The Enduring Interest Trap in Debating the State of a Field

Gavin M. Schwarz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2020.0122

2020-06-01

Academy of Management Learning and Education

Abstract:Original article: Tourish, Dennis, "The Triumph of Nonsense in Management Studies," https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0255

management,education & educational research

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Response to Dennis Tourish’s “The Triumph of Nonsense in Management Studies”

Peter Bamberger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2020.0130

2020-06-01

Academy of Management Learning and Education

Abstract:Original article: Tourish, Dennis, "The Triumph of Nonsense in Management Studies," https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0255

management,education & educational research
Social Issues in Management as a Distinct Field: Corporate Social Responsibility and Performance

Donna J. Wood,Jeanne M. Logsdon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316680041

2016-12-04

Abstract:This article focuses on the question of whether Social Issues in Management (SIM) is a “field” and, if so, what kind, emphasizing specifically the recent literature on corporate social responsibility and performance (CSR/CSP). Fields are defined in part by coherent bodies of knowledge that serve as guideposts for current research, and so the authors construct a simple model of CSR/CSP scholarship, illustrating the relevant categories with representative publications. The authors conclude that SIM is a “low-paradigm” field but is not recognized or accepted as a field by many scholars who write about CSR/CSP from “outside” the field. This analysis points to the need for SIM scholars to continue to integrate useful ideas from other fields, and also to critique the work of scholars who address “failings” or “gaps” in SIM research without appropriately dealing with the existing SIM literature. The article concludes with some ideas for sustaining the institutional legitimacy of SIM and for challenging those who would “reinvent” a field with a long and fruitful history, including paying careful attention to journal review processes and the content of publications in prominent journals.

business
Herd mentality and Autopoiesis in B-Schools’ Research: Here to Stay?"

Reynold James

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19080/arr.2023.09.555752

2023-05-05

Annals of Reviews & Research

Abstract:While the academic literature reveals that significant parts of management research generated by B-Schools has provenly been worthless for over four decades, what’s surprising is that there seems to be no end in sight to this predicament, attributed mostly to ‘physics envy’ and the bureaucratization of B-School research. This article enriches this debate by foregrounding the aspects of herding and autopoiesis that have been rather underplayed in the literature concerning the mostly worthless B-School research.
The Game Studies Crisis: What Are the Rules of Play?

Marc Ouellette,Steven Conway

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7557/23.6360

2021-09-03

Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture

Abstract:Though no field or discipline’s historical vector presents itself as a strictly linear building of knowledge, the historical trajectory of Game Studies is problematic: certainly not linear, yet also not even multiplicious or rhizomatic. Instead, we are cyclical. Past debates often re-emerge, zombie-like, muttering the same arguments, often encased in binaries as endemic to our field as they are to the objects we study: unbridgeable disagreements on fundamental concepts; incompatible ontologies and epistemologies; incommensurability writ large. We view this as a chronic issue which has of late culminated in a crisis, exacerbated by changing institutional prerogatives championing multidisciplinary approaches and demands for “public impact”. This article takes a metaphysical approach, performing a meta-review to search for the root cause of our field’s cyclical nature. We identify and explore a key issue, namely our continuing status as pre-paradigmatic field, and ask questions designed to provoke ways forward, to provide more inflection points and fewer endless loops.
Still in Search of the Sunk Cost Bias

Marcello Negrini,Matthias Wibral,Arno M. Riedl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3706308

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:The sunk cost effect is considered as an important bias and perceived to be a widespread phenomenon in individual decisions. However, the evidence from field data and field and laboratory experiments is inconclusive. We present a laboratory experiment, designed to investigate the sunk cost bias and to test prominent psychological drivers of the bias. Specifically, we implement a managerially relevant two-stage investment continuation task, which was also used in previous hypothetical scenarios. At the initial investment stage, the size of the investment and the responsibility of the investor are exogenously varied. At the second investment stage, participants can either decide to terminate the project or to make an additional investment to finish the project. We replicate the sunk cost bias in the hypothetical scenarios but do not find evidence for the sunk cost bias in the incentivized investment task. To the contrary, we observe a robust reverse sunk cost bias. That is, the larger the initial investment, the lower the likelihood to continue investing in a project. The reverse sunk cost bias also holds for those participants who exhibit a strong sunk cost bias in the hypothetical scenarios. Moreover, whether or not subjects are responsible for the initial investment, does not affect their additional investment. More waste averse individuals do not react more strongly to sunk cost whereas being in the loss domain decreases additional investment. Both, risk aversion in combination with narrow choice bracketing and loss aversion can account for the reverse sunk cost effect.
Why a management concept fails to support managers’ work: The case of the ‘core competence of a corporation’

