How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research. A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management

This study provides quantitative evidence on how the use of journal rankings can disadvantage interdisciplinary research in research evaluations. Using publication and citation data, it compares the degree of interdisciplinarity and the research performance of a number of Innovation Studies units with that of leading Business & Management schools in the UK. On the basis of various mappings and metrics, this study shows that: (i) Innovation Studies units are consistently more interdisciplinary in their research than Business & Management schools; (ii) the top journals in the Association of Business Schools' rankings span a less diverse set of disciplines than lower-ranked journals; (iii) this results in a more favourable assessment of the performance of Business & Management schools, which are more disciplinary-focused. This citation-based analysis challenges the journal ranking-based assessment. In short, the investigation illustrates how ostensibly 'excellence-based' journal rankings exhibit a systematic bias in favour of mono-disciplinary research. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications of these phenomena, in particular how the bias is likely to affect negatively the evaluation and associated financial resourcing of interdisciplinary research organisations, and may result in researchers becoming more compliant with disciplinary authority over time.Comment: 41 pages, 10 figure

Internal and External Goods: A Philosophical Critique of the Hybridization of Professionalism

Background: Recent literature on professionalism describes the hybridisation of professional practices because of the pressures of neo-liberal managerialism. While the general opinion appears to be that this development was inevitable given the task of service organisations to operate on the market, this paper questions that blurring the distinction between professional and managerial responsibilities is sound business advice for market-orientated service providers. Method: The method is philosophical analysis. A normative account of 'true' professionalism is discussed in order to determine the relation between professionalism and managerialism. By placing this account in the framework of Aristotelian moral philosophy, three distinctions are presented to argue that professional practices will most likely be successful in managerial terms when the internal values of professional practices are not mixed up with the external values of the service organisation. Results: The analysis results in an argument about economic value as a contingent 'by-product' of professional expertise. The outcome is the prediction that professional activity will be most responsive to organisational goals implemented and monitored by management to the extent that professionals are enabled to serve the goals internal to their profession. Professional excellence will be most profitable when professionals do not have to mind about being profitable. Conclusions: Neo-liberal managerialism assumes that making professionals share managerial values of accountability and transparency will improve both the economic performance of service organisations and the quality of their services. The argument concerning the contribution to these values by professionals as a contingent by-product of professional excellence shows that this assumption is questionable. © 2008 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd