Organization and Management Theory OMT

What a great and important debate to have.
I'm just looking at Teppo's email again and don't see any evidence of such underlying assumptions.
If anything there appears to be critical acknowledgement that citation data is far from objective data, i.e. if one has to cite a journal to get published in it and most of us make an effort to cite our friends and colleagues (which, some might argue, essentially makes it an extension of facebook - in fact, could there be a correlation?).
I don't see any harm in collecting opinions.
Patrizia



________________________________

From: Organization and Management Theory Division Listserv on behalf of Neal Ashkanasy
Sent: Mon 1/17/2011 6:44 AM
To: OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OMT] management journal rankings, crowdsourced



This is all very interesting. But there seems to be an underlying assumption that collective subjective impressions should trump objective data. The citation data tell us that our colleagues find less to cite from ASQ and Management Science, while many of us continue to believe nonetheless that these are leading journals. So what is more important: objective data or subjective impressions? I believed we taught that the former are more credible. Am I mistaken?



Cheers

Neal Ashkanasy





From: Organization and Management Theory Division Listserv [mailto:OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Teppo Felin
Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 11:23 AM
To: OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: [OMT] management journal rankings, crowdsourced



[Apologies for cross-postings]



Greetings:



As many have noted, journal impact factors and various other ranking measures have significant problems. To provide additional information about journals, we have set up an effort to "crowdsource" management journal rankings, at allourideas.org <http://allourideas.org/> (the technology platform was set up by Matt Salganik @ Princeton). If you have a few minutes, rank the journals:



http://www.allourideas.org/management



Some additional background details here: http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/management-journal-rankings-crowdsourced/



Best,



Teppo


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer

Is it possibly deceptive or meaningless to debate whether objective data are
better or worse than subjective data?

Many years ago, I gave a talk at a convention in which I contrasted
subjective perceptions with objective data. At the end of the session, Karl
Weick asked me: 'What if there are no objective data?' At that time, I found
his question puzzling, almost incomprehensible. Nevertheless, having great
respect for Karl's wisdom, I began to experiment with interpreting
supposedly 'objective' data as arising from mental or social processes. For
example, the objective data in government statistics are very often compiled
via questionnaires filled out by people who expressed their personal
perceptions.

A few years later, Nils Brunsson argued that a perception held by only one
person has the status of being subjective, and its effects are limited to
that person's actions. On the other hand, he said, a widely shared
perception acquires the status of being 'objective'; not only can it affect
the actions of many people but the actions of these have the support of
objective fact.

Citations occur because authors perceive (subjectively) that previously
published works are worthy of citation. Some of these citations are
symbolic; for instance, authors may cite literature reviews to signal their
familiarity with bodies of literature rather than because they admire
(subjectively) the actual words in the reviews.

The available data about journal reviews indicate that (a) there are very
low correlations between the opinions of reviewers about the merits and
deficiencies of specific manuscripts, and as a result, (b) journals reject
over half of the best manuscripts they receive. Although more prestigious
journals do publish somewhat more of the best manuscripts, significant
numbers of the best manuscripts appear is less prestigious journals, and a
few of the best manuscripts are rejected by as many as five journals in
succession.

One inference might be that socially endorsed statements about the quality
of journals or of articles are far from reliable, and we all have to make
and depend upon our personal, individual judgments of quality.

Monday, January 17, 2011, 7:44:49 AM, you wrote:




>

This is all very interesting.  But there seems to be an underlying assumption that collective subjective impressions should trump objective data.  The citation data tell us that our colleagues find less to cite from ASQ and Management Science, while many of us continue to believe nonetheless that these are leading journals.  So what is more important: objective data or subjective impressions?  I believed we taught that the former are more credible.  Am I mistaken?

 




in my view, the whole idea of using the amihotornot.com model to rank journals is systematically wrong. Quite likely, instead of finding out about the real quality of the journals, this poll checks the popularity of topics and general research fields, since many voters may decide to choose journals specializing in their research areas, as well as give votes to journals they are more likely to send papers to (and the ones they are editorial board members, have colleagues on the boards, etc.), rather than the ones they whole-heartedly believe to be superior.



The whole idea, with all due respect, seems rather naive. Nevertheless, it is good that there are initiatives recognizing the problems current JCR list faces. 



cheers,



dariusz



_________________________

Dariusz Jemielniak, Ph.D.

associate professor of management

chair of International Management Department

head of Center for Research on Organizations and Workplaces

http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl

Kozminski University

Jagiellonska 59, 03-301 Warszawa, Poland

darekj@kozminski.edu.pl

What I wonder is what we mean by "important?" Do we measure the importance of an article on its theoretical soundness, its implications for its respective field, or on the managers and employees it impacts?

