Reflections on scientific misconduct in management: Unfortunate incidents or a normative crisis?
Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
Standard
in: Academy of Management Perspectives, Jahrgang 32, Nr. 4, 29.11.2018, S. 412-442.
Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Reflections on scientific misconduct in management
T2 - Unfortunate incidents or a normative crisis?
AU - Honig, Benson
AU - Lampel, Joseph
AU - Baum, Joel A.C.
AU - Glynn, Mary A.N.N.
AU - Jing, Runtian
AU - Lounsbury, Michael
AU - Schüßler, Elke
AU - Sirmon, David G.
AU - Tsui, Anne S.
AU - Walsh, James P.
AU - Van Witteloostuijn, Arjen
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © Academy of Management Perspectives.
PY - 2018/11/29
Y1 - 2018/11/29
N2 - Taking as our starting point Merton’s (1942/1973) defense of science facing pressures from totalitarian regimes, we argue that today’s challenge to the integrity of management scholarship does not come primarily from external demands for ideological conformity, but from escalating competition for publication space in leading journals that is changing the internal dynamics of our community. We invited nine scholars from different countries and with different backgrounds and career trajectories to provide their brief views of this argument. Following an introduction that summarizes the argument, we present their different reactions by dividing and introducing the work into those who took a broad field-level perspective, those with a more macro view, and those who suggested possible remedies to our dilemmas. In conclusion, we note that questionable research practices, retractions, and highly publicized cases of academic misconduct may irreparably damage the legitimacy of our scholarship unless the management research community airs these issues and takes steps to address this challenge.
AB - Taking as our starting point Merton’s (1942/1973) defense of science facing pressures from totalitarian regimes, we argue that today’s challenge to the integrity of management scholarship does not come primarily from external demands for ideological conformity, but from escalating competition for publication space in leading journals that is changing the internal dynamics of our community. We invited nine scholars from different countries and with different backgrounds and career trajectories to provide their brief views of this argument. Following an introduction that summarizes the argument, we present their different reactions by dividing and introducing the work into those who took a broad field-level perspective, those with a more macro view, and those who suggested possible remedies to our dilemmas. In conclusion, we note that questionable research practices, retractions, and highly publicized cases of academic misconduct may irreparably damage the legitimacy of our scholarship unless the management research community airs these issues and takes steps to address this challenge.
KW - Management studies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058040088&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/4c49414f-4f37-3020-8d84-58b0ab6354a5/
U2 - 10.5465/amp.2015.0167
DO - 10.5465/amp.2015.0167
M3 - Journal articles
AN - SCOPUS:85058040088
VL - 32
SP - 412
EP - 442
JO - Academy of Management Perspectives
JF - Academy of Management Perspectives
SN - 1558-9080
IS - 4
ER -