Abstract
PurposeThe issues associated with the production and dissemination of management research have been widely debated amongst administrators, scholars and policymakers for decades. However, few studies to date have examined this issue at the level of the individual scholar. The purpose of this paper is to view a management scholar’s choice of knowledge dissemination (KD) outlets as a legitimacy judgment embedded in their social structure and community norms.Design/methodology/approachTo explore this, the authors conduct a sequential mixed-methods study. The study uses qualitative methods, including one-on-one interviews (n=29) and five workshops (n=79) with administrators, management scholars, students and external community members (practitioners and policymakers). In addition, the authors analyzed the KD outcomes of 524 management scholars at seven Canadian universities drawn from a stratified sample of business schools.FindingsThe results of the research demonstrate the complex interaction between individual scholar-level factors, including socialization (degree type and practitioner experience) and tenure, and the institutional-level factors, such as strategic orientation and accreditation, and how these influence KD judgments. Specifically, the authors find that institutional factors (such as tenure and promotion) are a central predictor of scholarly KD; in contrast, the authors find that individual-level factors including degree, professional experience and career stage influence non-scholarly KD.Originality/valueThe results suggest that as management scholars face increasing pressure to demonstrate impact beyond academia, it may be more difficult than simply adapting the reward system. Specifically, the authors suggest that administrators and policymakers will have to consider individual factors, including their academic training (including interdisciplinary training), previous practitioner experience and career stage.
Highlights
The results suggest that as management scholars face increasing pressure to demonstrate impact beyond academia, it may be more difficult than adapting the reward system
Because a committee of a scholar’s peers (Fairweather, 2002; Adler and Harzing, 2009) decides on the criteria used to formalize these processes through hiring, tenure and promotion criteria and associated journal ranking systems (e.g. Chartered Association of Business Schools Journal Guide) (Adler and Hansen, 2012) how this audience perceives the legitimacy of particular dissemination outlets is, arguably, essential for the successful navigation of one’s academic career
In the context of knowledge dissemination (KD), how are legitimacy judgments formed and how do they influence KD outcomes? Building on the conceptual framework proposed by Finch et al (2016), we argue that management scholars define peers as a critical audience because they possess the ability to pass judgment on the legitimacy of KD outlets
Summary
The results suggest that as management scholars face increasing pressure to demonstrate impact beyond academia, it may be more difficult than adapting the reward system. Other management scholars contend that research should extend beyond the academia to broader societal audiences (Aguinis et al, 2014; Finch et al, 2016; Perriton and Hodgson, 2013) This divide is expressed by Gibbons et al (1994) who propose that the production of knowledge should be viewed as two distinct modes: Mode 1 knowledge is theoretically centric discipline-based research addressed to the academy and Mode 2 knowledge is transdisciplinary research focused on application and addressed to audiences outside the academy. The dissemination of management research remains focused squarely on peer-reviewed journals that serve almost exclusively scholars (Aguinis et al, 2014; Pettigrew et al, 2014) there are indications that other KD outlets, directed at different, non-scholarly audiences, are increasing in legitimacy. What individual and institutional level factors influence the choice of dissemination outlet for management research?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
