Publication in quality journals has become a major indicator of research performance in UK universities. This paper investigates the notion of `quality journal' and finds dizzying circularity in its definitions. Actually, what a quality journal is does not really matter: agreement that there are such things matters very much indeed. As so often happens with indicators of performance, the indicator has become the target. So, the challenge is to publish in quality journals, and the challenge rewards gamesmanship. Vested interests have become particularly skilful at the game, and at exercising the winners' prerogative of changing the rules. All but forgotten in the desperation to win the game is publication as a means of communicating research findings for the public benefit. The paper examines the situation in management studies, but the problem is much more widespread. It concludes that laughter is both the appropriate reaction to such farce, and also, perhaps, the stimulus to reform.
Recent management research imports rhetorical scholarship into the study of organizations. Although this cross-disciplinarity is heuristically promising, it presents significant challenges. This article interrogates management's use of rhetoric, contrasting it with communication studies. Five themes from management research identify how rhetoric is used as an organizational hermeneutic: The article demonstrates that management research conceptualizes rhetoric as a theory and as an action; as the substance that maintains and/or challenges organizational order; as being constitutive of individual and organizational identity; as a managerial strategy for persuading followers; and as a framework for narrative and rational organizational discourses. The authors argue that organizational researchers who study rhetoric characterize persuasive strategies as managers' most important actions.
To determine what amount to budget, discuss with an outside consultant the ballpark ranges for the types of research you want to conduct. Use the high-end numbers, plus estimated expenses, as your first budget recommendation. After the budget is approved, ask the consultant for a written, detailed proposal that will match the final amount that was allocated.
The Computing Research Repository (CoRR) described by Halpern is potentially a powerful tool for researchers in computing science. In its current form, however, shortcomings exist that restrict its value and that, in the long term, might strongly undermine its usefulness. Important aspects that have insufficiently been taken care of are (1) the quality and consequently the reliability of the material stored, (2) the still restricted submission of material,which implies that other sources have to be consulted by researchers as well, (3) the still unsound financial basis of the project, and (4) the confusion that may easily arise when a preliminary version is stored in the CoRR, while a different final version is published in a journal.
Clearly, some information about users is better than none. In this column, I’ll review a variety of ways in which you can scale back the time it takes to do user research, while still providing valuable results.
The institutional repository (IR), an open Web-based archive of scholarly material produced by the members of a defined institution, has come to the fore following the launch of DSpace at MIT at the end of 2002. Here we review recent developments in IRs and explore the impact their expansion may have on scholarly publishing.
Qualitative analyses were used to launch a preliminary exploration of the dominant knowledge organization (KO) trends in the pre- and post-web eras. Data for this study was assembled by searching the Library, Information Science, and Technology Abstracts database for articles that have used the term `knowledge organization' or `information organization' in their titles, abstracts, or descriptors. Taken as a whole, these preliminary results suggest that the content of the KO literature has shifted since the advent of the web. Although classic KO principles remain prominent throughout both eras, the presence of new content areas, such as metadata, denotes a shift in KO trends. In the pre-web era, the literature was related in large part to indexing and abstracting. In contrast, cataloging and classification issues dominate the landscape in the post-web era. The findings from this paper will be of particular use to those interested in learning about upcoming trends in the KO literature.
The viability of KM partly rests on how researchers garner empirical support for their purported theories. One aspect of this would involve the evaluation of the evidence provided in KM research. This paper presents a comparative study of the evidence that is presented in scholarly and professional literature on KM. For this purpose, the paper introduces a typology of evidence to analyze the data obtained from the survey of the literature. The classification based on this typology reveals quantitative differences between the types of evidence put forth in the scholarly and practitioner literature. More interestingly, however, our analysis reveals differences in terms of the questions they ask, the perspective they adopt, and the methods they follow to convince others of the validity of their claims. We explain these differences in terms of the notions of `blackboxing' and `performance' borrowed from actor-network theory.