Published Online:https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0130

Creating new knowledge is a central purpose of business education. Faculty disseminate new knowledge to stakeholders using a range of different mediums and activities. However, a question of growing importance to scholars, administrators, policy makers, and practitioners remains: knowledge for whom? To address this question, we build on institutional theory and institutional work and argue the value that individual faculty ascribe to these different mediums (e.g., academic journals, books) depends on both institutional biographical and contextual factors. We analyze individual’s biographical factors of academic socialization (graduate training, ranking of graduate program, career tenure); practitioner socialization, and interdisciplinary appointments. We assess contextual factors of the school’s strategic orientation and accreditation. Our biographical analysis of 740 faculty members from 13 elite and non-elite Canadian business schools suggests that different knowledge-dissemination activities are anchored in a faculty member’s scholarly socialization and are influenced by both individual and contextual factors. Our results suggest the divide between academics and practitioners in business schools can be bridged by individual faculty members who possess both academic and professional qualifications.

REFERENCES

  • AACSB. 2013. Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/en/accreditation/standards/2013-business/ Google Scholar
  • AACSB. 2009. AQ/PQ Status: Establishing criteria for attainment and maintenance of faculty qualifications: An interpretation of AACSB accreditation standards. AACSB Accreditation Coordinating Committee. Google Scholar
  • AACSB. 2008. Final Report of the AACSB International Impact of Research Task Force. Tampa, FL: AACSB International. Google Scholar
  • Adler N. J., Harzing A. W. 2009. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1): 72–95.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Aguinis H., Shapiro D., Antonacopoulou E., Cummings T. 2014. Scholary impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(4): 623–638.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Alajoutsijärvi K., Juusola K., Siltaoja M. 2014. The paradox of business schools: Losing by gaining? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2): 277–291. Google Scholar
  • Anderson T., McGreal R. 2012. Disruptive pedagogies and technologies in universities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4): 380–389. Google Scholar
  • Bailey J., Ford C. 1996. Management as science versus management as practice in postgraduate business education. Business Strategy Review, 7(4): 7–12. Google Scholar
  • Bajada C., Trayler R. 2013. Interdisciplinary business education: Curriculum through collaboration. Education + Training, 55(4/5): 385–402. Google Scholar
  • Bartunek J. M., Rynes S. L. 2010. The construction and contributions of “implications for practice”: What's in them and what might they offer? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(1): 100–117.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Baruch Y., Hall D. T. 2004. The academic career: A model for future careers in other sectors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64: 241–262. Google Scholar
  • Bekkers R., Bodas Freitas I. M. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10): 1837–1853. Google Scholar
  • Bedeian A., Cavazos D., Hunt J. G., Jauch L. R. 2010a. Doctoral degree prestige and the academic marketplace: A study of career mobility within the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(1): 11–25.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bedeian A. G., Taylor S. G., Miller A. N. 2010b. Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4): 715–725.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bennis W. G., O’Toole J. 2005. How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5): 96–104. Google Scholar
  • Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. 2005. Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics, 63(1): 87–120. Google Scholar
  • Boyer E. L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  • Bozeman B., Corley E. 2004. Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4): 599–616. Google Scholar
  • Burke L. A., Moore J. E. 2003. A perennial dilemma in OB education: Engaging the traditional student. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(1): 37–52.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Carnegie Foundation. 2014. Retrieved March 29, 2015 from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/ Google Scholar
  • Certo S. T., Sirmon D. G., Brymer R. A. 2010. Competition and scholarly productivity in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2008. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4): 591–606.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Charlier S. D., Brown K. G., Rynes S. L. 2011. Teaching evidence-based management in MBA programs: What evidence is there? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2): 222–236.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Chen Y., Gupta A., Hoshower L. 2006. Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 81(4): 179–189. Google Scholar
  • Chia R., Holt R. 2008. The nature of knowledge in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(4): 471–486.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Clarke T. 2013. Introduction. Education + Training, 55(4/5): 320–322. Google Scholar
  • Davis J. R. 1995. Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: New arrangements for learning. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and the Oryx Press. Google Scholar
