The Manifold Impacts of Management Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Management scholarship's apparent lack of impact is a misconception based on the presumption that impact involves a direct and visible influence of papers or research projects on management practice. Theory‐building impacts management practice in diverse, sometimes indirect and unnoticed, manifold ways. Supported by intermediaries such as management education, the media, and consulting, impacts emerge through interest‐driven knowledge production that contributes to the wider uptake and reproduction of management theory's main ideas and assumptions. We draw on Jürgen Habermas's theory of knowledge and human interests, aiming to expand how impact from scholarship can be understood, and what forms it might take as part of the kinds of knowledge‐constitutive interests that are pursued through theory‐building. We elaborate these different forms, building a pluralist framework of what we call ‘programmatic’ and ‘hybrid’ types of impact. We advance the argument that diverse knowledge‐constitutive interests pursued through theory‐building contribute to our field's impact on management practice in distinct, yet complementary ways.
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 | 0.037 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".