Neocolonialism in the Academy?

Anglo-American Domination in Management Journals

Jonathan Murphy, Jingqi Zhu

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    Leading business and management journals claim to be ‘world-leading’ but are dominated by Anglo-American scholars. The extent of this domination is demonstrated graphically in this article through cartograms based on 2010/2011 authorship and editorship data in top management journals. The dramatically skewed production of management scholarship is both ethically problematic in terms of Anglo-American domination of leading journals and the exclusion of many developing regions, and anachronistic given the shift of global production away from the North Atlantic in recent years. This continuing neo-colonial domination of intellectual production underpins the inequitable organization of the global economy and specifically the disproportionate realisation of wealth in the global North at the expense of the global South. The article proposes a series of measures to begin redressing the imbalance.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalOrganization
    Volume19
    Issue number6
    Pages (from-to)915-927
    ISSN1350-5084
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Keywords

    • Action Plan
    • Cartograms
    • Journals
    • Management Academy
    • Metrics
    • Neo-Colonialism

    Cite this

    Murphy, Jonathan ; Zhu, Jingqi. / Neocolonialism in the Academy? Anglo-American Domination in Management Journals. In: Organization. 2012 ; Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 915-927.
    @article{d679a56eace04da1a31f51284db19627,
    title = "Neocolonialism in the Academy?: Anglo-American Domination in Management Journals",
    abstract = "Leading business and management journals claim to be ‘world-leading’ but are dominated by Anglo-American scholars. The extent of this domination is demonstrated graphically in this article through cartograms based on 2010/2011 authorship and editorship data in top management journals. The dramatically skewed production of management scholarship is both ethically problematic in terms of Anglo-American domination of leading journals and the exclusion of many developing regions, and anachronistic given the shift of global production away from the North Atlantic in recent years. This continuing neo-colonial domination of intellectual production underpins the inequitable organization of the global economy and specifically the disproportionate realisation of wealth in the global North at the expense of the global South. The article proposes a series of measures to begin redressing the imbalance.",
    keywords = "Action Plan, Cartograms, Journals, Management Academy, Metrics, Neo-Colonialism",
    author = "Jonathan Murphy and Jingqi Zhu",
    year = "2012",
    doi = "10.1177/1350508412453097",
    language = "English",
    volume = "19",
    pages = "915--927",
    journal = "Organization",
    issn = "1350-5084",
    publisher = "Sage Publications Ltd.",
    number = "6",

    }

    Neocolonialism in the Academy? Anglo-American Domination in Management Journals. / Murphy, Jonathan; Zhu, Jingqi.

    In: Organization, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2012, p. 915-927.

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Neocolonialism in the Academy?

    T2 - Anglo-American Domination in Management Journals

    AU - Murphy, Jonathan

    AU - Zhu, Jingqi

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - Leading business and management journals claim to be ‘world-leading’ but are dominated by Anglo-American scholars. The extent of this domination is demonstrated graphically in this article through cartograms based on 2010/2011 authorship and editorship data in top management journals. The dramatically skewed production of management scholarship is both ethically problematic in terms of Anglo-American domination of leading journals and the exclusion of many developing regions, and anachronistic given the shift of global production away from the North Atlantic in recent years. This continuing neo-colonial domination of intellectual production underpins the inequitable organization of the global economy and specifically the disproportionate realisation of wealth in the global North at the expense of the global South. The article proposes a series of measures to begin redressing the imbalance.

    AB - Leading business and management journals claim to be ‘world-leading’ but are dominated by Anglo-American scholars. The extent of this domination is demonstrated graphically in this article through cartograms based on 2010/2011 authorship and editorship data in top management journals. The dramatically skewed production of management scholarship is both ethically problematic in terms of Anglo-American domination of leading journals and the exclusion of many developing regions, and anachronistic given the shift of global production away from the North Atlantic in recent years. This continuing neo-colonial domination of intellectual production underpins the inequitable organization of the global economy and specifically the disproportionate realisation of wealth in the global North at the expense of the global South. The article proposes a series of measures to begin redressing the imbalance.

    KW - Action Plan

    KW - Cartograms

    KW - Journals

    KW - Management Academy

    KW - Metrics

    KW - Neo-Colonialism

    U2 - 10.1177/1350508412453097

    DO - 10.1177/1350508412453097

    M3 - Journal article

    VL - 19

    SP - 915

    EP - 927

    JO - Organization

    JF - Organization

    SN - 1350-5084

    IS - 6

    ER -