9
Evaluate your business school’s writings as if your strategy matters John L. Cotton * , Alex Stewart College of Business Administration, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881, U.S.A. ‘‘You don’t know if the dean can read, but you do know that he or she can count.’’–—Sage advice given to the first author as a junior assistant professor 1. Beyond the scholarly article fixation You are the freshly appointed dean at your business school. Your first meeting with department chairs includes a debate about types of faculty publica- tions and criteria for merit and promotion. Most of your tenure-track faculty members focus on articles in prestigious non-specialized academic journals, such as the Academy of Management Journal, Business Horizons (2013) 56, 323—331 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor KEYWORDS Business schools; Practitioner relevance; Publications; Teaching materials; Stakeholders; Strategy Abstract Business school publications are widely criticized for their lack of managerial or teaching relevance. One reason for this criticism is that business school scholarship is typically evaluated purely in terms of one type of work: academic journal articles that are meant to be read by other scholars. However, academics produce multiple types of publications, and business schools serve a wider range of stakeholders. These other stakeholders are often central to the schools’ purposes and may be critical in acquiring resources. These stakeholders probably prefer to see scholarship that is relevant for students or for practitioners. They may prefer scholarship that is ethically relevant or regionally relevant and otherwise different from the model that dominates U.S. journals. Technologies are now available to measure the impact of writings in a much wider range of venues than covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index in the Web of Science. Moreover, a wider range of measures, such as the size of writings’ readership, may be needed. We consider these issues and present some recommendations, arguing that faculty evaluations should follow an intentional strategy and not necessarily conform to the traditional default. # 2013 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.L. Cotton), [email protected] (A. Stewart) 0007-6813/$ see front matter # 2013 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.010

Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

  • Upload
    alex

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

Evaluate your business school’s writings as if yourstrategy matters

John L. Cotton *, Alex Stewart

College of Business Administration, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881, U.S.A.

Business Horizons (2013) 56, 323—331

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

KEYWORDSBusiness schools;Practitioner relevance;Publications;Teaching materials;Stakeholders;Strategy

Abstract Business school publications are widely criticized for their lack ofmanagerial or teaching relevance. One reason for this criticism is that businessschool scholarship is typically evaluated purely in terms of one type of work:academic journal articles that are meant to be read by other scholars. However,academics produce multiple types of publications, and business schools serve awider range of stakeholders. These other stakeholders are often central to theschools’ purposes and may be critical in acquiring resources. These stakeholdersprobably prefer to see scholarship that is relevant for students or for practitioners.They may prefer scholarship that is ethically relevant or regionally relevant andotherwise different from the model that dominates U.S. journals. Technologies arenow available to measure the impact of writings in a much wider range of venuesthan covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index in the Web of Science. Moreover, awider range of measures, such as the size of writings’ readership, may be needed.We consider these issues and present some recommendations, arguing that facultyevaluations should follow an intentional strategy and not necessarily conform to thetraditional default.# 2013 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. Allrights reserved.

‘‘You don’t know if the dean can read, but youdo know that he or she can count.’’–—Sageadvice given to the first author as a juniorassistant professor

* Corresponding authorE-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.L. Cotton),

[email protected] (A. Stewart)

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2013 Kelley School of Business, Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.010

1. Beyond the scholarly articlefixation

You are the freshly appointed dean at your businessschool. Your first meeting with department chairsincludes a debate about types of faculty publica-tions and criteria for merit and promotion. Most ofyour tenure-track faculty members focus on articlesin prestigious non-specialized academic journals,such as the Academy of Management Journal,

ndiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 2: Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

324 J.L. Cotton, A. Stewart

Journal of Finance, and Journal of Marketing. How-ever, one department chair advocates for a profes-sor who is a prominent writer in a specialized area–—business history–—with a new scholarly book from arespected university press. Another chair advocatesfor a professor who publishes frequently in practice-oriented journals like Business Horizons and who hasauthored a trade book with wide readership. Anoth-er chair is worried that a promising junior professorpersists–—despite warnings–—in writing a textbook inthe new and growing specialty of social entre-preneurship.

Previously, you had not thought much about thesequestions. You had always thought that publicationsought to be of the highest quality and that this in turnmeant articles in the ‘top’ scholarly journals. It nowappears that some of your faculty members have amore eclectic view of publications. Some are inter-ested in specialty research areas that generate fewercitations. Some want to develop new techniques forteaching students about business. Some want practi-tioners to utilize their ideas to improve businesspractices (David, David, & David, 2011; Elliott,Goodwin, & Goodwin, 1994). How should these fac-ulty members be evaluated? Currently, they are leftto negotiate how books, practitioner publications,teaching publications, narrow specialty articles,grants, and other types of research publications willbe counted. You realize that this is neither objectivenor fair nor strategically sensible.