  • Demb A., Wade A. 2012. Reality check: Faculty involvement in outreach & engagement. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3): 337–366. Google Scholar
  • Dietz J. S., Bozeman B. 2005. Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3): 349–367. Google Scholar
  • DiMaggio P. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment: 3–21. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Google Scholar
  • DiMaggio P. J., Powell W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 17: 147–160. Google Scholar
  • Durand R., McGuire J. 2005. Legitimating agencies in the face of selection: The case of AACSB. Organization Studies, 26(2): 165–196. Google Scholar
  • Emirbayer M., Mische A. 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103: 962–1023. Google Scholar
  • Estabrooks C. A., Winther C., Katz S. 2002. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Research Utilization Literature in Nursing; Results of a Pilot Study. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta Faculty of Nursing. Google Scholar
  • Fiegenbaum A., Thomas H. 1995. Strategic groups as reference groups: Theory, modeling and empirical examination of industry and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6): 461–476. Google Scholar
  • Foster W. M., Suddaby R., Minkus A., Wiebe E. 2011. History as social memory assets: The example of Tim Hortons. Management & Organizational History, 6(1): 101–120. Google Scholar
  • Fram E. H., Lau G. H. 1996. Research universities versus teaching universities - Public perceptions and preferences. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(3): 27–33. Google Scholar
  • Ghoshal S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 75–91.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Giacalone R. A. 2009. Academic rankings in research institutions: A case of skewed mind-sets and professional amnesia. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1): 122–126.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gioia D. A., Corley K. G. 2002. Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1): 107–120.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gioia D. A., Thomas J. B. 1996. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during stractegic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3): 370–403. Google Scholar
  • Gordon R. A., Howell J. E. 1959. Higher education for business. The Journal of Business Education, 35(3): 115–117. Google Scholar
  • Harzing A. W. 2013. A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel Prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3): 1057–1075. Google Scholar
  • Hommel U., Thomas H. 2014. Research on business schools: Themes, conjectures and future directions. In A. M. Pettigrew, U. Hommel, & E. Comuel (Eds.), The institutional development of business schools: 6–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Hosmer D. W., Lemeshow S. 1989. Logistic regression for matched case-control studies. Applied Logistic Regression, (2nd ed.): 223–259. Google Scholar
  • Hughes T., Bence D., Grisoni L., O’Regan N., Wornham D. 2011. Scholarship that matters: Academic–practitioner engagement in business and management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1): 40–57.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Johns G. 1993. Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: Lessons from organizational innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46(3): 569–592. Google Scholar
  • Kanter R. M., Eccles R. G. 1992. Making network research relevant to practice. Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action: 521–527. Google Scholar
  • Kenny R. W., et al.. 1998. Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. New York: Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Google Scholar
  • Kieser A., Leiner L. 2009. Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): 516–533. Google Scholar
  • Lawrence T. B., Suddaby R. 2006. Institutional work. In Clegg S.Hardy C.Lawrence T.Nord W. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies, (2nd ed.): 215–254. London, UK: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Lawrence T. B., Suddaby R., Leca B. 2011. Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1): 52–58. Google Scholar
  • Leblebici H., Salancik G. R., Copay A., King T. 1991. Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the US radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 333–363. Google Scholar
  • Link A. N., Swann C. A., Bozeman B. 2008. A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27(4): 363–374. Google Scholar
  • Lok J., De Rond M. 2013. On the plasticity of institutions: Containing and restoring practice breakdowns at the Cambridge University Boat Club. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 185–207.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Long R. G., Bowers W. P., Barnett T., White M. C. 1998. Research productivity of graduates in management: Effects of academic origin and academic affiliation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6): 704–714.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Lorange P. 2012. The business school of the future: The network-based business model. Journal of Management Development, 31(4): 424–430. Google Scholar
  • Maguire S., Hardy C. 2009. Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1): 148–178.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Meyer J. W., Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363. Google Scholar
  • Mohrman S. A., Gibson C. B., Mohrman A. M. 2001. Doing research that is useful to practice a model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 357–375.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • National Centre for Education Statistics (NCES). 2012. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved May 4, 2015 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2012menu_tables.asp Google Scholar
