Fifty years of irrelevance: the wild goose chase of management science

Modern management science has existed since 1959 when two reports (by Pierson and Gordon & Howell) on the future of business education were published in the US. At least since 1980, there has been a practically continuous, but somewhat fragmented discussion on the relevance of management research. Although many different proposals have been made to rectify the situation, the mainstream of management research seems to be relatively untroubled and unaffected by this widely sensed irrelevance. The paper aims at initial understanding of the reasons for this spectacular failure of (general) management research to reach relevant results in the period of 1960-2010. Two related questions are considered in more detail. How was the social science turn of management science in 1959 justified and achieved? Which correctives have been proposed for management research, up to now

Lessons for Co-management: Experiences from the Fisheries Management Science Programme (FMSP)

The aim of this document is to communicate lessons for fisheries co-management that have emerged from a series of projects undertaken by the DFID Fisheries Management Science Programme (FMSP). It focuses on three examples of FMSP projects: ParFish, Adaptive learning and designing data collection systems. This document does not aim to give a comprehensive overview of co-management but seeks to provide a viewpoint based on the experiences of the FMSP projects in question. This document is targeted to fisheries decision makers, managers and facilitators including government, industry and non-governmental organisations

Improving Evidence Quality for Organisational Change Management through Open Science

Purpose: Popular contingency approaches to organisational change management imply that it is known what and when practices are most appropriate and effective to manage change. The current work questions this assumption. Approach: The current work critically reviews the quality of current evidence supporting organisational change management and considers the role of open science practices for the field. Findings: First, evidence informing organisational change management is poor; heavily reliant upon unquestioned theoretical models and low-quality cross-sectional or case-study designs. Greater adoption of an evidence-based approach to practice could facilitate organisational change management, but only once a higher-quality of evidence is available to inform more robust practical guidance. Second, open science practices look well placed to drive a higher quality of evidence suitable for informing future change management. Value: The current work highlights the problematic nature of the quality and application of current evidence to inform organisational change and raises a number of recommendations to support future evidence development using an open science approach

A theoretical model for design in Management science : the paradigm shift in the design profession for management as a constraint to management science as an opportunity

Design Management has changed greatly since 1990 Peter Gorb definition .The purpose of this paper is to synthetize the various models of Design Management and to explain their limits in front of the paradigm shift of the design profession, changing “from an activity based profession to a knowledge based profession” professor Yjro Sotamaa- UIAH The territory of design in Management science will be developed in detail with the limits of these diverging forces. The converging model of Design value management based not on practices but on management science models will be explained with its proactive force. Finally ,this value model will be applied enhancing its pertinence in the emerging “design leadership” trend and consequently the potential for a “design thinking “ input in front of the new challenges of contemporary managers : sense building, complexity , innovation , Socially Responsible Organizations

A Decision-Maker's Guide To Using Science

"Marine Managed Areas: What, Why, and Where" is a reader-friendly, richly illustrated 16-page booklet that defines MMAs and discusses the challenges of implementation. Based on 5 years of natural and social science research in 23 countries, it is intended to advance discussions among government agencies, non-government organizations, user groups, and other stakeholders about how and why to implement integrated management for the ocean. Marine Managed Areas: What, Why, and Where is a publication of the Science-to-Action partnership, which includes more than 75 organizations led by Conservation International's Marine Management Area Science Program. One approach to the development of better coastal and marine policy and management is the concept of marine managed areas (MMAs). A MMA is an area of ocean, or a combination of land and ocean, where all human activities are managed toward common goals. MMAs are a form of ecosystem-based management, where all elements -- biophysical, human, and institutional -- of a particular system are considered together. There are several overarching principles under which MMAs should be developed: All human uses and their subsequent impacts on the defined area should be considered and their management integrated.Policy and management should be based on the best natural and social science available.All stakeholders in the defined area should be consulted and fully involved in the policy and management development and implementation processes concerning the MMA's conditions and uses. When such principles are fully implemented, the uses of the resources and habitats and the resulting benefits both to the environment and to humans can be optimized

Integrated marine science and management : wading through the morass

Many countries worldwide are now considering developing (or at least being required to consider developing) a holistic marine management planning framework which can encompass all the marine users and uses, the players and stakeholders, and the demands on the system (e.g. Borja et al., 2010). Given that there are many sectors involved in the marine environment (shipping, fishing, aquaculture, industries, recreation, etc.), there is the need for integrated management but within that multi-manager sectoral framework. Each sector usually has its own administrative body (e.g. Boyes and Elliott, 2014a) and often the complexity of the system means that one sectoral body, for example for conservation, is so preoccupied tackling its own conservation aspects that they pay less attention to others, such as fisheries

Appendix I: References Cited

Annual summary of field crop insect management trials, Department of Crop Services, University of Illinois. Providing accurate and unbiased evaluations of insect control products and management strategies to assist growers in Illinois.University of Illinois Extension and Department of Crop Science