IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/rvmgts/v14y2020i2d10.1007_s11846-019-00363-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Latour and Woolgar’s ‘cycle of scientific credibility’ as a basis for conceptualizing business school strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Ivory

    (Anglia Ruskin University)

  • Helen Shipton

    (Nottingham Trent University)

Abstract

Drawing on contemporary and historical discourse around UK business schools and insights from the sociology of scientific knowledge, we argue that business schools should be understood and judged, not as they typically have been, as engines of knowledge production, but as engines of credibility production. Credibility, we argue, is central to the attractiveness of business schools to students and other key stakeholders and therefore credibility, and the mechanisms through which credibility are maintained, should be at the center of strategic thinking within business schools. We argue that over-reliance on funding from corporate sources can have profound consequences for the ability of schools to continue to produce credibility. This article focuses primarily on the experiences of business schools in the UK.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Ivory & Helen Shipton, 2020. "Latour and Woolgar’s ‘cycle of scientific credibility’ as a basis for conceptualizing business school strategy," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 379-391, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:rvmgts:v:14:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11846-019-00363-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11846-019-00363-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11846-019-00363-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11846-019-00363-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goodall, Amanda H., 2009. "Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1079-1092, September.
    2. Lauri Koskela, 2017. "Why is management research irrelevant?," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1-2), pages 4-23, February.
    3. Chris Ivory, 2017. "The prospects for a production management body of knowledge in business schools: response to Koskela (2017) “Why is management research irrelevant?”," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(7), pages 385-391, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthias Fink & Johannes Gartner & Rainer Harms & Isabella Hatak, 2023. "Ethical Orientation and Research Misconduct Among Business Researchers Under the Condition of Autonomy and Competition," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(2), pages 619-636, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    2. Amanda Goodall, 2013. "Should Doctors Run Hospitals?," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 11(1), pages 37-40, 04.
    3. Amanda H. Goodall, 2010. "Why Socrates Should Be In The Boardroom In Research Universities," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt6230c4jd, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    4. Mulyanto,, 2016. "Productivity of R&D institution: The case of Indonesia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 78-91.
    5. Eberhard Feess & Marc Scheufen, 2016. "Academic copyright in the publishing game: a contest perspective," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 263-294, October.
    6. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    7. Goodall, Amanda H. & McDowell, John M. & Singell, Larry D., 2014. "Leadership and the Research Productivity of University Departments," IZA Discussion Papers 7903, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Goodall, Amanda H., 2011. "Physician-leaders and hospital performance: Is there an association?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(4), pages 535-539, August.
    9. Yu, Nannan & Dong, Yueyan & de Jong, Martin & Yue, Jinxing, 2024. "How do new university presidents affect research performance? Measuring the impact of pervious career paths in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    10. John McCormack & Carol Propper & Sarah Smith, 2014. "Herding Cats? Management and University Performance," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(578), pages 534-564, August.
    11. Lazear, Edward P. & Shaw, Kathryn L., 2014. "The value of bosses," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60611, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Amanda Goodall, 2013. "Should Doctors Run Hospitals?," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 11(01), pages 37-40, April.
    13. Bäker, Agnes & Goodall, Amanda H., 2020. "Feline followers and “umbrella carriers”: Department Chairs’ influence on faculty job satisfaction and quit intentions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    14. Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Paul Benneworth, 2015. "What makes the difference?," CHEPS Working Papers 201501, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    15. Edward P. Lazear & Kathryn L. Shaw & Christopher T. Stanton, 2015. "The Value of Bosses," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(4), pages 823-861.
    16. Benjamin M. Artz & Amanda H. Goodall & Andrew J. Oswald, 2017. "Boss Competence and Worker Well-Being," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 70(2), pages 419-450, March.
    17. Singell, Larry D. & Tang, Hui-Hsuan, 2013. "Pomp and circumstance: University presidents and the role of human capital in determining who leads U.S. research institutions," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 219-233.
    18. Khoo, Shee-Yee & Perotti, Pietro & Verousis, Thanos & Watermeyer, Richard, 2024. "Vice-chancellor narcissism and university performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    19. Yu Zhang & Min Wang & Morteza Saberi & Elizabeth Chang, 2020. "Knowledge fusion through academic articles: a survey of definitions, techniques, applications and challenges," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2637-2666, December.
    20. Uschi Backes-Gellner & Agnes Bäker & Kerstin Pull, 2018. "The Opportunity Costs of Becoming a Dean: Does Leadership in Academia Crowd Out Research?," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 70(2), pages 189-208, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Third-party funding; Reputation; Credibility; Knowledge production; Business schools;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General
    • I22 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Educational Finance; Financial Aid
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:rvmgts:v:14:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11846-019-00363-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.