The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Has Management Studies Lost Its Way? Ideas for More Imaginative and Innovative Research
Open accessAbstract
Despite the huge increase in the number of management articles published during the three last decades, there is a serious shortage of high‐impact research in management studies. We contend that a primary reason behind this paradoxical shortage is the near total dominance of incremental gap‐spotting research in management. This domination is even more paradoxical as it is well known that gap‐spotting rarely leads to influential theories. We identify three broad and interacting key drivers behind this double paradox: institutional conditions, professional norms, and researchers' identity constructions. We discuss how specific changes in these drivers can reduce the shortage of influential management theories. We also point to two methodologies that may encourage and facilitate more innovative and imaginative research and revisions of academic norms and identities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers
Jackall, R. (1988) · International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society · doi:10.1007/bf01390690 · Cited by 1,296
Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing
Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, E. A. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1212540 · Cited by 433
What makes management research interesting and why does it matter?
Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20785494 · Cited by 432
Cited by
A Stupidity‐Based Theory of Organizations
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x · Cited by 534
Self-citationTheory Assessment and Agenda Setting in Political CSR: A Critical Theory Perspective
Scherer, A. G. (2018) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12137 · Cited by 149
Tian, M., Su, Y., & Ru, X. (2016) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications4020009 · Cited by 129
The perils of artificial intelligence in academic publishing
Gendron, Y., Andrew, J., & Cooper, C. (2022) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102411 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-08-03
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 128-152
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W1709750395
- Cited by
- 503
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 39.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