The evaluation of business school research oftenbecomes simplistic, focusing on the sole criteria ofscholarly publications in academic journals, partic-ularly those in journals that are highly regarded byleading U.S. business schools. We argue that busi-ness schools need to become more imaginative,changing both what is counted and how it is evalu-ated. Like any major organizational change, this willrequire both top-down and bottom-up transforma-tion. Deans and other administrators, members ofpromotion and tenure committees, and the facultymembers whose writings are evaluated all need tobe actively involved (Fragueiro & Thomas, 2011).First, however, they will need to decide what andhow to count so as to incorporate the full range ofpublications.

1.1. Business schools: Walking their talk?

We business professors teach our students that they‘‘must focus on how value gets created for eachand every stakeholder’’ (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks,Parmar, & de Colle, 2010, p. 9). According to aleading strategy textbook, stakeholder manage-ment is ‘‘an important part of the strategy makingprocess’’ (Hill & Jones, 2012, p. 28). Applying our

prescriptions to our organizations, business schoolresearch ought to be responsive to ‘‘all our potentialstakeholders’’ (Wright, 2011, p. 495). However, asBoyle (2004) has argued, business schools havefailed to walk their talk. Standard practice is toprioritize our fellow scholars as the dominant stake-holders in our evaluation of business school writingsat the expense of writings that would be of interestto students or practitioners.

Deans are rightly concerned with accreditation,but you cannot blame this skewing of stakeholderservice on accreditation strictures. The major ac-crediting body–—the Association to Advance Colle-giate Schools of Business (AACSB)–—encouragesdeans’ support of a broad range of faculty scholar-ship. In fact, in a sample of 41 AACSB deans, ‘‘onlyone dean (from a highly research-orientedschool). . .thought that only peer-reviewed journalarticles should receive points’’ for maintaining aca-demic qualifications (Koys, 2008, p. 210).

1.2. Key questions for evaluatingpublications

As dean, you now recognize the concerns of the fullset of stakeholders of your school, not just otherscholars. Therefore, you charge a taskforce withthe following four questions: (1) Who are the keystakeholders for your business school’s publica-tions? (2) What types of publications do these stake-holders desire? (3) How can these publications beevaluated and rewarded? (4) What are the implica-tions for changing your current evaluation andreward practices? Herein, we offer answers to thesequestions.

2. Stakeholders of the business school

The assumption made in traditional publication eval-uations is that the audience of these publications isother scholars (Wensley, 2009). However, businessschools serve a broader range of stakeholders. Thesestakeholders may include students (current and po-tential), university administrators, alumni, businesspeople, and government or community leaders. Typ-ically, business school mission statements refer tosome, if not all, of these interests. Those with AACSBaccreditation are required to include at least fourstakeholders in developing their statement (Palmer &Short, 2008). We focus on the major stakeholders whoare directly served by faculty writings: scholars,practitioners, and students.

The only stakeholders with much interest in aca-demically prestigious scholarship–—or the scholar-ship of ‘discovery’ (Boyer, 1990)–—are scholars. The

Page 3: Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

Evaluate your business school’s writings as if your strategy matters 325

other stakeholders are more interested in the schol-arship of integration, or of practice or teaching(Mowday, 1997). However, these other stakehold-ers’ interests get short shrift in the evaluationprocess. Their perspectives are neglected eventhough they are critical to resource acquisition(Thomas, 2007). Strategically, then, exclusively fo-cusing on faculty perspectives is myopic and irre-sponsible.

For each of the key stakeholders, we ask fourquestions. First, what influence over resource ac-quisition do they have? Second, what is their basisfor being a stakeholder? That is, following the ty-pology of Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997), do theyhave power, legitimacy, and urgency or some com-bination? Third, what might these stakeholders beseeking in faculty publications? Finally, once wehave outlined the stakeholders in this way, we askwhat strategic choices the school faces regardingpublications. To do so, we draw on Boyer’s (1990)distinctions between the scholarship of discovery, ofintegration, of teaching, and of practice.

2.1. Faculty members as stakeholders

Scholars in the school or elsewhere are the mostengaged stakeholders, having power, legitimacy,and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997). Faculty mem-bers are responsible (directly or indirectly) for ma-jor school decisions, including resource decisions.They are also legitimately involved and have a senseof urgency (even if they are on a different timelinethan the rest of the world). For them, scholarlypublications are highly salient (Mowday, 1997;Stewart, 1995). Publications play a minor role, how-ever, in resource acquisition except for the atypicalcase of major grants.