Marika Schaupp,Jaakko Virkkunen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616674632

2017-01-31

Management Learning

Abstract:Management concepts are both products and instruments of abstractive thinking. This conceptual article discusses the relationship between different forms of abstraction and the practical relevance of management concepts. It focuses on the difference between empirical and theoretical abstraction. The former serves to categorize while the latter serves to explain and construct. We argue that this distinction can partly explain the difficulties managers face when using the management concepts that researchers have introduced. To substantiate our claim, we analyse the creation and use of the concept of a corporation’s core competence. The analysis shows how, in this case, a theoretical abstraction of a novel strategic principle turned into an empirical abstraction, which in practice has triggered unproductive attempts to categorize existing competencies rather than create new ones.

management
Attention Focus and New Opportunities: The Moderating Role of Managerial Attention to Alternative Issues

John Eklund,Manav Raj,J. P. Eggers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15861

2024-05-22

Organization Science

Abstract:The strategy literature highlights the critical role that managerial attention plays in shaping firms’ responses to industry change. However, attention to change alone is not sufficient to precipitate action. The context in which this attention is paid is also critical in determining the translation of attention to action as managers generally pay attention to multiple issues within their strategic agendas. We argue that attention to a competing issue and the breadth of managerial strategic attention impair the relationship between attention to a focal issue and related organizational action as these attentional constraints may lead to hesitancy or confusion at an individual level and reduced coordination at an organizational level. Realizing that at an organizational level, firms vary tremendously with respect to their sizes, resources, and by implication their overall attentional capacities, we argue that the negative moderation impacts of attention to a competing issue and the breadth of strategic attention on the attention to a focal issue–subsequent action relationship are larger for smaller firms. Studying the U.S. electric utility industry and the emerging new distributed electricity generation business model, we find broad support for our arguments and also important nuance. By melding theory, important details of our empirical setting, and intriguing empirical results, we develop greater insights into when and how the other strategic issues to which managers pay attention can shape the translation of managerial attention to a new business model into subsequent organizational action. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.15861 .

management
"Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity" in the Era of Polycrisis: Institutionalist Economics beyond the t/T Duality

Gary Dymski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2024.2343244

2024-06-12

Journal of Economic Issues

Abstract:This article has two objectives. The first is to understand why the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) did not lead to continuing intra-disciplinary debates between mainstream and heterodox economists. This gap is attributed here to mainstream macroeconomists' insistence on using a general equilibrium analytical lens: so doing invisibilizes key aspects of the GFC and restricts the space for inter-paradigmatic exchange. This leads to our second objective: to explore the place of institutional economics in an era in which our community exists outside the economics mainstream. Assisted by insights from Richard Rorty and Tom Shippey, we argue that institutional economics' role remains robust precisely because of features already present in the earliest original institutionalist explorations: analytical flexibility, and specifically understanding that no one model can fully describe lived reality or guide policy responses; a willingness to challenge the use of power for positional advantage, either by privileged agents in the economy itself or by economists defining acceptable terms of theoretical discourse; and an awareness that while social scientific inquiry can "make" (t) truths by careful explorations of socio-economic dynamics, it cannot "find" (T) truths that exist independent of human understanding.

economics
Big Data, Proxies, Algorithmic Decision‐Making and the Future of Management Theory

Dirk Lindebaum,Christine Moser,Gazi Islam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13032

IF: 10.5

2023-12-22

Journal of Management Studies

Abstract:The future of theory in the age of big data and algorithms is a frequent topic in management research. However, with corporate ownership of big data and data processing capabilities designed for profit generation increasing rapidly, we witness a shift from scientific to 'corporate empiricism'. Building on this debate, our 'Point' essay argues that theorizing in management research is at risk now. Unlike the 'Counterpoint' article, which portrays a bright future for management theory given available technological opportunities, we are concerned about management researchers increasingly 'borrowing' data from the corporate realm (e.g., Google et al.) to build or test theory. Our objection is that this data borrowing can harm scientific theorizing due to how scaling effects, proxy measures and algorithmic decision‐making performatively combine to undermine the scientific validity of theories. This undermining occurs through reducing scientific explanations, while technology shapes theory and reality in a profit‐predicting rather than in a truth‐seeking manner. Our essay has meta‐theoretical implications for management theory per se, as well as for political debates concerning the jurisdiction and legitimacy of knowledge claims in management research. Practically, these implications connect to debates on scientific responsibilities of researchers.

