Advancing management scholarship internationally through theoretical emancipation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose An increasing consensus has been built on advancing management scholarship in contexts other than Anglophone North America. However, debates and arguments about how to do so remain, and there has not been a clear understanding of the progress made. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive and historical assessment of related scholarship and provide recommendations for the path forward. Design/methodology/approach Around 2,700 international context-based empirical papers published from 1990 to 2020 in 4 elite general management journals were reviewed. Other relevant publications on the margins and related academic discussions were also analyzed. Findings At elite outlets, international-context-based research is characterized by a gradual decrease in intellectual vigor and methodological variety, a disregard for context and indifference to practice. At outlets on the edge, research is less constrained by dominant and rigid academic discourse. Research limitations/implications The paper prioritizes liberatory thinking about theoretical contribution as the key solution for the academic impasse. Extant theories shall be conceptualized as context-bounded heuristics rather than universal truths. Additional provocations and suggestions about reforming research practice were provided. Originality/value The study is the first comprehensive literature survey in this area. Meanwhile, new, grounded and provocative recommendations have been outlined for a bold and robust reset of academic discourse.
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 | 0.043 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".