RaGA and Tala of Research Productivity: A Study of Leading Business School in India

Abstract

Research productivity at business schools is of interest to academicians, policy-makers, and other stakeholders. This study attempts to understand stratification in research productivity in a business school and explores the individual (rank, gender) and departmental (area of discipline) characteristics (RaGA), covering a dataset of 4,013 research outputs spanning the research themes (themes) of academic, practice-oriented, and pedagogic and (a la carte) (Tala) from 2011 to 2020. Theme-wise, the quantum and direction of research indicated that academic research > practice-oriented research > pedagogic development during 2010–2015 and 2015–2020. The major findings include: professors had higher per-capita productivity (PCP) across the themes, followed by assistant professors. In terms of a la carte, professors had higher PCP in scientific presentations/invited talks, books, chapters in books, articles in periodicals/dailies, and teaching cases. Assistant professors participated more in working papers and research projects. Associate professors had higher PCP in articles in academic journals and doctoral students advising. Female faculty fared well in academic research and male faculty in pedagogic development. Mixed trend was seen in practice-oriented research. Economic and social sciences outperformed other disciplinary areas in academic (working papers and scientific presentations) and practice-oriented research (research projects, books, chapters in books, and articles in dailies). Marketing, decision sciences, strategy, production, and operations management were better in pedagogic development. The higher production in articles in academic journals came from organization behavior, public policy, and production and operations management. This study has takeaways for policy-makers and emphasizes having a clear research agenda that can combine academic rigor with practice.

Keywords

Research productivity business schools rank gender disciplinary area

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramo

, Cicero

, & D’Angelo

C. A.

(2012). Revisiting size effects in higher education research productivity. Higher Education, 63(6), 701–717.

Abramo

, D’Angelo

C. A.

, & Di Costa

(2011). A national-scale cross-time analysis of university research performance. Scientometrics, 87(2), 399–413.

Aksnes

D. W.

, Rorstad

, Piro

, & Sivertsen

(2011). Are female researchers less cited? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(4), 628–636.

Baden-Fuller

, Ravazzolo

, & Schweizer

(2000). Making and measuring reputations: The research ranking of European business schools. Long Range Planning, 33(5), 621–650.

Banerjee

(2013). Academic research productivity: What may be “reining” in the Indian B-School? (IIMA Working Papers WP2013-06-06). Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.

Business Standard. (2021, June 25). QS executive MBA rankings 2021: IIM Bangalore ranked best in India. https://www.business-standard.com/article/education/qs-executive-mba-rankings-2021-iim-bangalore-ranked-best-in-india-121062500618_1.html

Erkut

(2002). Measuring Canadian business school research output and impact. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 19(2), 97–123.

Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. (2021). About IIMB: Vision. https://www.iimb.ac.in

Klien

J. T.

(1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory and practice. Wayne State University Press.

10.

Kumar

H. A.

, & Dora

(2011). Citation analysis of doctoral dissertations at IIMA: A review of the local use of journals. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 35(1), 32–39.

11.

Kumar

H. A.

, & Dora

(2012). Research productivity in a Management Institute: An analysis of research performance of Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad during 1999–2010. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 32(4), 365–372.

12.

Kyvik

(1991). Productivity in academia: Scientific publishing at Norwegian universities. Rådet for Samfunnsvitenskapelig Forskning NAVF.

13.

Rakhi

V. S.

, & Nagarajan

(2013). Are the business schools in India doing their business? An Evaluation of IIM’s Research productivity profile. Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science, 2(1), 25–30.

14.

Ramkumar

(2018). Faculty research productivity: Perspective from human and social capital. Amity Journal of Management Research, 3(1), 81–94.

15.

Ramkumar

(2020). Research productivity through the lens of doctoral guidance: A study of Sanskrit Universities in India. Journal of Scientometic Research, 9(1), 19–28.

16.

Ramsden

(1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28(2), 207–226.

17.

Sahoo

B. K.

, Singh

, Mishra

, & Sankaran

(2017). Research productivity in management schools of India during 1968-2015: A directional benefit-of-doubt model analysis. Omega, 66, 118–139.

18.

Shapiro

D. L.

, & Kirkman

(2018, July 19). It’s time to make business school research more relevant. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/07/its-time-to-make-business-school-research-more-relevant

19.

Shulman

L. S.

(2001). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Carnegie Publication.

20.

Tien

F. F.

, & Blackburn

R. T.

(1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity: Measure refinement and theory testing. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 2–22.

21.

Xie

, & Shauman

K. A.

(1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63, 847–870.