) authored by scholars residing in Eastern Europe, while Journal of Management Studies so far published one such paper (0.03% of all). Research aims. The study aims at answering the question by analyzing institutionalized publishing practices manifested in the submission guidelines of Polish and global management journals. Methodology. Content analysis of submission guidelines in two samples of journals: global and Polish. Key findings. The study identified significant differences between Polish and global institutionalized publishing practices, regarding the requirements toward the contribution, the role of reviewers, and the technical features of papers. The obtained results shed light on difficulties associated with publishing papers by Polish scholars in the global top management journals. Findings also suggest that adopting different institutionalized practices necessary for successful submissions to global journals may be associated with identity work and depends on author's willingness and ability to engage in such work. Finally, the results of this study contribute to research on the Americanization of management education and on the persistence of institutionalized practices despite prolonged exposure to global literature on management.

show abstract

Playing in the academic field: Non-native English-speaking academics in UK business schools

Cited by 26 publications

References 30 publications

Englishization and the Politics of Knowledge Production in Management Studies

Englishization and the Politics of Knowledge Production in Management Studies

Moving Beyond Mimicry: Developing Hybrid Spaces in Indian Business Schools

Institutionalized Publishing Practices as a Barrier to Participation in the Global Management Discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About