Professors are not homogeneous. Some prefer adisinterested scholarship of discovery; others preferan applied scholarship of practice (Starkey &Tempest, 2008). They can be further divided bydisciplinary and sub-disciplinary norms (Khurana,2007, pp. 283—285) as well as geographical location.Scholars in the same discipline but different countrieswill have very different perspectives on research.Despite this heterogeneity, faculty members (anddoctoral students) are unique for their interest inthe scholarship of discovery. This form of scholarshipenjoys the highest prestige and earns the highestrewards in the labor market (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin,1992; Miner, 2010; Mittal, Feick, & Murshed, 2008).

2.2. Practitioners as stakeholders

Practitioners in business and in government canaffect both financial and relational support (Arnett,

German, & Hunt, 2003). Most obviously, they canoffer or withhold financial donations or governmen-tal support. They can offer or withhold their time inadvising, mentoring, adjunct teaching, and otherimportant roles. They can also offer or withholdfield research access or data. Clearly, these stake-holders have power, but their legitimacy is not asclear, nor does it seem that they have any urgencywith respect to publications. Complaints about‘irrelevant’ research are commonly heard, but sel-dom do alumni withdraw support because of toomuch scholarly activity.

Almost by definition, practitioners prefer thescholarship of practice. They might also wish toencourage the scholarship of teaching becausesuperior graduates can contribute to their organiza-tions. These general preferences are not in ques-tion; what is in question is their ability to influenceevaluations. However, assuming that relatively dor-mant or less visible stakeholders will remain thatway can be risky. Stakeholder interests change, andeven apparently remote stakeholders may prove tobe impactful (Hall & Vredenburg, 2005). For exam-ple, research universities confront new pressures toprioritize teaching over research from ‘‘externalpublic policy groups such as the Texas Public PolicyFoundation’’ (Hitt & Greer, 2012, p. 236).

2.3. Current and potential students asstakeholders

Potential students have the choice of whether toenroll, and current students have the choice to stayor leave. These decisions directly influence collegebudgets and indirectly have an impact becausestudent demand helps determine school reputationthrough the quality of the student body. However,students’ concern with scholarship is modest atbest; that is, they lack urgency. Faculty publicationsplay almost no direct role in student decisions–—withone exception. High-quality scholarship of discoverywill attract and retain doctoral students becausethese are the students who will read scholarly writ-ings (Finch, Allen, & Weeks, 2010).

3. Publications for scholars

3.1. Types of publications for scholars

The primary forms of publication directed to schol-ars are scholarly articles and scholarly books. Thedefault option in research-oriented schools is toprioritize leading-edge scholarship of discovery pub-lished in academically prestigious journals, typicallyfrom the United States. This emphasis is a natural

Page 4: Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

326 J.L. Cotton, A. Stewart

one in such schools, where scholars themselves areimportant stakeholders and are recognized as suchby administrators. Scholarly books and chapters inscholarly books are the other major form of pub-lications for scholars.

Schools that wish to emphasize impact on schol-ars can further choose to accentuate particularspecialties and therefore prioritize specialized jour-nals. The most prestigious journals tend to reachbroad sectors of scholarly readers, while more spe-cialized or regionally focused journals attain fewerreaders and limited citations. With a specialty fo-cus, the number of citations becomes less impor-tant, and publications or citations in influentialspecialty journals are given heavier emphasis.Some specialties enjoy widely cited journals(e.g., Journal of Consumer Research, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, MIS Quarterly, Per-sonnel Psychology, Research Policy, and StrategicManagement Journal). However, other specialtieswould reward publications or citations in smaller,less-cited journals (e.g., Business History and Busi-ness History Review). Regional publications mightalso be valued as visible to regional leaders.

3.2. Evaluating and rewarding scholarlypublications

Table 1 lists three categories of measures for evalu-ating types of publications. Category A measures aregenerally useful, Category B measures are useful ifavailable, and Category C measures should only beused with some caution. Of course, the first criterionfor evaluation purposes is simply the number ofarticles or books.

Table 1. Methods of evaluating publication types

Means of Evaluation ScholarlyArticle

ScholarBook

Reputation of journal or publisher C C

Impact (i.e., citations) of journal C

Impact (i.e., citations) of work A A

Notice in practitioner venues

Expert opinion and testimonials B B

Book reviews A

Reprints and excerpts B B

Longevity and editions B

Size of readership C

Translations B

Educational criteria

A: Generally usefulB: Useful if availableC: Useful with caution

Assuming that some time has passed from thedate of publication, scholarly writings can be eval-uated with citations, traditionally employing theSocial Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) from the Webof Science. However, citation counts can also incor-porate Scopus (Burnham, 2006), Elsevier’s rival tothe Web of Science, or Google Scholar as well assearches for scholarly books in Google Books or theforthcoming Book Citation Index in Web of Science.

