Organizer: Victor Zitian Chen, U. of North Carolina, Charlotte
Organizer: Michael A. Hitt, Texas A&M U. / Texas Christian U. – 1997 AOM President
Participant: Denise M. Rousseau, Carnegie Mellon U. – 2005 AOM President
Participant: James P. Walsh, U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor – 2010 AOM President
Participant: Susan E. Jackson, Rutgers U. – 2011 AOM President Participant: R. Duane Ireland, Texas A&M U. – 2014 AOM President |
This panel symposium gathers five former AOM presidents to discuss how we can create a knowledge synthesis ecosystem, by (re)inventing our technologies, outlets and research incentives. It is timely to revisit Herbert Simon (1967)'s concern of persistent gaps between "the world of practice" and the "sciences" of business scholarship given this year's theme of "At the Interface". Although we have much reason to celebrate the introduction of top scientific journals in management for their impact on the research climate and contributions to our knowledge ecosystem, we should also acknowledge several deficiencies that make knowledge accumulation via academic journal publication exceedingly difficult to achieve. One of the most salient consequences of the weak connection between management scholarship and practical knowledge is perhaps the difficulty in enacting "evidence-based management" as a way to improve the quality of teaching and application activities. Questions our panelists will address include, but are not limited to: 1) Many mature fields related to professions (e.g., medicine, law, engineering, etc.), strive to balance new knowledge creation and existing knowledge synthesis, in order to constantly channel knowledge flows between practice and science. How do we embrace this model in our management field? 2) How can we encourage more knowledge synthesis to close the gap between increasingly fragmented new knowledge and the practical need for comprehensive guidance to enact the goal of evidence-based management? 3) Many critics of the field call for research that combines science-based principles as well as being actionable. However, how do we manage the increasing complexity in both science and action, which seems to call for a (re)focus on each and a (re)division of labor in two opposite directions (e.g., specialization vis-à-vis integration)? How do we draw experiences from similar and more mature fields such as engineering, medicine, and law? 4) What new technologies are available or should be created to facilitate knowledge synthesis? What new publication outlets should be (re)invented to host these technologies? What new forms of publications might be available that would enable constant updates and integration of academic findings? 5) Who are, and who should be, responsible for inventing, hosting, and maintaining these new outlets? 6) How do we evaluate the quality (and publishability) of synthesis-based research? If it is related to performance prediction, how do we measure a research's comprehensiveness in predicting performance measures? And what performance measures should we adopt, given that science-based principles are supposed to be value-neutral? 7) What research incentives should business schools (re)invent to divert some of scholars' attention, energy, and resources into inventing/learning these new technologies and contributing into these new outlets? 8) How would these new initiatives on knowledge synthesis complement, rather than compete with, the current top scientific journal-centric system, whose role in new knowledge creation is always critical? |