MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decolonizing Management and Organization Studies: Why, How, and What

2024· article· en· W4400444245 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emamdeen Fohim, Michael Lounsbury, Charlene Zietsma, Samer Abdelnour, Tapiwa Seremani, Sandiso Bazana, Chahrazad Abdallah, Snehanjali Chrispal, Ella Henry, Chintan Kella, Medina Williams, Shaista E. Khilji, Leanne Hedberg, Jean‐Pierre Imbrogiano

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsMacEwan UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganization studiesBusinessPolitical scienceProcess managementKnowledge managementManagementComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Literature on decolonizing management and organization (MOS) studies has become a hot topic in our discipline (i.e., Allen & Girei, 2023; Pal et al., 2022; Yousfi, 2021). As scholars have recognized a Western-centric bias, fostering one-sided knowledge outputs incommensurate with other cultural contexts (Banerjee, 2021; Filatotchev et al., 2021), there has been an increased call to enhance indigenous theorizing (Bothello et al., 2019; Bruton et al., 2021; Salmon et al., 2023). However, decolonizing our discipline is more than overcoming a so-called WEIRD bias – the narrow research focus on and with actors from countries with a Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic background (Henrich et al., 2010). Instead, decolonizing MOS requires serious “emancipatory” steps to overcome institutional hurdles that hamper the heterogenization of knowledge creation (Banerjee, 2021). Further reflections and new solutions on the setup of journals (Barros & Alcadipani, 2022; Zoogah et al., forthcoming), international conferences (Kondayya et al., forthcoming), or business schools (Woods et al., 2022) are needed to include previously unheard voices in the mainstream literature. What decolonizing means in academia and what it is not is thus a topic that concerns all management scholars (Abdelnour, 2022). Particularly if we take our call seriously to create knowledge for addressing current and future grand challenges (George et al., 2016; Kunisch et al., 2023). Spaces for voices and theories on sustainable solutions beyond Western Enlightenment ideals are thus needed (Banerjee & Arjaliès, 2021). Hence, decolonizing MOS requires profound and deepened reflections from different viewpoints: i) taking stock of existing literature on the topic to identify unaddressed gaps, ii) establishing a common understanding of why to decolonize our discipline, iii) creating ideas of how to do this as an individual scholar in the broader system of knowledge creation, iv) reflect on what institutions in which areas of academia need to be reimagined, v) and finally launch initiatives and start actions (beyond writing about the topic) that can seriously impact and change our academic world. The presenter symposium wants to shed light on these issues through the presentation and subsequent discussion of five articles. Decolonizing Management and Organization Studies - Why, How, and What Author: Emamdeen Fohim; U. of Bern Author: Michael Lounsbury; U. of Alberta Decolonizing Management and Organization Studies: Taking Stock and Looking Forward Author: Tapiwa Winston Seremani; IESEG School of Management, France Author: Sandiso Bazana; Grenoble Ecole de Management ‘Within and Against’: : Decolonizing as Radical Refusal Author: Chahrazad Abdallah; U. du Québec à Montréal “They” Are Speaking, But Are We Listening? Epistemic Violence in the Pursuit of Organization Studies Author: Snehanjali Chrispal; - Matauranga Maori: Incorporating Indigenous Maori Knowledge in a Business School Curriculum Author: Ella Henry; Auckland U. of Technology A Charta of Principles, Rights, and Responsibilities Author: Chintan Kella; Department of Organisation and Personnel Management, Rotterdam School of Managem Author: Medina Williams; Purdue U., West Lafayette Author: Shaista Ehsan Khilji; George Washington U. Author: Leanne Mara Hedberg; MacEwan U., Edmonton, Alberta Author: Jean-Pierre Imbrogiano; U. of Helsinki

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207