Because evaluations cannot always wait for cita-tions to a work, journal articles are often evaluatedby appraising the journal in which they appear. How-ever, article citations are highly skewed, and a jour-nal is a poor proxy for an article’s impact (Oswald,2007; Singh, Haddad, & Chow, 2007). Further, jour-nals’ reputational measures are highly limited byperceptual biases and respondents’ knowledge lim-itations (Giles & Garand, 2007). Finer-grained meas-ures, such as expert opinions and testimonials, can bemore useful when available. Another useful sign ofquality, when it exists, is a reprint of an article in abook. Also unusual but a sign of broader impact is areference in a practitioner venue, such as on a con-sulting firm’s website or in a corporation’s patent.

Scholarly books can be evaluated with similarmeasures as scholarly articles. Their citations arecounted by the SSCI and by Google Scholar. Further,portions of books may be included in other books. Inaddition, they are often reviewed in journals andare more likely than articles to attract expert tes-timonials, and they might also be translated intoother languages. Scholarly books’ sales levels maybe a weak measure because such books do not sell inlarge numbers, but they could prove to be a usefulindicator as well.

ly PractitionerArticle

PractitionerBook

TextBook

TeachingCase

C C C C

C

C C

B B

B B

B B

B

B B

A A A A

B B B

C C

Page 5: Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

Evaluate your business school’s writings as if your strategy matters 327

Despite their limitations, the more commonlyused methods for evaluating publications–—citationsto the works and journal reputation–—are widely andincreasingly practiced (Adler & Harzing, 2009).Moreover, they have a significant impact on facultymerit pay and job offers as well as the likelihood ofpromotion and tenure (Certo, Sirmon, & Brymer,2010). Articles in the so-called ‘top’ journals aremuch more highly rewarded than other types ofpublication (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992; Mittalet al., 2008). Therefore, the current system ofevaluating faculty writings is closely attuned tothe needs of scholarly readers.

3.3. Publications for scholars: Strategicchoices

For research-oriented business schools, it might ap-pear that few strategic choices are needed: currentpractice does a good job of encouraging this type ofwriting. However, there are decisions to make aboutprioritizing scholarly specialties or regionally rele-vant scholarship. An example of a specialty area thatmight use this approach is scholarship in social entre-preneurship and development, such as ‘bottom-of-the-pyramid’ studies (Seelos & Mair, 2005). Such aninterest would fit the normative perspective of stake-holder theory (Phillips, Freeman, & Wicks, 2003). Itwould also dovetail with the interests of many re-gional and global leaders. These leaders would befound in not-for-profit organizations and govern-ments, and they might also be social entrepreneurs.Purely as an example, these leaders might be con-cerned with encouraging indigenous entrepreneur-ship (Dana & Anderson, 2007).

In addition, research concerning social issues willincorporate a wider range of disciplines than schol-arship focused only on corporate issues. The con-ventional practice of assessing a narrow range ofjournals–—and journal articles alone–—leads aca-demics to focus inward with a limited view of theirdisciplines, which Meyer (1991) labeled as the ‘de-finitive’ perspective when discussing the field ofstrategy. However, much of the interest in thesociology of knowledge today is on cross-disciplinarytheory and research (Dogan, 1997), which argues forevaluating scholarly work as widely as possible.

Conventional evaluation systems can be tweakedfor schools that wish to serve regional interests asopposed to those in the United States (Chatterton &Goddard, 2000; Mudambi, Peng, & Weng, 2008). Asmall number of journals expressly serving areasoutside the United States or Europe (e.g., AsiaPacific Journal of Human Resources, Review ofAgricultural Economics [from India], and Scandina-vian Journal of Management) are modestly well

cited, but many others are very sparsely cited inthe wider literature. However, these journals offeroutlets for region-specific publications, whetherthey relate to discovery, integration, teaching, orpractice. Their stakeholder champions would begovernment and community leaders as well asschool administrators seeking regional prominence.These journals can also be valuable for developingglobal awareness among any set of students (Kedia &Englis, 2011).

