Early-Career Scholars in Pursuit of Impactful Careers: Navigating the Science-Activism Paradox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolving role of management scholars in business schools is becoming increasingly focused on research impact, particularly in addressing society’s grand challenges. However, scholars pursuing impactful careers face seemingly contradictory demands in balancing science and activism. This study aims to understand how management scholars pursuing impactful careers navigate the paradox of science and activism. By examining the experiences of 22 early-career management scholars pursuing impactful careers, the study identifies presenting dilemmas, three phases of experiencing the paradox (i.e., inquiring, immersing, and introspecting), and zooms into the transition points between phases. Thereby, it contributes to the literature on paradox by revealing the interplay between the salience and intensity of experiencing paradox. It also contributes to the discussion on research impact and provides an empirically grounded perspective. Finally, we draw implications by applying paradox theory to foster a constructive debate on how scholars can excel in both scientific and activist roles in the face of grand challenges.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".