Priming the pump at the Campbell Business and Management Coordinating Group
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Business and Management Coordinating Group (BMCG) is one of the newest coordinating groups of the Campbell Collaboration, founded in 2017 with Julia Littell as Editor and Eric Barends and Denise Rousseau as Co-chairs. Today Littell is Editor and Rousseau Associate Editor. The mission of the BMCG is to make systematic reviews on organizational research available to the broad public of business and management scholars, educators, and practitioners. This editorial describes the focus of BMCG and its challenges and opportunities. The BMCG aligns with the initiative in professional schools and management practice to promote evidence-based decisions in organizations, by managers and staff, boards and policymakers, and other stakeholders. Part of the wider movement toward evidence-based practice in medicine and public policy, the evidence-based practice movement in organizations (Barends & Rousseau, 2018) began as a response to the reliance on tradition, authority, and opinions consultants advance as a basis for action. It mirrors the origins of evidence-based medicine in the 1990s and the then-limited incorporation of scientific evidence into medical school education and physician practice. Managerial decisions affect the working lives and well-being of people around the world. As Henry Mintzberg (1989) said: “No job is more vital to our society than that of a manager. It is the manager who determines whether our social institutions serve us well or whether they squander our talents and resources.” The focus of BMCG is evidence regarding organization-related decisions and the diverse practitioners who contribute to them—from executives and entrepreneurs, coaches and consultants, workers and volunteers, to labor organizers and civil servants. With its organizational focus, BMCG is sector-neutral, including for-profit, nongovernmental and governmental organizations. BMCG is in the “pump priming” phase, meaning that it is in the setup stage of operation. Our goals are (1) to develop a pipeline of systematic reviews related to organizational decisions and practices, (2) to promote systematic reviews as a practice in management and organizational research, and (3) to support training in systematic review methods. We promote the systematic review methodologies developed by Cochrane and Campbell (Higgins et al., 2020; The Campbell Collaboration, 2019). Currently, we have nine approved titles on topics, ranging from the role of CEO financial incentives in firm performance and the uptake and use of structured interviews in employee selection, to the effect of workplace coaching on learning and performance. We actively promote systematic reviews in management and organizational research by publishing guidance of their use (e.g., Littell et al., 2008; Rousseau et al., 2008), and presenting panels of scholars and librarians at major management conferences including the Academy of International Business and the Academy of Management. A shout-out is due to the University of Calgary Professor Olga Petricevic and Librarian Zahra Premji, and Carnegie Mellon University Librarians Ryan Splenda and Sarah Young for their inestimable efforts to educate the Organization and Management Studies community regarding systematic reviews. We are working on the pipeline of systematic reviews by collaborating with doctoral programs in Organization and Management Studies to train students and faculty in systematic reviewing methodologies. The Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, for example, now sponsors a doctoral program for scholar practitioners grounded in systematic review training and development. To promote broader systematic review awareness and skills, we are working with the Campbell Training and Development Coordinating Group, chaired by Jeff Valentine, to develop on-line training. Hannah Rothstein and Howard White have graciously shared their knowledge and skills with the broad Organization and Management Studies community, providing training in several venues. Lack of awareness of systematic review methods and limited training in review methodologies are endemic in Business and Management. As part of the Center for Evidence-Based Management, we have developed online training in evidence-based management, now used in over 30 universities (https://cebma.org/resources-and-tools/course-modules/). Advancing systematic review training is the next step in priming the BMCG pump. We hope to hear from you if you are interested in promoting, learning about, or conducting a Business and Management-related systematic review (denise@cmu.edu).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».