If a strategic goal for the department or college isinternational or regional exposure, this has impli-cations for evaluation. For this goal, the best ap-proach would probably be utilizing citations.However, the avenue for counting citations is criti-cal. Using the SSCI to count citations would be amistake for any non-American region. As many au-thors have pointed out (e.g., Svensson, 2010), theSSCI is strongly biased toward English-language jour-nals. Scopus includes more non-English citations,but Internet citations (through Google Scholar)would include even more international citations.For example, in searching his own citations, oneof the authors discovered that about 16% of thecitations to his research are in 22 languages otherthan English. Virtually all of these citations werefound through Google.

4. Publications for practitioners

4.1. Types of publications forpractitioners

Naturally, numerous practitioners seek publicationsthat are of use to their business practices. In fact,despite the strong emphasis on scholarly publica-tions in evaluation practices, many business schoolprofessors do write for a practitioner audience.They produce articles in refereed journals, suchas this one, intended for both scholars and practi-tioners. They produce articles in the business pressand in trade publications. They also write tradebooks intended for a practitioner audience. Theymay also produce publications of interest to regionalleaders concerned with ‘‘the regional availability ofknowledge and skills. . .greater links between re-search and teaching; and more engagement with theend users of research’’ (Chatterton & Goddard,2000, p. 475).

4.2. Evaluating and rewardingpractitioner-oriented publications

Practitioners themselves seldom publish worksthat include citations. Therefore, citation-based

Page 6: Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

328 J.L. Cotton, A. Stewart

measures of articles in practitioner-oriented jour-nals underestimate their impact. However, some ofthese articles do achieve scholarly impact as well.For example, Kaplan and Norton (1992) have morethan 1,000 citations in the SSCI, and Carroll (1991)–—published in this journal–—has more than 250 SSCIcitations.

Despite this potential for both scholarly andpractitioner impact, practice-oriented journalsare sometimes excluded from the short lists of thosethat count toward authors’ careers (Certo et al.,2010; Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992; Mittal et al.,2008). However, several such journals are found onerank below the top in the journal ratings by theAssociation of Business Schools (United Kingdom)and the Australian Business Deans Council. There-fore, schools may offer merit rewards for these sortsof writings. In fact, the AACSB deans surveyed byKoys (2008, p. 210) rated a ‘‘practitioner-orientedbook’’ at 74% and a practitioner-reviewed articlealso at 74% (with lower variance) relative to thevalue of one scholarly journal article.

4.3. Publications for practitioners:Strategic choices

Successful practitioner writers develop more con-nections with practitioners and become more adeptat executive education. Their reputation in thebusiness community reflects favorably on theschool. For these reasons, it is in business schools’interest to encourage practitioner-oriented writ-ings. This argument applies most forcefully to topbusiness schools and those that aspire to earn betterrankings.

Business school rankings are not based on doctoralprograms but on MBA programs. Safon (2009, p. 221)found that at the MBA level, ‘‘research performance’’has some impact on media rankings, but that schoolreputation is determined by ‘‘the quality of studentsand. . .media rankings,’’ not by research. The betterthe MBA program, the better–—that is, the moreexperienced and demanding–—are the students.Therefore, top programs have the greatest needfor balance among scholarly, teaching, and practi-tioner-oriented writings. As others (Hughes, Bence,Grisoni, O’Regan, & Wornham, 2011, p. 53) havenoted:

The focus on academic publication, as the sin-gle metric of performance. . .is further ex-posed [by their findings] as an inadequateway of encouraging and rewarding scholarshipin a field such as management where the theo-ry-practice link is so much a part of what makesit distinctive.

If the purpose of publications is to impact practi-tioners, evaluations also need other measures thanthose utilized for scholars. Sheer visibility, mea-sured by metrics of distribution and availability,may be more relevant. A short work in The WallStreet Journal may be more significant for practi-tioners than a longer work in a practitioner-orientedjournal. Moreover, notice of these works in practi-tioner venues will be more germane than for schol-arly writings. Trade books are also relatively likely toacquire expert testimonials and may be reviewed inthe business press or journals. They can also bemeasured over time by their longevity and by trans-lations into other languages. Measuring indirectimpact on practitioners as ideas ‘migrate’ fromscholarship to practitioners (Daft & Lewin, 2008)is very difficult if not impossible.

However, evaluating the direct impact of publi-cations on practitioners is possible and necessary.Although practitioners seldom publish works thatcite other publications, some government or busi-ness websites provide citations. Based on oursearches, these are skewed to a small set of agen-cies and firms, such as economic development agen-cies and consulting firms. Because citation countsfrom practitioners will be much less numerous thancitations from other professors, visibility is a morerealistic goal. One solution is to value mentions–—not citations–—of faculty members in the businesspress. A second solution is to prioritize publicationsthat reach practitioner readership, giving extraweight for those that are particularly widely distrib-uted, such as the Harvard Business Review and TheWall Street Journal. A third solution is to count thesales of practitioner-oriented trade books by yourfaculty (the Harvard model). Finally, a fourth solu-tion is to search for citations in practitioner-orient-ed trade books written by others. Measuringpractitioner impact will require creativity, but itis not impossible.