management,business
Interdiscursive struggles: Managing the co‐existence of the conventional and open strategy discourse

Theresa Langenmayr,David Seidl,Violetta Splitter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3599

IF: 8.3

2024-03-20

Strategic Management Journal

Abstract:Research Summary "Open strategy" is a new macro discourse on strategy that differs fundamentally from the conventional strategy discourse. In this paper, we examine how actors deal with the co‐existence of the two discourses, given their conflicting nature. For this purpose, we draw on a longitudinal, in‐depth case study of an international finance firm that introduced open strategy alongside the conventional strategy discourse that had shaped their strategy work in the past. We find that strategy actors deal with interdiscursive tensions by enacting meta‐discursive practices that regulate the mobilization of the two strategy discourses. Furthermore, we identify power as an important driver and necessary resource in enacting these practices. With these findings, we contribute to the open strategy literature and the literature on organization and strategy discourse. Managerial Summary There is a recent trend for opening up the strategy process to actors outside the upper echelons, which is referred to as "open strategy." This new approach is based on a fundamentally different logic than the conventional approach to strategy making; while the latter highlights exclusivity and secrecy, the former stresses inclusivity and transparency. This empirical study examines how managers deal with tensions that arise from the co‐existence of these approaches. We find that managers try to resolve these tensions by regulating where and when each approach can be applied. We also show that the switch from one way of regulating the application of approaches to another depends on the power and interests of the participants.

management,business
Between Sweet Harmony and a Clash of Cultures: Does a Joint Academic–Practitioner Review Reconcile Rigor and Relevance?

Alexander T. Nicolai,Ann-Christine Schulz,Markus Göbel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310390866

2010-12-28

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

Abstract:A substantial body of literature discusses the so-called rigor—relevance gap in management science and possible ways of overcoming it. A frequently advocated approach, in line with Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartz, and Trow’s “Mode 2” idea of creating “hybrid fora,” is the introduction of joint academic—practitioner review processes in management journals. In an empirical case study of one of the oldest management journals in the world, the authors show that the demands of academic and practitioner reviewers are hardly compatible, and, to some extent, inversely correlated. In contrast to other studies, here the authors show that the reason for the tension between academics and practitioners with regard to this issue does not lie in differences in the evaluation criteria of each group. Rather, the different worldviews of academics and practitioners lead to different interpretations of these criteria and a striking incongruence between the two groups’ ideas of practical relevance.
Tantalus on the Road to Asymptopia

Edward E Leamer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.2.31

IF: 9.9439

2010-05-01

Journal of Economic Perspectives

Abstract:My first reaction to “The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics,” authored by Joshua D. Angrist and Jörn-Steffen Pischke, was: Wow! This paper makes a stunningly good case for relying on purposefully randomized or accidentally randomized experiments to relieve the doubts that afflict inferences from nonexperimental data. On further reflection, I realized that I may have been overcome with irrational exuberance. Moreover, with this great honor bestowed on my “con” article, I couldn't easily throw this child of mine overboard. As Angrist and Pischke persuasively argue, either purposefully randomized experiments or accidentally randomized “natural” experiments can be extremely helpful, but Angrist and Pischke seem to me to overstate the potential benefits of the approach. I begin with some thoughts about the inevitable limits of randomization, and the need for sensitivity analysis in this area, as in all areas of applied empirical work. I argue that the recent financial catastrophe is a powerful illustration of the fact that extrapolating from natural experiments will inevitably be hazardous. I discuss how the difficulties of applied econometric work cannot be evaded with econometric innovations, offering as examples some under-recognized difficulties with instrumental variables and robust standard errors. I conclude with comments about the shortcomings of an experimentalist paradigm as applied to macroeconomics, and some warnings about the willingness of applied economists to apply push-button methodologies without sufficient hard thought regarding their applicability and shortcomings.

economics
The Ultimate Irrelevance Proposition in Finance?

