Critics have characterized academic research as being of little practical or commercial value. Such criticism of scholarly research, as opposed to applied research, resonates with detractors who do not appreciate the evolving role of business schools in providing foundational research. The authors contend that scholarly research helps develop knowledge in fields such as strategic management, enhances the value of later applied research, and provides content for courses. Not all research is of high quality, however, so the evaluation of research is critical. The authors examine several considerations for evaluation, such as journal rankings, interdisciplinary evaluation, and breadth of approach.
AdlerN. J.HarzingA.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 72-95.
Australian Business Deans Council. (2010). Australian business deans council journal quality list. Sydney: Australian Business Deans Council. Retrieved from http://www.abdc.edu.au/3.43.0.0.1.0.htm
4.
BarnabéF. (2011). The role of journal rankings in evaluating research quality in the accounting field: Why and when they matter. Economia Aziendale Online, 2, 11-43.
5.
BarneyJ. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
6.
BurgessT. F.ShawN. E. (2010). Editorial board membership of management and business journals: A social network analysis study of the Financial Times 40. British Journal of Management, 21, 627-648.
7.
CookW. D.RavivT.RichardsonA. J. (2010). Aggregating incomplete lists of journal rankings: An application to academic accounting journals. Accounting Perspectives, 9, 217-235.
8.
GiacaloneR. A. (2009). Academic rankings in research institutions: A case of skewed mind-sets and professional amnesia. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 122-126.
9.
GordonR. A.HowellJ. E. (1959). Higher education for business. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
10.
HarveyC.KellyA.MorrisH.RowlinsonM. (2010). Academic journal quality guide, Version 4. London, England: Association of Business Schools.
11.
HendersonG. V.Jr.GaneshG. K.ChandyP. R. (1990). Across-discipline awareness and evaluation: Implications for the promotion and tenure process. Journal of Economics and Business, 42, 325-351.
12.
HittM. A.IrelandR. D.HoskissonR. E. (2011). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
13.
JainD. C.GolosinskiM. (2009). Sizing Up the Tyranny of the Ruler. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 99-105.
14.
MakriM.HittM. A.LaneP. J. (2010). Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 602-628.
15.
SwansonE. P. (2004). Publishing in the majors: A comparison of accounting, finance, management, and marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 223-255.
16.
SwansonE. P.WolfeC. J.ZardkoohiA. (2007). Concentration in publishing at top-tier business journals: Evidence and potential explanations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24, 11255-11289.
17.
TrowbridgeR. (2011). Texas students should not take back seat to research. Austin: Texas Public Policy Foundation.
18.
Van FleetD. D.McWilliamsA.SiegelD. S. (2000). A theoretical and empirical analysis of journal rankings: The case of formal lists. Journal of Management, 26, 839-861.
19.
VedderR. (2010, October1). A tale of 40 professors at Texas A&M University. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations
WorrellD. L. (2009). Assessing business scholarship: The difficulties in moving beyond the rigor-relevance paradigm trap. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 127-130.