  • Near J. P., Rice R. W., Hunt R. G. 1978. Work and extra-work correlates of life and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2): 248–264.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Nicolai A. T., Schulz A.-C., Gӧbel M. 2011. Between sweet harmony and a clash of cultures: Does a joint academic-practitioner review reconcile rigor and relevance? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1): 53–75. Google Scholar
  • Nicolini D. 2013. Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Google Scholar
  • Nonaka I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1): 14–37. Google Scholar
  • O’Meara K. A. 2005. Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Does it make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 46(5): 479–510. Google Scholar
  • Palmer T. B., Short J. C. 2008. Mission statements in US colleges of business: An empirical examination of their content with linkages to configurations and performance. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(4): 454–470.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Parker L. D. 2008. Interpreting interpretive accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(6): 909–914. Google Scholar
  • Peng C. Y. J., Lee K. L., Ingersoll G. M. 2002. An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1): 3–14. Google Scholar
  • Perkmann M., Walsh K. 2008. Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10): 1884–1891. Google Scholar
  • Pettigrew A. M., Cornuel E., Hommel U. 2014. The institutional development of business schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Pettigrew A. M. 2014. Building a research agenda for the institutional development of business schools. In A. M. Pettigrew, U. Hommel, & E. Comuel (Eds.), The institutional development of business schools: 294–312. Oxford: Oxford University. Google Scholar
  • Pierson F. C. 1959. The education of American businessmen. The Journal of Business Education, 35(3): 114–117. Google Scholar
  • Petriglieri G., Petriglieri J. L. 2010. Identity workspaces: The case of business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(1): 44–60.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Porter M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Rynes S. L., Bartunek J. M., Daft R. L. 2001. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 340–355.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Shapiro D. L., Kirkman B. L., Courtney H. 2007. Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 249–266.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Shrivastava P., Mitroff I. I. 1984. Enhancing organizational research utilization: The role of decision makers’ assumptions. Academy of Management Review, 9(1): 18–26.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Slater S. F., Olson E. M., Hult G. T. M. 2006. The moderating influence of strategic orientation on the strategy formation capability–performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 27(12): 1221–1231. Google Scholar
  • Smith A. G. 2008. Benchmarking Google Scholar with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 74(2): 309–316. Google Scholar
  • Snyder T. D., Dillow S. A. 2015. Digest of Education Statistics 2013. NCES 2015-011. National Center for Education Statistics. Google Scholar
  • Statistics Canada. 2009, October. Postsecondary Enrolment and Graduation. Retrieved on April 29, 2015 from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-599-x/81-599-x2009003-eng.htm. Google Scholar
  • Stone L. 1971. Prosopography, Daedalus, Historical Studies Today, 100(1):46-79. MIT Press. Google Scholar
  • Tabachnick B. G., Fidell L. S. 1996. Using multivariate statistics, (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  • Taylor R. L., Stanton A. D. A. 2009. Academic publishing and teaching effectiveness: An attitudinal study of AACSB accredited business school faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(2): 93–106. Google Scholar
  • Thomas H., Cornuel E. 2012. Business schools in transition? Issues of impact, capabilities and re-invention. Journal of Management Development, 31: 329–335. Google Scholar
  • Thomas K. W., Tymon W. G. 1982. Necessary properties of relevant research: Lessons from recent criticisms of the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 7(3): 345–352.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tsui A. S. 2013. Editorial: The spirit of science and socially responsible scholarship. Management and Organization Review, 9(3): 375–393. Google Scholar
  • Van de Ven A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Van de Ven A. H., Johnson P. E. 2006. Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 802–821.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson D. C., Thomas H. 2012. The legitimacy of the business of business schools: What’s the future? Journal of Management Development, 31: 368–376. Google Scholar
  • Wong F. K., Kember D., Chung L. Y., CertEd L. Y. 1995. Assessing the level of student reflection from reflective journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22(1): 48–57. Google Scholar
  • Wu Y. C. J., Huang S., Kuo L., Wu W. H. 2010. Management education for sustainability: A web-based content analysis. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3): 520–531.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Wyer J. C., Blood M. R. 2006. Who can do this job? Intellectual capacities and the faculty role. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(1): 101–112.LinkGoogle Scholar