Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how Drucker's work has been disseminated through the North American management textbook since 1940, and what this tells people about the wider issue of the social construction and dissemination of management knowledge. Design/methodology/approach The paper is a critical hermeneutic analysis of the presence and use of Drucker in over 500 management textbooks and the socio‐political context in which both Drucker's work and North American textbooks were written. Findings Paradoxically, while Drucker's work was found to be the most‐referenced of any management writer in the textbooks studied, his theories – apart from discussions of “Management by objectives” and the “Knowledge economy” – were rarely discussed. It is argued that the referencing of Drucker served more to legitimize selected points made by textbook authors than to discuss and build on Drucker's work. Explanation of the paradox is explored through the socio‐political contexts in which Drucker was writing, strongly suggesting that the North American textbook has developed a dominant scientivistic trope that construct business “knowledge” through the narrow lens of behavioural science. Originality/value While much writing can be found on the influence of Drucker on the business world and his status as a management guru, little is found on Drucker's body of work in the management textbook, which plays a key role in management education in North American business schools. The paper builds on recent management research on the role of socio‐political context in the shaping of management theory and knowledge, and makes a new contribution to one's understanding of the shaping and contours of management knowledge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".