G. Andrew Karolyi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6288.2011.00309.x

2011-10-05

Financial Review

Abstract:I survey 457 published papers in top finance journals across two decades to assess whether these papers misuse tests of significance. More than 80% of published studies are diligent about distinguishing between statistical and economic significance and quantifying and interpreting the economic magnitudes of the statistical relationships they measure. Yet, only 10% of these acknowledge limits to the power of their tests and even fewer do anything about them. Recent demographic trends in publishing, such as larger co‐author teams and increased participation by non‐North American scholars, women, and those outside the top finance departments are not associated with these outcomes.
Institutional management praxis and the logic of capital: Accumulated labor and the exploitation of teaching in teaching intensive fields

Dennis Beach

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47989/kpdc128

2021-08-20

Journal of Praxis in Higher Education

Abstract:Abstract: Exploitation is possible because of rules and social arrangements that have an asymmetric impact on groups who hold different relative positions within the nexus of cultural, political, economic and social power and advantage. Based on a synthesis of critical ethnographic research, the present article provides an analysis of exploitation in one specific higher education field; Initial Teacher Education and Research (EDITE). Exploitation is not usually associated with higher education. However, the article describes a structure of decision-making for exploiting the accumulated labor of teacher educators and their students, in the interests of other groups of academics. Distinct social class and gender are identified, and the article concludes that there is little wonder that teaching intensive fields are often strongly criticised for the scientific quality of their content. The level of research investment in them is so low that they are in serious difficulty in maintaining adequate scientific research connections for programs and career opportunities for research-qualified staff.
Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward

Jonathan Schad,Marianne W. Lewis,Sebastian Raisch,Wendy K. Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422

2016-01-01

Abstract:Paradox studies offer vital and timely insights into an array of organizational tensions. Yet this field stands at a critical juncture. Over the past 25 years, management scholars have drawn foundational insights from philosophy and psychology to apply a paradox lens to organizational phenomena. Yet extant studies selectively leverage ancient wisdom, adopting some key insights while abandoning others. Using a structured content analysis to review the burgeoning management literature, we surface six key themes, which represent the building blocks of a meta-theory of paradox. These six themes received varying attention in extant studies: paradox scholars emphasize types of paradoxes, collective approaches, and outcomes, but pay less attention to relationships within paradoxes, individual approaches, and dynamics. As this analysis suggests, management scholars have increasingly simplified the intricate, often messy phenomena of paradox. Greater simplicity renders phenomena understandable and testable, however, oversimplifying complex realities can foster reductionist and incomplete theories. We therefore propose a future research agenda targeted at enriching a meta-theory of paradox by reengaging these less developed themes. Doing so can sharpen the focus of this field, while revisiting its rich conceptual roots to capture the intricacies of paradox. This future research agenda leverages the potential of paradox across diverse streams of management science.

management,business
The struggle for the soul of macroeconomics

Kevin D. Hoover

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.2010281

2021-12-02

Journal of Economic Methodology

Abstract:Critics argued that the 2007–09 financial crisis was failure of macroeconomics, locating its source in the dynamic, stochastic general-equilibrium model and calling for fundamental re-orientation of the field. Critics exaggerated the role of DSGE models in actual policymaking, and DSGE modelers addressed some criticisms within the DSGE framework. But DSGE modelers oversold their success and even claimed that their approach is the sine qua non of competent macroeconomics. The DSGE modelers and their critics renew an old debate over the relative priority of a priori theory and empirical data, classically exemplified in the Measurement without Theory Debate of the 1940s between the Cowles Commission and the National Bureau of Economic Research. The earlier debate is reviewed for its implications for the recent controversy. In adopting the Cowles-Commission position, some DSGE modelers would essentially straight-jacket macroeconomics and undermine economic science and the pursuit of knowledge in an open-minded, yet critical framework.

economics
Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability

Brian A. Nosek,Jeffrey Robert Spies,Matt Motyl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/k4bgq

2016-08-29

Abstract:An academic scientist’s professional success depends on publishing. Publishing norms emphasize novel, positive results. As such, disciplinary incentives encourage design, analysis, and reporting decisions that elicit positive results and ignore negative results. Prior reports demonstrate how these incentives inflate the rate of false effects in published science. When incentives favor novelty over replication, false results persist in the literature unchallenged, reducing efficiency in knowledge accumulation. Previous suggestions to address this problem are unlikely to be effective. For example, a journal of negative results publishes otherwise unpublishable reports. This enshrines the low status of the journal and its content. The persistence of false findings can be meliorated with strategies that make the fundamental but abstract accuracy motive – getting it right – competitive with the more tangible and concrete incentive – getting it published. We develop strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation that account for ordinary human motivations and biases.
Has Critique Run Out of Steam?—On Discourse Research as Critical Inquiry

