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 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?
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?
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 2012 |
| Publication status | Published - 2012 |
| Event | The 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012: Design and displacement: Social Studies of Science and Technology - Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark Duration: 17 Oct 2012 → 20 Oct 2012 Conference number: 2012 https://sf.cbs.dk/4s_easst/final_conference_program_ready |
Conference
| Conference | The 4S/EASST Joint Conference 2012 |
|---|---|
| Number | 2012 |
| Location | Copenhagen Business School |
| Country/Territory | Denmark |
| City | Frederiksberg |
| Period | 17/10/2012 → 20/10/2012 |
| Internet address |