Skip to main content
Log in

The blockbuster hypothesis: influencing the boundaries of knowledge

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We argue that the creation of new knowledge is both difficult and rare. More specifically, we posit that the creation of new knowledge is dominated by a few key insights that challenge the way people think about an idea; generating high interest and use. We label this the blockbuster hypothesis. Using two large samples of published management studies over the period 1998–2007 we find support for the blockbuster hypothesis. We also find that numerous studies in the leading management journals are flops, having little impact on the profession as measured using citation data. Additional tests indicate that journal “quality” is related to the ratio of blockbusters to flops a journal publishes and that journal rankings are a poor proxy for study influence. Consistent with the notion that editorial boards are able to identify new knowledge, we find that research notes significantly under-perform articles in both the same journal and articles published in lower ranked journals. Taken together, the results imply that only a few scientific studies, out of the thousands published in a given area, change or influence the boundaries of knowledge, with many appearing to have little impact on the frontiers of knowledge. Overall, this analysis indicates that the development of new knowledge is rare even though it appears to be recognizable to knowledge gatekeepers like journal editors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This index does not correct for the citing population of management journals outside the field of management. In order to deal with this issue, we examined the percentage of citations the journals received outside of the list of management journals maintained by ISI. We found that the citations received from outside the field of management did not vary dramatically across our set of journals.

  2. In this context, see also Schultz (2010) and Kochen et al. (1981).

References

  • Acs, Z., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patent counts and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting citations in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48, 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlin, K., & Behrens, D. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34, 717–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M., & Mudambi, R. (2010). A story of breakthrough vs. incremental innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2), 106–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleeson, R., & Schlossman, S. (1992). The many faces of the new look; The University of Virginia, Carnegie Tech, and the reform of American management education in the postwar era. Selections, Spring, 1–24.

  • Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Clark, K. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: A reassessment: Comment. American Economic Review, 95, 461–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. (1979). Job matching and the theory of turnover. Journal of Political Economy, 87(5), 972–990.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochen, M., Crickman, R., & Blaivas, A. (1981). Distribution of scientific experts as recognized by peer consensus. Scientometrics, 4(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadyen, M., & Cannella, A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 735–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R. (2008). Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5), 699–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R., & Swift, T. (2011). Proactive knowledge management and firm growth: A punctuated equilibrium model. Research Policy, 40(3), 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Moore, W. (1980). Power in university budgeting: A replication and extension. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 637–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Bachrach, D., & Podsakoff, N. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlossman, S., Sedlak, M., & Wechsler, H. (1987). The new look; The Ford foundation and revolution in business education. Selections, Winter, 8–28.

  • Schultz, D. M. (2010). Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics, 84(2), 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., Collins, C., & Clark, K. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. (2005). The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16, 180–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trieschmann, J., Dennis, A., Northcraft, G., & Neimi, A. (2000). Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus research performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1130–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upham, S. P., & Small, H. (2010). Emerging research fronts in science and technology: Patterns of new knowledge development. Scientometrics, 83(1), 15–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Tim Swift and Thomas J. Hannigan for excellent research support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ram Mudambi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brouthers, K.D., Mudambi, R. & Reeb, D.M. The blockbuster hypothesis: influencing the boundaries of knowledge. Scientometrics 90, 959–982 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0540-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0540-5

Keywords

Navigation