5. Publications for students

5.1. Types of publications for students

Professors write directly and indirectly for students.Indirectly, their scholarly writings are reported intextbooks, and their writings on learning and edu-cation (presumably) affect teaching practice. Ourfocus will be on writings meant for students them-selves. The dominant forms are textbooks andteaching materials, such as cases, simulations,and exercises. Other types noted by the AACSBdeans include chapters in textbooks, instructionalsoftware, and instructor manuals (Koys, 2008).

Page 7: Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

Evaluate your business school’s writings as if your strategy matters 329

5.2. Evaluating and rewarding writings forstudents

Textbooks are less likely than other books to bereviewed in journals, but such reviews may exist.Textbooks also tend to garner expert testimonials intheir lengthy vetting processes. Like other books,they can be measured by longevity and by trans-lations (if any there are any). Their most tellingmeasure, however, is sales. Even a modestly sellingtextbook achieves a scope of readership and noticeamong faculty and students that is rivaled by fewother faculty publications. Case materials, for theirpart, can also be measured by adoptions, whetherthey are purchased directly or published indirectlyin textbooks. Within textbooks, they may also ap-pear in translation.

5.3. Publications for students: Strategicchoices

Just as practitioner-oriented publications can ben-efit the business school, so too can student-orientedpublications. They can bring about improvementsin the author’s own teaching (Spiegler, 2011) asthe textbook author must learn to write in a stylethat resonates with students, not necessarily withscholars. Moreover, publications for teaching areincluded among the AACSB activities for maintain-ing academic qualifications (Koys, 2008, p. 208). Infact, AACSB deans rated a new textbook at 79% ofthe value of one academic journal article and a‘‘written case with instructional material’’ at 53%of such an article (Koys, 2008, p. 210). Deansmay object that a textbook often takes more–—not less–—effort than a journal article, and ittypically has fewer authors (Spiegler, 2011), andthe same point may be made about practitionerbooks. Nonetheless, these materials are relevantin terms of accreditation, not to mention stake-holder service.

However, these writings tend to get short shrift atresearch universities (Roediger, 2004). Unlike ref-ereed practitioner journals, teaching publicationstend to be forgotten relative to journal-rankinglists. Therefore, the distinctive school needs tocompensate for this bias internally if it wishes toencourage other modes of scholarship. The schoolthat seeks excellence in the scholarship of teachingor wants to attract better students needs to bear inmind that what gets rewarded gets done (Kerr,1975). Therefore, the school that wishes to encour-age the scholarship of teaching should not onlyreward it but over-reward it. (We are aware ofthe modest chances that our prescription will bewidely followed.)

6. Conclusion: Possibilities for change

What have you now learned about how to countbusiness school publications? Your major takeawaymay be the wide range of options that face you. Inturn, these must be chosen so as to match yourcollege’s strategy. Your strategy itself must fit arange of factors–—advisory boards, administrativebacking, faculty champions, resources, etc.–—foryour specific institution (Fragueiro & Thomas,2011). These local factors play into the politicalrealities of change in any given school. Businessschools differ in their potential for excellence inscholarship, teaching, and relevance. They canchoose different mixes among these. Differentiationhas enabled some schools to improve their resourcesand their standing (Triana, 2011). As termed byNaude, Henneberg, and Jiang (2010), there are‘‘varying routes to the top.’’

6.1. Do not accept default practiceswithout strategic reasons

As a school’s strategies and stakeholders evolve, sodoes the appropriate assessment. However, mostschools make the mistake of relying almost exclu-sively on citations to scholarly journal articles. Atone time, there was no practical alternative. Atthat time, equating ‘impact’ with citations byother scholars in a set of established journalswas natural. Now that alternative measures thatare available, there is little excuse for failing tomake strategic decisions about what is desiredfrom scholarly writings. Available methods allowfor a wide range of strategies, allowing us toevaluate many types of impact. There are manymeasures that the dean can count. Why, then,does the evaluation of business school scholarshipremain so narrow?

As Legge, Sullivan-Taylor, and Wilson (2007) ar-gued, the prioritization of inward-looking scholar-ship is driven by faculty alone. After all, who elsewould drive it this way? This situation suits theinterests of a research elite among business faculty.The resistance to change this prioritization can beexplained with two arguments from the stakeholderliterature. First, scrutiny by stakeholders is re-quired for managers–—or professors–—to attend tothe stakeholders’ interests (Chiu & Sharfman,2011). Students and practitioners do not scrutinizethe scholarly literature; they ignore it (Miles, 2011;Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). Second, business facultymembers’ stakeholder responsibilities are notself-evident. Stakeholder priorities are ambiguousand call for strategic decision making. As it does inother contexts, this ambiguity offers opportunities

Page 8: Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

330 J.L. Cotton, A. Stewart

for managerial–—or professorial–—entrenchment(Cennamo, Berrone, & Gomez-Mejia, 2009).

6.2. Count as if your strategy depends on it

As a new dean, you, along with the senior faculty,will be evaluating what the faculty members pub-lish. What will you count? As we argue above,this should depend on your strategy as a schoolof business. You may want to embrace the businesscommunity or your students or regional leaders.If so, what you count will likely change. Thischange will be difficult, so the faculty will alsohave to learn to count differently. However, thepotential danger of ignoring important stakehold-ers is high.

6.3. Strategic opportunities

Business schools and universities only change slowly,but those that are able to change face an enormousopportunity. The competitive environment is chang-ing (Fragueiro & Thomas, 2011; Thomas, 2007).Corporate, international, and for-profit rivals areincreasing their share of the business educationmarket (Triana, 2011). If business schools in tradi-tional universities fail to adapt, newly established,more nimble competitors may pass them by.

We would not applaud such an outcome. Univer-sity-based business schools are far from perfect.However, the business model guiding consultants,corporate universities, and training firms does notincorporate long-term objective research (Miner,2010). These private providers lack the linkageswith scholars in social sciences, humanities, scien-ces, and business schools themselves that are foundin universities.

The university business school can create anddoes create scholarship for many audiences. It isuniquely positioned to serve not only scholars butalso students, executives, policymakers, and re-gional leaders (Harrison, Leitch, & Chia, 2007).What it needs is the will and clear strategic thinking.Otherwise, business schools will rightly continue tobe seen as out of touch with key constituencies. Thisis the opportunity and the challenge that confrontsthe dean and all of us in business schools.

References

Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins:Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1),72—95.

Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identitysalience model of relationship marketing success: The

case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(2),89—105.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of theprofessoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching.

Boyle, M.-E. (2004). Walking our talk: Business schools, legitima-cy, and citizenship. Business and Society, 43(1), 37—68.

Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: A review. BiomedicalDigital Libraries,3(1) Retrieved from http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/1.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsi-bility: Toward the moral management of organizational sta-keholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39—48.

Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Doesstakeholder management have a dark side? Journal of BusinessEthics, 89(4), 491—507.

Certo, S. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Brymer, R. A. (2010). Competitionand scholarly productivity in management: Investigatingchanges in scholarship from 1988 to 2008. Academy of Man-agement Learning and Education, 9(4), 591—606.

Chatterton, P., & Goddard, J. (2000). The response of highereducation institutions to regional needs. European Journal ofEducation, 35(4), 475—496.

Chiu, S.-C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and theantecedents of corporate social performance: An investiga-tion of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management,37(6), 1558—1585.

Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (2008). Rigor and relevance in organi-zation studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolu-tion. Organization Science, 19(1), 177—183.

Dana, L. P., & Anderson, R. B. (Eds.). (2007). Internationalhandbook of research on indigenous entrepreneurship. North-ampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

David, F. R., David, M. E., & David, F. R. (2011). What are businessschools doing for business schools today? Business Horizons,54(1), 51—62.

Dogan, M. (1997). The new social sciences: Cracks in the disci-plinary walls. International Social Science Journal, 49(3),429—443.

Elliott, C. J., Goodwin, J. S., & Goodwin, J. C. (1994). MBAprograms and business needs: Is there a mismatch? BusinessHorizons, 37(4), 55—60.

Finch, J. H., Allen, R. S., & Weeks, H. S. (2010). The salarypremium required for replacing management faculty:Evidence from a national survey. Journal of Education forBusiness, 85(5), 264—267.

Fragueiro, F., & Thomas, H. (2011). Strategic leadership inthe business school: Keeping one step ahead. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B., & deColle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Giles, M. W., & Garand, J. C. (2007). Ranking political sciencejournals: Reputational and citational approaches. P.S.:Political Science and Politics, 40(4), 741—751.

Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinantsof faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy ofManagement Journal, 35(5), 921—955.

