The Balance of Trade Between Disciplines

Abstract

This study was motivated by the admonition of Professor Hambrick, as president of the Academy of Management, that the field does not “matter” much. One reason for this may be that management scholars have not done a good job of disseminating knowledge to scholars in related fields. The article examines this proposition by assessing the citation patterns between management journals and journals in the related social sciences (citations received and citations sent). Results indicate that management continues to run a significant balance-of-trade deficit with economics, psychology, and sociology. Management exports a significant (but small) amount of knowledge only to psychology, while importing a significant amount from economics, psychology, and sociology. Results indicate that there is much work to be done to improve our management of knowledge, relative to the social sciences.

Keywords

knowledge citations knowledge management management research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bott, D. , & Hargens, L. (1991). Are sociologists’ publications uncited? Citation rates of journal articles, chapters and books. American Sociologist, 22(2), 147-161.

Broad, W. , & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the truth: Fraud and deceit in the halls of science. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cole, J. , & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Garfield, E. (1982, March 1). The 1000 most-cited contemporary authors. Part 2A. Details on authors in the physical and chemical sciences and some comments about Nobels and academy memberships. Current Contents, 5. Available at www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v5p428y1982-82.pdf

Hambrick, D. (1994). What if the academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 11-16.

Hamilton, D. (1990). Publishing by and for the numbers. Science, 250, 1331-1332.

Johnson, J. , & Podsakoff, P. (1994). Journal influence in the field of management: An analysis using Salancik’s index in a dependency network. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1392-1407.

Kay, J. (1993). Foundations of corporate success. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Laband, D. , & Piette, M. (1994). The relative impact of economics journals: 1970-1990. Journal of Economic Literature, 32, 640-666.

10.

Liebowitz, S. J. , & Palmer, J. P. (1984). Assessing the relative impact of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 22, 77-88.

11.

Mullins, N. , Hargens, L. , Hecht, P. , & Dick, E. (1977). The group structure of cocitation clusters: A comparative study. American Sociological Review, 42, 552-562.

12.

Pieters, R. , & Baumgartner, H. (2002). Who talks to whom? Intra- and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 483-509.

13.

Stigler, G. , Stigler, S. , & Friedland, C. (1995). The journals of economics. Journal of Political Economy, 103(2), 331-359.

14.

Sullivan, D. , White, D. , & Barboni, E. (1977). Co-citation analysis of science: An evaluation. Social Studies of Science, 7, 223.

15.

Tahai, A. , & Meyer, M. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 279-296.

16.

Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.