An Inside Job?: Contesting Business School Research

Publikation: Bidrag til konferenceKonferenceabstrakt til konferenceForskningpeer review

Resumé

One consequence of the financial crisis has been an increased discussion over both the societal responsibility and professional standing of business school research. On the one hand, and as in the documentary ‘Inside Job’, this has taken the form of direct criticism of business school academics. On the other, there has
been a heightened discussion about the aims and purposes of business school research. Thus, journal and institutional rankings (such as the FT45, ABS and UT Dallas lists) can play a significant role in academic career development and the international assessment of research quality. At the same time, an often-lively discussion has developed around the thesis that business schools have ‘lost their way’. The argument here is that in seeking to make business research more ‘scientific’, the requirement for practical relevance and ethical responsibility has
been forgotten. Both the recent ‘Carnegie 2’ report and the larger tradition of Critical Management Studies reinforce this point. Given that these issues may not be unique to business school research, it appears relevant for STS scholars to consider the contested character of this research domain – and especially the
relationship between disciplinary emergence, claims to scientific status and professional practice. What is the relationship between ‘scientific credibility’ and notions of professional/societal contribution? Put differently, what can the different traditions of STS thinking (including SSK) tell us about the processes of
disciplinary emergence and professionalization in this domain?
One consequence of the financial crisis has been an increased discussion over both the societal responsibility and professional standing of business school research. On the one hand, and as in the documentary ‘Inside Job’, this has taken the form of direct criticism of business school academics. On the other, there has
been a heightened discussion about the aims and purposes of business school research. Thus, journal and institutional rankings (such as the FT45, ABS and UT Dallas lists) can play a significant role in academic career development and the international assessment of research quality. At the same time, an often-lively discussion has developed around the thesis that business schools have ‘lost their way’. The argument here is that in seeking to make business research more ‘scientific’, the requirement for practical relevance and ethical responsibility has
been forgotten. Both the recent ‘Carnegie 2’ report and the larger tradition of Critical Management Studies reinforce this point. Given that these issues may not be unique to business school research, it appears relevant for STS scholars to consider the contested character of this research domain – and especially the
relationship between disciplinary emergence, claims to scientific status and professional practice. What is the relationship between ‘scientific credibility’ and notions of professional/societal contribution? Put differently, what can the different traditions of STS thinking (including SSK) tell us about the processes of
disciplinary emergence and professionalization in this domain?

Konference

KonferenceThe 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012
Nummer2012
LokationCopenhagen Business School
LandDanmark
ByFrederiksberg
Periode17/10/201220/10/2012
Internetadresse

Citer dette

Irwin, A. (2012). An Inside Job? Contesting Business School Research. Abstract fra The 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012, Frederiksberg, Danmark.
Irwin, Alan. / An Inside Job? Contesting Business School Research. Abstract fra The 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012, Frederiksberg, Danmark.
@conference{7cb92c1648f246528b4e70d335114718,
title = "An Inside Job?: Contesting Business School Research",
abstract = "One consequence of the financial crisis has been an increased discussion over both the societal responsibility and professional standing of business school research. On the one hand, and as in the documentary ‘Inside Job’, this has taken the form of direct criticism of business school academics. On the other, there hasbeen a heightened discussion about the aims and purposes of business school research. Thus, journal and institutional rankings (such as the FT45, ABS and UT Dallas lists) can play a significant role in academic career development and the international assessment of research quality. At the same time, an often-lively discussion has developed around the thesis that business schools have ‘lost their way’. The argument here is that in seeking to make business research more ‘scientific’, the requirement for practical relevance and ethical responsibility hasbeen forgotten. Both the recent ‘Carnegie 2’ report and the larger tradition of Critical Management Studies reinforce this point. Given that these issues may not be unique to business school research, it appears relevant for STS scholars to consider the contested character of this research domain – and especially therelationship between disciplinary emergence, claims to scientific status and professional practice. What is the relationship between ‘scientific credibility’ and notions of professional/societal contribution? Put differently, what can the different traditions of STS thinking (including SSK) tell us about the processes ofdisciplinary emergence and professionalization in this domain?",
author = "Alan Irwin",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
note = "null ; Conference date: 17-10-2012 Through 20-10-2012",
url = "https://sf.cbs.dk/4s_easst/final_conference_program_ready",

}

Irwin, A 2012, 'An Inside Job? Contesting Business School Research' The 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012, Frederiksberg, Danmark, 17/10/2012 - 20/10/2012, .

An Inside Job? Contesting Business School Research. / Irwin, Alan.

2012. Abstract fra The 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012, Frederiksberg, Danmark.

Publikation: Bidrag til konferenceKonferenceabstrakt til konferenceForskningpeer review

TY - ABST

T1 - An Inside Job?

T2 - Contesting Business School Research

AU - Irwin,Alan

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - One consequence of the financial crisis has been an increased discussion over both the societal responsibility and professional standing of business school research. On the one hand, and as in the documentary ‘Inside Job’, this has taken the form of direct criticism of business school academics. On the other, there hasbeen a heightened discussion about the aims and purposes of business school research. Thus, journal and institutional rankings (such as the FT45, ABS and UT Dallas lists) can play a significant role in academic career development and the international assessment of research quality. At the same time, an often-lively discussion has developed around the thesis that business schools have ‘lost their way’. The argument here is that in seeking to make business research more ‘scientific’, the requirement for practical relevance and ethical responsibility hasbeen forgotten. Both the recent ‘Carnegie 2’ report and the larger tradition of Critical Management Studies reinforce this point. Given that these issues may not be unique to business school research, it appears relevant for STS scholars to consider the contested character of this research domain – and especially therelationship between disciplinary emergence, claims to scientific status and professional practice. What is the relationship between ‘scientific credibility’ and notions of professional/societal contribution? Put differently, what can the different traditions of STS thinking (including SSK) tell us about the processes ofdisciplinary emergence and professionalization in this domain?

AB - One consequence of the financial crisis has been an increased discussion over both the societal responsibility and professional standing of business school research. On the one hand, and as in the documentary ‘Inside Job’, this has taken the form of direct criticism of business school academics. On the other, there hasbeen a heightened discussion about the aims and purposes of business school research. Thus, journal and institutional rankings (such as the FT45, ABS and UT Dallas lists) can play a significant role in academic career development and the international assessment of research quality. At the same time, an often-lively discussion has developed around the thesis that business schools have ‘lost their way’. The argument here is that in seeking to make business research more ‘scientific’, the requirement for practical relevance and ethical responsibility hasbeen forgotten. Both the recent ‘Carnegie 2’ report and the larger tradition of Critical Management Studies reinforce this point. Given that these issues may not be unique to business school research, it appears relevant for STS scholars to consider the contested character of this research domain – and especially therelationship between disciplinary emergence, claims to scientific status and professional practice. What is the relationship between ‘scientific credibility’ and notions of professional/societal contribution? Put differently, what can the different traditions of STS thinking (including SSK) tell us about the processes ofdisciplinary emergence and professionalization in this domain?

M3 - Conference abstract for conference

ER -

Irwin A. An Inside Job? Contesting Business School Research. 2012. Abstract fra The 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012, Frederiksberg, Danmark.