Harrison, R. T., Leitch, C. M., & Chia, R. (2007). Developingparadigmatic awareness in university business schools: Thechallenge for executive education. Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, 6(3), 332—343.

Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, G. R. (2012). Essentials of strategicmanagement (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.

Hitt, M. A., & Greer, C. R. (2012). The value of research and itsevaluation in business schools: Killing the goose that laid thegolden egg? Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(2), 236—240.

Page 9: Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy matters

Evaluate your business school’s writings as if your strategy matters 331

Hughes, T., Bence, D., Grisoni, L., O’Regan, N., & Wornham, D.(2011). Scholarship that matters: Academic-practitioner en-gagement in business and management. Academy of Manage-ment Learning and Education, 10(1), 40—57.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard:Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review,70(1), 71—79.

Kedia, B. L., & Englis, P. D. (2011). Transforming business educa-tion to produce global managers. Business Horizons, 54(4),325—331.

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B.Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769—783.

Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The socialtransformation of American business schools and their unful-filled promise of management as a profession. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Koys, D. J. (2008). Judging academic qualifications, professionalqualifications, and participation of faculty using AACSBguidelines. Journal of Education for Business, 83(4),207—213.

Legge, K., Sullivan-Taylor, B., & Wilson, D. (2007). Managementlearning and the corporate MBA: Situated or individual? Man-agement Learning, 38(4), 440—457.

Meyer, A. D. (1991). What is strategy’s distinctive competence?Journal of Management, 17(4), 821—833.

Miles, R. E. (2011). Lessons learned, ignored, forgotten, andreborn: Organizations and management 1960 to today. Journalof Management Inquiry, 20(1), 4—7.

Miner, A. S. (2010). The promise of family business as an academicfield in major research universities. Advances in Entre-preneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, 12, 323—336.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theoryof stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the prin-ciple of who and what really counts. Academy of ManagementReview, 22(4), 853—886.

Mittal, V., Feick, L., & Murshed, F. (2008). Publish and prosper:The financial impact of publishing by marketing faculty. Mar-keting Science, 27(3), 430—442.

Mowday, R. T. (1997). Reaffirming our scholarly values. Academyof Management Review, 22(2), 335—345.

Mudambi, R., Peng, M. W., & Weng, D. H. (2008). Researchrankings of Asia Pacific business schools: Global versus localknowledge strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,25(2), 171—188.

Naude, P., Henneberg, S., & Jiang, Z. (2010). Varying routes tothe top: Identifying different strategies in the MBA market-place. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61(8),1193—1206.

Oswald, A. J. (2007). An examination of the reliability of presti-gious scholarly journals: Evidence and implications for deci-sion-makers. Economica, 74(1), 21—31.

Palmer, T. B., & Short, J. C. (2008). Mission statements in U.S.colleges of business: An empirical examination of their con-tent with linkages to configurations and performance. Acade-my of Management Learning and Education, 7(4), 454—470.

Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools?. Lesssuccess than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learn-ing and Education, 1(1), 78—95.

Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stake-holder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479—502.

Roediger, H.L., III. (2004). Writing textbooks: Why doesn’t itcount? Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/uncategorized/writing-textbooks-why-doesnt-it-count.html

Safon, V. (2009). Measuring the reputation of top US businessschools: A MIMIC modeling approach. Corporate ReputationReview, 12(3), 204—228.

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creatingnew business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons,48(3), 241—246.

Singh, G., Haddad, K. M., & Chow, C. W. (2007). Are articles in‘‘top’’ management journals necessarily of higher quality?Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(4), 319—331.

Spiegler, M.D. (2011). Writing a psychology textbook: Is it for you?Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/december-11/writing-a-psychology-textbook.html

Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2008). A clear sense of purpose? Theevolving role of the business school. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 27(4), 379—390.

Stewart, A. (1995). Journal ranking in Nacirema ritual: The caseof I. C. MacMillan’s publishing forums. Advances in StrategicManagement, 12(A), 3—37.

Svensson, G. (2010). SSCI and its impact factors: A ‘‘prisoner’sdilemma’’? European Journal of Marketing, 44(1/2), 23—33.

Thomas, H. (2007). An analysis of the environment and competi-tive dynamics of management education. Journal of Manage-ment Development, 26(1), 9—21.

Triana, P. (2011). Business education: Is U.S. still number one?Corporate Finance Review, 16(1), 45—48.

Wensley, R. (2009). Research in UK business schools or manage-ment research in the UK. Journal of Management Develop-ment, 28(8), 718—727.

Wright, T. A. (2011). And justice for all: Our research participantsconsidered as valued stakeholders. Management and Organi-zation Review, 7(3), 495—503.