超越卓越研究:关于管理与组织研究中互补性评价实践的建议

Dirk Lindebaum, Paul Hibbert
{"title":"超越卓越研究:关于管理与组织研究中互补性评价实践的建议","authors":"Dirk Lindebaum, Paul Hibbert","doi":"10.1177/13505076231212980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, we question evaluative practices concerning ‘scientific excellence’ as solely captured in so-called ‘A journals’, because they can entail a disconnection between the measure and its contents. Where this occurs, we start writing for our own immediate ‘survival’ and long-term social standing among our peers. Along the way, however, there is a risk that we lose sight of what ‘meaningful’ research can feel and look like. While research must be reliable or trustworthy, we advocate the use of complementary evaluative practices that involve learned societies, along with employee or employer-focused organisations and their assessment of the meaningfulness of published research in their respective contexts. Our proposal (a) encourages diverse forms of research contribution, (b) enables researchers to develop a collaborative approach that supports engagement and dialogue between researchers and the appropriate audiences for their work and (3) ensures that the impact of research can be developed more intentionally after publication.","PeriodicalId":508032,"journal":{"name":"Management Learning","volume":"49 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond research excellence: A proposal for complementary evaluative practices in management and organisation studies\",\"authors\":\"Dirk Lindebaum, Paul Hibbert\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13505076231212980\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this essay, we question evaluative practices concerning ‘scientific excellence’ as solely captured in so-called ‘A journals’, because they can entail a disconnection between the measure and its contents. Where this occurs, we start writing for our own immediate ‘survival’ and long-term social standing among our peers. Along the way, however, there is a risk that we lose sight of what ‘meaningful’ research can feel and look like. While research must be reliable or trustworthy, we advocate the use of complementary evaluative practices that involve learned societies, along with employee or employer-focused organisations and their assessment of the meaningfulness of published research in their respective contexts. Our proposal (a) encourages diverse forms of research contribution, (b) enables researchers to develop a collaborative approach that supports engagement and dialogue between researchers and the appropriate audiences for their work and (3) ensures that the impact of research can be developed more intentionally after publication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Management Learning\",\"volume\":\"49 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Management Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076231212980\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076231212980","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我们对所谓的 "A 级期刊 "中关于 "科学卓越性 "的评价做法提出质疑,因为这些做法可能会导致衡量标准与其内容之间的脱节。在这种情况下,我们开始为自己眼前的 "生存 "和在同行中的长期社会地位而写作。然而,在这一过程中,我们有可能会忽略 "有意义 "研究的感觉和外观。虽然研究必须是可靠或值得信赖的,但我们提倡使用补充性评价方法,让学术团体、以雇员或雇主为中心的组织参与进来,并由他们在各自的背景下对已发表研究的意义进行评估。我们的建议:(a) 鼓励多样化的研究贡献形式;(b) 使研究人员能够制定一种合作方法,支持研究人员与其工作的适当受众之间的接触和对话;(3) 确保研究成果发表后能够更有意识地扩大其影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beyond research excellence: A proposal for complementary evaluative practices in management and organisation studies
In this essay, we question evaluative practices concerning ‘scientific excellence’ as solely captured in so-called ‘A journals’, because they can entail a disconnection between the measure and its contents. Where this occurs, we start writing for our own immediate ‘survival’ and long-term social standing among our peers. Along the way, however, there is a risk that we lose sight of what ‘meaningful’ research can feel and look like. While research must be reliable or trustworthy, we advocate the use of complementary evaluative practices that involve learned societies, along with employee or employer-focused organisations and their assessment of the meaningfulness of published research in their respective contexts. Our proposal (a) encourages diverse forms of research contribution, (b) enables researchers to develop a collaborative approach that supports engagement and dialogue between researchers and the appropriate audiences for their work and (3) ensures that the impact of research can be developed more intentionally after publication.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Extreme fiction for leadership development Book Review: Design Ethnography: Research, Responsibilities, and Futures Book Review: Design Ethnography: Research, Responsibilities, and Futures Politicizing and humanizing management learning and education with Paulo Freire Book Review: Debating Business School Legitimacy: Attacking, Rocking, and Defending the Status Quo
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1