平衡相关性与严谨性:探索学术书籍对商业研究中知识形成的影响

IF 4.1 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Journal of Management Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-03-24 DOI:10.1177/10564926241235850
Leigh A. Clark, W. R. Clark, Deana M. Raffo, Ralph I. Williams
{"title":"平衡相关性与严谨性:探索学术书籍对商业研究中知识形成的影响","authors":"Leigh A. Clark, W. R. Clark, Deana M. Raffo, Ralph I. Williams","doi":"10.1177/10564926241235850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars are charged with knowledge advancement by conducting relevant research. Academic researchers rely on the peer-review journal system to evaluate the quality and relevancy of their work. Despite its value, the current review system is flawed and sometimes results in fragmented knowledge formation. Some scholars, including Kouzes and Posner (K&P), publish research in books more accessible to practitioners. The impact of foregoing the traditional journal publication process on current knowledge is unclear. To explore this question, we used leadership scholarship as a case study and examined how K&P's leader credibility conceptualization, primarily shared in practitioner-focused books, was integrated into peer-review literature knowledge. More specifically, we compared K&P's definition with the conceptual definition which emerged from a comprehensive review of leader credibility definitions contained in peer-reviewed literature. We discuss the advantages of different pathways to relevancy and identify ways to achieve better collective knowledge by using these different pathways.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Balancing Relevancy and Rigor: Exploring the Impact of Scholarly Books on Knowledge Formation in Business Research\",\"authors\":\"Leigh A. Clark, W. R. Clark, Deana M. Raffo, Ralph I. Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10564926241235850\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars are charged with knowledge advancement by conducting relevant research. Academic researchers rely on the peer-review journal system to evaluate the quality and relevancy of their work. Despite its value, the current review system is flawed and sometimes results in fragmented knowledge formation. Some scholars, including Kouzes and Posner (K&P), publish research in books more accessible to practitioners. The impact of foregoing the traditional journal publication process on current knowledge is unclear. To explore this question, we used leadership scholarship as a case study and examined how K&P's leader credibility conceptualization, primarily shared in practitioner-focused books, was integrated into peer-review literature knowledge. More specifically, we compared K&P's definition with the conceptual definition which emerged from a comprehensive review of leader credibility definitions contained in peer-reviewed literature. We discuss the advantages of different pathways to relevancy and identify ways to achieve better collective knowledge by using these different pathways.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management Inquiry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926241235850\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926241235850","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学者的职责是通过开展相关研究来推动知识进步。学术研究人员依靠同行评审期刊系统来评估其工作的质量和相关性。尽管有其价值,但目前的评审制度存在缺陷,有时会导致知识的形成支离破碎。包括库兹斯和波斯纳(K&P)在内的一些学者将研究成果出版成书,更便于实践者阅读。放弃传统的期刊出版流程对当前知识的影响尚不清楚。为了探讨这个问题,我们以领导力学术研究为案例,研究了 K&P 主要在以实践者为重点的书籍中分享的领导者可信度概念是如何融入同行评议文献知识的。更具体地说,我们将 K&P 的定义与对同行评议文献中所包含的领导者可信度定义进行综合评议后得出的概念定义进行了比较。我们讨论了实现相关性的不同途径的优势,并确定了通过使用这些不同途径实现更好的集体知识的方法。
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
Balancing Relevancy and Rigor: Exploring the Impact of Scholarly Books on Knowledge Formation in Business Research
Scholars are charged with knowledge advancement by conducting relevant research. Academic researchers rely on the peer-review journal system to evaluate the quality and relevancy of their work. Despite its value, the current review system is flawed and sometimes results in fragmented knowledge formation. Some scholars, including Kouzes and Posner (K&P), publish research in books more accessible to practitioners. The impact of foregoing the traditional journal publication process on current knowledge is unclear. To explore this question, we used leadership scholarship as a case study and examined how K&P's leader credibility conceptualization, primarily shared in practitioner-focused books, was integrated into peer-review literature knowledge. More specifically, we compared K&P's definition with the conceptual definition which emerged from a comprehensive review of leader credibility definitions contained in peer-reviewed literature. We discuss the advantages of different pathways to relevancy and identify ways to achieve better collective knowledge by using these different pathways.
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
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Inquiry, sponsored by the Western Academy of Management, is a refereed journal for scholars and professionals in management, organizational behavior, strategy, and human resources. Its intent is to explore ideas and build knowledge in management theory and practice, with a focus on creative, nontraditional research as well as key controversies in the field. The journal seeks to maintain a constructive balance between innovation and quality, and at the same time widely define the forms that relevant contributions to the field can take. JMI features six sections: Meet the Person, Provocations, Reflections on Experience, Nontraditional Research, Essays, and Dialog.
期刊最新文献
Managing Social Impact Bonds: Intermediary Work and Designing Institutional Infrastructure Wake up! Advancing the Conversation on Woke Labeling Psychedelics, Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy and Employees’ Wellbeing A Revisionist History Approach to the Study of Emotional Labor: Have We Forgotten Display Rules and Service Contexts? Back to the Future: What We’d Change in “Social Identity Theory and the Organization” (Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14, 20–39)
×
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