404
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Invited Article

The prospects for a production management body of knowledge in business schools: response to Koskela (2017) “Why is management research irrelevant?”

Pages 385-391 | Received 07 Apr 2017, Accepted 18 Apr 2017, Published online: 24 May 2017

References

  • Bennis, W.G. and O’Toole, J., 2005. How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, May.
  • Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T., 1966. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
  • Constant, E., 1980. The origins of the turbojet revolution. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
  • Cooke, A. and Galt, V., 2010. The impact of UK business schools. Available from: http://www.associationofbusinessschools.org/sites/default/files/BS%20Impact%20Study%202010.pdf.
  • Davies, H., 2006. Improving the relevance of management research: evidence-based management: design science or both. Business leadership review, 3 (3), 1–6.
  • Economist, 2009. The more things change … A seminal critique of American business education, five decades on. Available from: http://www.economist.com/node/12762453 [Accessed 5 April 2017].
  • Egan, J., 1998. Rethinking construction: Report of the construction task force. London: The Stationary Office.
  • Galbraith, J.K., 1958. The affluent society. New York: New American Library.
  • Ghoshal, S., 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of management learning and education, 4 (1), 75–91.10.5465/AMLE.2005.16132558
  • Gibbons, M., et al., 1994. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
  • Gordon, R.A. and Howell, J.E., 1959. Higher education for business. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Grant, R.M., 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California management review, 33 (3), 114–135.
  • HEFCE, 2011. Higher education funding council data. Available from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/data/year/2012/Data,on,demand,and,supply,in,higher,education,subjects/ [Accessed April 2017].
  • Ivory, C., et al., 2006. UK business schools: historical contexts and future scenarios. Makati City: AIM Executive Briefing. Advanced Institute of Management Executive.
  • Ivory, C., et al., 2007. Applied or scholarly research: is there a trade-off in UK business schools? In: Paper presented to the British academy of management conference, 11–13 September. Coventry: Warwick Business School.
  • Jenkins, P., 2005. Architecture research futures. In: UK National conference on current and new research agendas, organised by ScotMARK, 15 and 16 December. Edinburgh University Architecture Department. Available from: http://www.eca.ac.uk/archresearchconf/.
  • Koskela, L., 2017. Why is management research irrelevant? Construction management and economics, 35 (1–2), 4–23.10.1080/01446193.2016.1272759
  • Kuhn, Thomas, 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Latham, M., 1994. Constructing the team: joint review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry. London: HMSO.
  • Latour, B., 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical inquiry, 30 (2), 225–248.10.1086/421123
  • Leonard-Barton, D., 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic management journal, 13, 111–125.10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
  • Masterman, M., 1970. The nature of a paradigm. In: I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, eds. Criticism and the growth of knowledge, 59–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McKinsey Global Institute Report, 2017. Reinventing construction through a productivity revolution. Available from: http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/reinventing-construction-through-a-productivity-revolution [Accessed April].
  • Mintzberg, H., 2004. Managers not MBAs. London: Pearson Education.
  • Mintzberg, H., Simons, R., and Basu, K., 2002. Beyond selfishness. MIT sloan management review, 44 (1), 67–74.
  • National Academy of Science, 1969. Panel on technology assessment, technology: processes of assessment and choice. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.
  • Orlikowski, W.J. and Scott, S., 2015. Exploring material-discursive practices. Journal of management studies, 52 (5), 697–705.10.1111/joms.2015.52.issue-5
  • Pfeffer, J., 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of management review, 18, 599–620.
  • Phillips, P., 1992. US industrial policy: inevitable and ineffective. Harvard Business Review, July–August.
  • Pierson, F.C., 1959. The education of American businessmen. New York: John Wiley.
  • Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G., 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard business review, 68 (3), 79–91.
  • Robbins, L., 1932. An essay on the nature and significance of economic science. London: Macmillan.
  • Schön, D., 1983. The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
  • Simon, H.A., 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Starkey, K. and Tiratsoo, N., 2006. Presentation given at the Management Research Forum, jointly convened by the Economic and Social Research Council’s (ESRC) Evolution of Business Knowledge (EBK) Programme and the Advanced Institute of Management. Warwick, RI: Warwick University.
  • Suchman, L., 1987. Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R., 2002. On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change. Organization science, 13, 567–582.10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
  • Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18 (7), 509–533.
  • Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D., 1990. The machine that changed the world: the story of lean production. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.