As someone who was a manager in industry for many years before deciding to pursue an academic career, I cannot tell you how many management fads have come and gone based upon the (mis)interpretation of some journal article or book by top managers. The result of many of these interventions was frustration in the organization, a reduction of the number of employees (either voluntarily or otherwise - "rightsizing?") and more power in the hands of top managers.

If we are going to measure the importance of a journal, shouldn't we somehow look at how the journal impacts the daily lives of managers and employees, including areas like workplace democracy? Work/life balance? Positive communication? Ethics? Are there other measures, more holistic measures, we might think about applying? Is there a way we could measure how accessible a journal is to managers and professionals in the field other than academicians? Should there be special recognition for those articles that are interdisciplinary, reflecting the cross-fertilization of ideas and concepts from around the globe?

Just my two cents' worth (and that's probably overcharging).

John

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."



________________________________________
From: Organization and Management Theory Division Listserv [OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Patrizia Kokot [P.S.Kokot@LSE.AC.UK]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:31 PM
To: OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OMT] management journal rankings, crowdsourced

What a great and important debate to have.
I'm just looking at Teppo's email again and don't see any evidence of such underlying assumptions.
If anything there appears to be critical acknowledgement that citation data is far from objective data, i.e. if one has to cite a journal to get published in it and most of us make an effort to cite our friends and colleagues (which, some might argue, essentially makes it an extension of facebook - in fact, could there be a correlation?).
I don't see any harm in collecting opinions.
Patrizia



________________________________

From: Organization and Management Theory Division Listserv on behalf of Neal Ashkanasy
Sent: Mon 1/17/2011 6:44 AM
To: OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OMT] management journal rankings, crowdsourced



This is all very interesting. But there seems to be an underlying assumption that collective subjective impressions should trump objective data. The citation data tell us that our colleagues find less to cite from ASQ and Management Science, while many of us continue to believe nonetheless that these are leading journals. So what is more important: objective data or subjective impressions? I believed we taught that the former are more credible. Am I mistaken?



Cheers

Neal Ashkanasy





From: Organization and Management Theory Division Listserv [mailto:OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Teppo Felin
Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 11:23 AM
To: OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: [OMT] management journal rankings, crowdsourced



[Apologies for cross-postings]



Greetings:



As many have noted, journal impact factors and various other ranking measures have significant problems. To provide additional information about journals, we have set up an effort to "crowdsource" management journal rankings, at allourideas.org <http://allourideas.org/> (the technology platform was set up by Matt Salganik @ Princeton). If you have a few minutes, rank the journals:



http://www.allourideas.org/management



Some additional background details here: http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/management-journal-rankings-crowdsourced/



Best,



Teppo


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer

It seems to me the question is, "Whose truth?"

If the concern is how others will behave, then the relevant standard is what
others believe -- even if they are in error in that belief.

If the concern is how we should behave then, of course, we want the most
factual, objective, truthful picture of reality we can get as a basis for our
choices.

Fred Anderson (Mr.)
Dept. of Management
Indiana Univ. of PA
Indiana, PA, U.S.A.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:44:49 +1000
Neal Ashkanasy <n.ashkanasy@BUSINESS.UQ.EDU.AU> wrote:
> This is all very interesting. But there seems to be an underlying
> assumption that collective subjective impressions should trump objective
> data. The citation data tell us that our colleagues find less to cite
> from ASQ and Management Science, while many of us continue to believe
> nonetheless that these are leading journals. So what is more important:
> objective data or subjective impressions? I believed we taught that the
> former are more credible. Am I mistaken?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Neal Ashkanasy
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Organization and Management Theory Division Listserv
> [mailto:OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Teppo Felin
> Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 11:23 AM
> To: OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: [OMT] management journal rankings, crowdsourced
>
>
>
> [Apologies for cross-postings]
>
>
>
> Greetings:
>
>
>
> As many have noted, journal impact factors and various other ranking
> measures have significant problems. To provide additional information
> about journals, we have set up an effort to "crowdsource" management
> journal rankings, at allourideas.org (the technology platform was set up
> by Matt Salganik @ Princeton). If you have a few minutes, rank the
> journals:
>
>
>
> http://www.allourideas.org/management
>
>
>
> Some additional background details here:
> http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/management-journal-rankings-cr
> owdsourced/
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Teppo
>

I think we need to have a little trust in the "free market"! We might have our subjective biases, but overall I am sure this exercise will throw up a reasonably objective position on journal rankings.



On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Fred Anderson wrote:

> It seems to me the question is, "Whose truth?"
>
> If the concern is how others will behave, then the relevant standard is what others believe -- even if they are in error in that belief.
>
> If the concern is how we should behave then, of course, we want the most factual, objective, truthful picture of reality we can get as a basis for our choices.
>
> Fred Anderson (Mr.)
> Dept. of Management
> Indiana Univ. of PA
> Indiana, PA, U.S.A.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:44:49 +1000
> Neal Ashkanasy <n.ashkanasy@BUSINESS.UQ.EDU.AU> wrote:
>> This is all very interesting. But there seems to be an underlying
>> assumption that collective subjective impressions should trump objective
>> data. The citation data tell us that our colleagues find less to cite
>> from ASQ and Management Science, while many of us continue to believe
>> nonetheless that these are leading journals. So what is more important:
>> objective data or subjective impressions? I believed we taught that the
>> former are more credible. Am I mistaken?
>> Cheers
>> Neal Ashkanasy
>> From: Organization and Management Theory Division Listserv
>> [mailto:OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Teppo Felin
>> Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 11:23 AM
>> To: OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: [OMT] management journal rankings, crowdsourced
>> [Apologies for cross-postings]
>> Greetings:
>> As many have noted, journal impact factors and various other ranking
>> measures have significant problems. To provide additional information
>> about journals, we have set up an effort to "crowdsource" management
>> journal rankings, at allourideas.org (the technology platform was set up
>> by Matt Salganik @ Princeton). If you have a few minutes, rank the
>> journals:
>> http://www.allourideas.org/management
>> Some additional background details here:
>> http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/management-journal-rankings-cr
>> owdsourced/
>> Best, Teppo

Dear all, I'm so glad this sparked a bit of a debate! I'd like to reply to the responses since this morning (or evening where you are).

Firstly, if we trust in the 'free market', I'd like a free market salary, please, that reflects the number of applications for my job in this sector and the years of education we all invested in our work (including opportunity costs!). In many countries, we are public sector workers - and for good reason. Education should serve the public good rather than business alone. I'm absolutely fine with that, but neoliberal rhetoric does not apply in any shape or form, nor should it. We must protect intellectual freedom, if not for us, then for the next generation.

Secondly, the excerpt Neal sent around does still not betray underlying assumptions that suggest we are in any danger of replacing the current system with a crowdsource one. Its informal tone instead invites the critiques that were considered in other academic arenas many years ago, which are important and, it appears, frequently carelessly bypassed and dismissed in business and organizational studies. I welcome such debates and initiatives and don't see any harm in collecting opinions. We do this under the umbrella of 'surveys' all the time and I don't see how this stretches dominant epistemological politics any further than, for example, your average 'Happiness index'.

Thirdly, wouldn't it be lovely if we could, as say previous generations did, aim to publish in journals where we feel a real sense of belonging, appreciation of our work, and genuine critique that can stimulate and challenge us intellectually, rather than spending our time counting grades and weighing journal rankings and the ways in which those may 'impact' on our career lives.

Finally, I'm sorry, but, no, I don't see that there is any way of respectfully calling a group of peers, a group of people who have a similar background in terms of education and qualification and practice, naive in a debate such as this.

Best wishes,
Patrizia


________________________________

From: Organization and Management Theory Division Listserv on behalf of Punit Arora
Sent: Wed 1/19/2011 4:04 PM
To: OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OMT] management journal rankings, crowdsourced



I think we need to have a little trust in the "free market"! We might have our subjective biases, but overall I am sure this exercise will throw up a reasonably objective position on journal rankings.



On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Fred Anderson wrote:

> It seems to me the question is, "Whose truth?"
>
> If the concern is how others will behave, then the relevant standard is what others believe -- even if they are in error in that belief.
>
> If the concern is how we should behave then, of course, we want the most factual, objective, truthful picture of reality we can get as a basis for our choices.
>
> Fred Anderson (Mr.)
> Dept. of Management
> Indiana Univ. of PA
> Indiana, PA, U.S.A.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:44:49 +1000
> Neal Ashkanasy <n.ashkanasy@BUSINESS.UQ.EDU.AU> wrote:
>> This is all very interesting. But there seems to be an underlying
>> assumption that collective subjective impressions should trump objective
>> data. The citation data tell us that our colleagues find less to cite
>> from ASQ and Management Science, while many of us continue to believe
>> nonetheless that these are leading journals. So what is more important:
>> objective data or subjective impressions? I believed we taught that the
>> former are more credible. Am I mistaken?
>> Cheers
>> Neal Ashkanasy
>> From: Organization and Management Theory Division Listserv
>> [mailto:OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Teppo Felin
>> Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 11:23 AM
>> To: OMT@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: [OMT] management journal rankings, crowdsourced
>> [Apologies for cross-postings]
>> Greetings:
>> As many have noted, journal impact factors and various other ranking
>> measures have significant problems. To provide additional information
>> about journals, we have set up an effort to "crowdsource" management
>> journal rankings, at allourideas.org (the technology platform was set up
>> by Matt Salganik @ Princeton). If you have a few minutes, rank the
>> journals:
>> http://www.allourideas.org/management
>> Some additional background details here:
>> http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/management-journal-rankings-cr
>> owdsourced/
>> Best, Teppo



Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer