Abstract
Using a dataset of refereed conference papers, this work explores the determinants of academic production in the field of management. The estimation of a count data model shows that the countries’ level of economic development and their economy size have a positive and highly significant effect on scholarly management knowledge production. The linguistic variable (English as official language), which has been cited by the literature as an important factor facilitating the participation in the international scientific arena, has also a positive and statistically significant effect.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Academy of Management (2007), AOM 2007 Annual Meeting Program, http://program.aomonline.org/2007/pdf/AOM_2007_Annual_Meeting_Program.pdf (accessed July 1, 2007).
Alvarez, J. L. (Ed.) (1998), The Diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Bajnar, O., M. Kipping (Eds) (1998), The Americanization of European Business: The Marshall Plan and the Transfer of US Management Models, Routledge, London.
Baruch, Y. (2001), Global or North American? A geographical based comparative analysis of publications in top management journals, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1: 109–126.
CIA (2007), CIA World Factbook 2007, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook (accessed November 1, 2007).
Cameron, C., P. Trivedi (1996), Count data models for financial data, In: G. S. Maddala, C. R. Rao (Ed.), Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 14, Statistical Methods in Finance, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 363–392.
Engwall, L. (1996), The vikings versus the world An examination of Nordic business research, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 12: 425–436.
Engwall, L. (1998). Research note: Asterix in Disneyland. Management scholars from France on the world stage, Organization Studies 19: 863–881.
Engwall, L. (2007), The anatomy of management education, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23: 4–35.
Greene, W. (1997), Econometric Analysis, 3rd. ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Guillén, M. (1994), Models of Management: Work, Authority and Organization in a Comparative Perspective, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hicks, D. (2004), The four literatures of Social Science, In: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, H. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Eds), Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 473–495.
Hodgson, G., H. Rothman (1999), The editors and authors of economics journals: A case of institutional oligopoly?, The Economic Journal, 109: F165–F186.
Hwang, K. (2005), The inferior science and the dominant use of English in knowledge production: A case study of Korean science and technology, Science Communication, 26: 390–427.
International Monetary Fund (2007), World Economic Outlook, Database, April 2007, http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/index.aspx (accessed July 1, 2007).
Mazza, C. (1998), The popularization of business knowledge diffusion: From academic knowledge to popular culture?, In: J. L. Alvarez (Ed.) (1998) The Diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge, St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp. 164–181.
Moon, H., C. M. Wotipka (2006), The worldwide diffusion of business education, 1881–1999:. Historical trajectory and mechanisms of expansion, In: G. Drori, J. W. Meyer, H. Hwang (Eds) Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 121–136.
Rynes, S., J. M. Bartunek, R. L. Daft (2001), Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics, Academy of Management Journal, 44: 340–355.
Sahlin-Andersson, K., L. Engwall (Eds) (2002a), The Expansion of Managment Knowledge: Carriers, Flows, and Sources, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Sahlin-Andersson, K., L. Engwall (2002b), Carriers, flows and sources of management knowledge, In: K. L. Sahlin-Andersson, L. Engwall (Eds) The Expansion of Management Knowledge: Carriers, Flows, and Sources, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 3–32.
Schott, T. (1998), Ties between center and periphery in the scientific world-system: Accumulation of rewards, dominance and self-reliance in the center, Journal of World-Systems Research, 4: 112–144, http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol4/v4n2a3.php.
Shrum, W. (1997), View from afar: ‘visible’ productivity of scientists in the developing world, Scientometrics, 40: 215–235.
Shrum, W., Y. Shenhav (1995), Science and technology in less developed countries, In: S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson, T. Pinch (Eds), Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 627–651.
Üsdiken, B., D. Çetin (2001), From Betriebswirtschaftslehre to human relations: Turkish management literature before and after the Second World War, Business History, 43: 90–121.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2006), The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible, Scientometrics, 66: 133–154.
Verbeek A., K. Debackere, M. Luwel, E. Zimmermann (2002), Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4: 179–211.
Zeileis, A., C. Kleiber, S. Jackman (2007), Regression Models for Count Data in R, Working Paper, Research Report Series Nr. 53, Department of Statistics and Mathematics, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gantman, E.R. International differences of productivity in scholarly management knowledge. Scientometrics 80, 153–165 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2054-8
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2054-8