Asia Pacific Journal of Management

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 171–188 | Cite as

Research rankings of Asia Pacific business schools: Global versus local knowledge strategies

Perspectives

Abstract

Despite the increasing recognition of the importance of the research mission of universities, no previous work has investigated the research productivity and research strategies of Asia Pacific business schools. This article fills this important gap by conducting the first study to rank the publication productivity of 130 Asia Pacific business schools. Drawing on data from the UTD Top 100 Business School Research Rankings™ and several additional sources, we rank Asia Pacific business schools’ research productivity in three areas: (1) twenty-four leading business journals, (2) seven top management journals, and (3) five Asia Pacific management journals. We also extend this analysis by documenting the distinct publishing strategies of various Asia Pacific business schools—global, local, or both.

Keywords

Asian Pacific business schools Research Rankings Productivity 

References

  1. Agrawal, A., & Cockburn, I. 2003. The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21: 1227–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. S. 1995. The Devil’s advocate responds to an MBA student’s claim that research harms learning. Journal of Marketing, 59: 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Au, K. 2007. Self-confidence does not come isolated from the environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 491–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baden-Fuller, C., Ravazzolo, F., & Schweizer, T. 2000. Making and measuring reputations: The research rankings of European business schools. Long Range Planning, 33: 621–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brouthers, K. D., Mudambi, R., & Reeb, D. M. 2005. The homerun hypothesis: Influencing the boundaries of knowledge. Working paper available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1015588.
  6. Carlsson, B., & Mudambi, R. 2003. Globalization, entrepreneurship and public policy: A systems view. Industry and Innovation, 10: 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, K. C., Fung, H. G., & Lai, P. 2005. Membership of the editorial boards and rankings of schools with international business orientation. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 452–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan, K. C., Chen, C. R., & Cheng, L. T. W. 2006. A ranking of accounting research output in the European region. Accounting and Business Research, 36: 3–17.Google Scholar
  9. Ehrenberg, R. 2005. Going broke by degree: A review essay. Journal of Labor Research, 26: 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gioia, D. A., & Corley, K. G. 2002. Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1: 107–120.Google Scholar
  11. Harzing, A. 2005. Australian research output in economics and business: High volume, low impact? Australian Journal of Management, 30: 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofstede, G. 2007. Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kumar, V., & Kundu, S. K. 2004. Ranking the international business schools: Faculty publications as the measure. Management International Review, 44: 213–228.Google Scholar
  14. Lau, C. M. 2007. The first decade of the Asia Academy of Management. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leung, K. 2007. The glory and tyranny of citation impact: An East Asian perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 510–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li, Y., & Peng, M. W. 2008. Developing theory from strategic management research in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25 (in press).Google Scholar
  17. Meyer, K. E. 2006. Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23: 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meyer, K. E. 2007. Asian contexts and the search for general theory in management research: A rejoinder. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 600–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. 2004. Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peng, M. W. 2005. From China strategy to global strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22: 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peng, M. W. 2007. Celebrating 25 years of Asia Pacific management research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peng, M. W., & Zhou, J. Q. 2006. Most cited articles and authors in global strategy research. Journal of International Management, 12: 490–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pleggenkuhle-Miles, E. G., Aroul, R. R., Sun, S. L., & Su, Y. S. 2007. The adolescence of Asia management research: APJM, 1997–2006. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 467–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pocklington, T., & Tupper, A. 2002. No place to learn: Why universities aren’t working. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pomfret, R., & Wang, C. W. 2003. Evaluating the research output of Australian universities’ economics departments. Australian Economic Papers, 42: 418–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quer, D., Claver, E., & Rienda, L. 2007. Business and management in China: A review of empirical research in leading international journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 359–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramaswamy, K. 2007. Asian management research needs broader initiatives and focused incentives. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 519–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robinson, P. 1994. Snapshots from hell. New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
  30. Schmotter, J. W. 2001. Making sense of the rankings. Selections, 1: 2.Google Scholar
  31. Schramm, C. J. 2006. The broken MBA. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52: B16.Google Scholar
  32. Siemens, J., Burton, S., Jensen, T., & Mendoza, N. 2005. An examination of the relationship between research productivity in prestigious business journals and popular press business school rankings. Journal of Business Research, 58: 467–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tracy, J., & Waldfogel, J. 1997. The best business schools: A market-based approach. Journal of Business, 70: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trieschmann, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Northcraft, G. B., & Niemi Jr., A. W. 2000. Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: M.B.A. program versus research performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1130–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu, S., Yalcinkaya, G., & Seggie, S. 2008. Prolific authors and institutions in leading international business journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25 (in press).Google Scholar
  36. Yang, X., & Terjesen, S. 2007. In search of confidence: Context, collaboration, and constraints. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24: 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fox School of BusinessTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.School of BusinessUniversity of ReadingWhiteknights, ReadingUK
  3. 3.School of ManagementUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations