Debating the Future of Management Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Editors ofJMSinvited four leading scholars in research on management and organizations to have an open discussion on the current state and future prospects of management research. Our four contributors discuss, among other things, the growing influence of economics, psychology, and sociology on current management research, and the danger of an increasingly fetishistic and formulaic approach to management research that they believe may lead to stale and narrow contributions. Such an approach carries a risk in the long run of seriously dampening the intellectual vigour and impact of management research. Our contributors conclude their discussion with a number of recommendations for management researchers. These recommendations include asking bigger, better, and more challenging questions compared to the orthodoxy in our management research and engaging in modes of research that are not only intellectually challenging but that also have the potential of making a real impact on management practice.
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 | 0.167 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.107 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.059 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".