Reiner Keller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657103

IF: 1.789

2016-07-09

Qualitative Inquiry

Abstract:Is there still a role for discourse research today, some 30 years after Michel Foucault’s death? A decade ago, French actor-network theorist Bruno Latour famously declared the end of critique as ethos and practice in the social sciences. What is more, arguments made about the contingency of historical phenomena even arm “enemy” forces. Empirical work therefore should be replaced by a politics of “matters of concern.” French sociologist Luc Boltanski added to this critique of critical perspectives by suggesting that an investigation into social modes of critique should replace critical sociology. The present contribution discusses both critiques of critique and the problems and limitations of the solutions proposed by both Latour and Boltanski. Against this background, and with a focus on discourse research, it stresses the ongoing need for precise empirical work as a condition for the social unfolding of critical perspectives.

social sciences, interdisciplinary
The Illusion of the Perpetual Money Machine

D. Sornette,P. Cauwels

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1212.2833

2012-12-12

Abstract:We argue that the present crisis and stalling economy continuing since 2007 are rooted in the delusionary belief in policies based on a "perpetual money machine" type of thinking. We document strong evidence that, since the early 1980s, consumption has been increasingly funded by smaller savings, booming financial profits, wealth extracted from house price appreciation and explosive debt. This is in stark contrast with the productivity-fueled growth that was seen in the 1950s and 1960s. This transition, starting in the early 1980s, was further supported by a climate of deregulation and a massive growth in financial derivatives designed to spread and diversify the risks globally. The result has been a succession of bubbles and crashes, including the worldwide stock market bubble and great crash of October 1987, the savings and loans crisis of the 1980s, the burst in 1991 of the enormous Japanese real estate and stock market bubbles, the emerging markets bubbles and crashes in 1994 and 1997, the LTCM crisis of 1998, the dotcom bubble bursting in 2000, the recent house price bubbles, the financialization bubble via special investment vehicles, the stock market bubble, the commodity and oil bubbles and the debt bubbles, all developing jointly and feeding on each other. Rather than still hoping that real wealth will come out of money creation, we need fundamentally new ways of thinking. In uncertain times, it is essential, more than ever, to think in scenarios: what can happen in the future, and, what would be the effect on your wealth and capital? How can you protect against adverse scenarios? We thus end by examining the question "what can we do?" from the macro level, discussing the fundamental issue of incentives and of constructing and predicting scenarios as well as developing investment insights.

General Finance,Physics and Society,Risk Management
A power-critique of academic rankings: Beyond managers, institutions, and positivism

John Welsh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743820986173

2021-01-10

Power and Education

Abstract:The bulk of research on academic rankings is policy-oriented, preoccupied with ‘best practices’, and seems incapable of transcending the normative discourse of ‘governance’. To understand, engage, and properly critique the operation of power in academic rankings, the rankings discourse needs to escape the gravity of ‘police science’ and embrace a properly political science of ranking. More specifically, the article identifies three pillars of the extant research from which a departure would be critically fruitful – positivism, managerialism, institutionalism – and then goes on to outline three aspects of rankings that a critical political analysis should explore, integrate, and develop into future research from the discourses of critical theory – arkhè, dispositif, and dialectik.

English Else

The Enduring Interest Trap in Debating the State of a Field

Response to Dennis Tourish’s “The Triumph of Nonsense in Management Studies”

Social Issues in Management as a Distinct Field: Corporate Social Responsibility and Performance

Herd mentality and Autopoiesis in B-Schools’ Research: Here to Stay?"

The Game Studies Crisis: What Are the Rules of Play?

Still in Search of the Sunk Cost Bias

Why a management concept fails to support managers’ work: The case of the ‘core competence of a corporation’

Attention Focus and New Opportunities: The Moderating Role of Managerial Attention to Alternative Issues

"Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity" in the Era of Polycrisis: Institutionalist Economics beyond the t/T Duality

Big Data, Proxies, Algorithmic Decision‐Making and the Future of Management Theory

Interdiscursive struggles: Managing the co‐existence of the conventional and open strategy discourse

Between Sweet Harmony and a Clash of Cultures: Does a Joint Academic–Practitioner Review Reconcile Rigor and Relevance?

Tantalus on the Road to Asymptopia

The Ultimate Irrelevance Proposition in Finance?

Institutional management praxis and the logic of capital: Accumulated labor and the exploitation of teaching in teaching intensive fields

Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward

The struggle for the soul of macroeconomics

Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability

Has Critique Run Out of Steam?—On Discourse Research as Critical Inquiry

The Illusion of the Perpetual Money Machine

A power-critique of academic rankings: Beyond managers, institutions, and positivism