商学院的社会影响力抱负是个笑话

The challenge we face is that we have misaligned incentive systems Carl. As you note, what matters for many/most academics is publication in outlets that are predominantly read by other academics ... and the gatekeeping process is overseen by other academics. Two other significant communities therefore tend to be overlooked ... one is students and the other is end-user audiences (e.g. practicing managers). The impact agenda is a step in the right direction but even this, at least as configured in the UK REF exercises of 2014 and 2021, is predicated on the assumption that impact follows peer-reviewed publication. High quality theorising is important but it isn't necessarily the only way to engage with the very real and very pressing concerns about sustainability, inclusion/inequality and innovation that face us. Robert MacIntosh

Nice article. And I agree with the comment posted by Robert MacIntosh. It's an issue of re-balancing mission focus and associated measurement and reward systems.

An insightful and in-depth account of how we have wronged our field, where relevance to practice , which must be the essential frontier and criteria for rigor, has been replaced by and reduced to the reductionism of publication elitism in a top down manner of detachment.

I would buy the usual critical management rant if there was something practical that was being proposed, particularly given that the culture and incentives are very much driven by the deans. So rather than rant, I would recommend doing something given the position of power the author has as a dean and then coming back with solutions that others could follow.

"Could there be a better place to look for real social impact than where academic research meets one of the most urgent global challenges?" Yes, there are in fact many better places to look for this. Anywhere from student admissions to teaching, from outreach to consulting, from where and how data are gathered to reports to funding bodies. Almost anywhere is a better place than in an academic conference really. It is also somewhat tiring to see top-tier American journals being criticised by people who do not publish in them!

Carl’s statement, “The real barrier to business school societal impact is the research culture we developed, especially over the last 20 years or so” points directly to the heart of the matter and speaks precisely to the need for cultural and systemic change. The drive to publish in a top-tier academic journal is a reality that many in academia can’t escape, primarily because performance success is rooted in that very achievement. And while research helps create new knowledge, it doesn’t always serve the greater good by purposefully creating a positive impact on society. One way that AACSB is catalyzing change is through our 2020 business accreditation standards. As a consultative, peer-reviewed process, earning AACSB accreditation requires business school leaders to hold each other accountable for committing to innovation and creating a positive impact on society—including through scholarly contributions, curriculum, and community involvement, which are all defined by the institution’s mission and the markets they serve. AACSB accredits over 950 business schools across more than 50 countries and territories. All of these schools have made long-term commitments to innovation in business education, and this collective effort is making an impact. Although systemic change is not easily achieved, transforming business education for positive societal impact is our vision. There is still much work to be done, and our efforts to redefine academic research are a cornerstone to achieving this vision. Our path forward must include constructive criticism, a collective dedication to identifying opportunities for change, and accountability. While AACSB can effect some institutional change through the expectations of our business accreditation standards, true change will stem from a redesign of higher education’s incentive structures. If rankings continue to heavily weigh top-tier journal publishing, realizing this change will be extremely difficult. I, too, challenge my colleagues in higher education to continue to reimagine how research can better serve society’s core issues. Creating a positive impact on society through research is a responsibility we all bear.

"On the current trajectory, the end game is that we are only relevant to ourselves." spoken by a true academic. A practical way to resolve this is to start by massively limiting the number of research papers that can be written (let alone published) by individuals ( say 2 per year) and institutions (say 10 per thousand students,per year.) This reduced number should then be reviewed by local "citizen Juries) and the winners published by the University and the local press. Too much of the public sector lives in its own ivory tower contemplating its navel and promoting its self interest.

Anyone who has spent time in academia knows this. Those who want to get stuff done, for the most part then either choose not to enter, or to leave after a time. The academic processes of promotion and reputation building then act as a sorting mechanism. After a while, who do you think is left in academia?

Presumably, as a Dean, the author is leading the way, by scrapping journal ranking-based appointment and promotion criteria in his own school?

Commitmments eh? anyone can make any commitments to whatever. What is average tenure of a business school dean? Do accreditation bodies withdraw accreditations for lack of delivering on committments? Is this publicised? is this on their websites? or is it that institutions can maintain accreditation by simply making even more commitments and paying the fees?

The commitments by universities, schools and deans, the accreditations by the certification industry, the rankings and awards by this rag and others are mostly nothing but window dressing for PR purposes, as well as tick-boxing and "bluewashing" similar to the CSR commitments and reports made by large corporations. It is all - or most of it is - claptrap at the highest order with no or little positive "impact" on the ground (for students, staff or society at large). On the contrary, most of this only increases the administrative burden and fuels a growing bureaucracy draining away precious resources from teaching and research, the core purpose of a university. These kind of "bullshit" activities are all part of a marketized HE system where education is nothing, but a tradeable commodity and research seen as just another income stream (e.g., grant capture). Individual tools or measures may change but the culture will not, as long as the commercial imperative holds sway over universities offering a product for individual gain (for student and staff careers alike) and not providing a public service for the common good and a higher purpose. You may call the above a rant if you wish. I am just fed-up with the vacuous strategy blabber emanating from management, consultants, government and accreditation bodies alike. I know they all must justify to themselves and others their “bullshit jobs” (courtesy of the late David Graeber) but the emperor has no clothes mostly.