The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What's in a Fashion? Interpretative Viability and Management Fashions
Abstract
Building and reacting on the most influential article on the topic, namely, `Management Fashion' by Abrahamson (Academy of Management Review 21(1), 1996), we propose that management fashions are best conceptualized as `the production and consumption of temporarily intensive management discourse, and the organizational changes induced by and associated with this discourse'. This conceptualization allows us to take account of `interpretative viability', a certain degree of ambiguity about a fashion `s content, and its consequences for the dynamics involved in the ongoing shaping and reshaping of a concept's connotations. Our arguments are illustrated by drawing on a variety of empirical work on Business Process Reengineering in the Netherlands.
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
Abrahamson, E. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258636 · Cited by 1,828
New Technology, Work and Employment
(2010) · doi:10.1111/(issn)1468-005x · Cited by 135
Cited by
Samuel, D., Found, P., & Williams, S. J. (2015) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-12-2013-0555 · Cited by 146
Research Note—Tigerblood: Newspapers, Blogs, and the Founding of Information Technology Firms
Greenwood, B. N., & Gopal, A. (2015) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2015.0603 · Cited by 60
Annosi, M. C., Marchegiani, L., & Vicentini, F. (2020) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-11-2019-1532 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Benders, J., & Van Veen, K.
- Venue
- Organization
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-53
- ISSN
- 1350-5084 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7323
- OpenAlex
- W2140181439
- Cited by
- 493
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
