Paradigms and Paradigms and PublishingPublishing

Brian Boyd (Arizona State)Syd Finkelstein (Tuck)Steve Gove (Dayton)

Kuhn’s Paradigm Kuhn’s Paradigm ModelModel

Some disciplines are more advanced than others

Evolutionary processes are based on the accretion/disconfirmation of theories and empirical evidence

Stage of a field’s development affects how research is done

Stages of DevelopmentStages of Development

YoungYoung MatureMature

Weak consensus Poor agreement on

quality

Strong consensus on methods, problems, and solutions

The The Evolutionary Evolutionary

ChallengeChallengeResearch outcomes Research outcomes driven by prestige:driven by prestige:ParticularismParticularism

Research outcomes Research outcomes driven by merit:driven by merit:UniversalismUniversalism

Management Research on Management Research on Paradigm DevelopmentParadigm Development

Primary OutcomesPrimary Outcomes(publications and (publications and citations)citations)

Beyer et al (1995) Long et al (1998)

Secondary OutcomesSecondary Outcomes(careers)(careers)

Cable & Murray (1999)

Park & Gordon (1996)

Overall, studies report mixed effects Overall, studies report mixed effects for universalism and particularism. for universalism and particularism. Effect sizes for primary outcomes are Effect sizes for primary outcomes are small.small.

Limitations of Prior StudiesLimitations of Prior Studies

Omitted variables:Omitted variables: Most do not study universalism and particularism concurrently

Temporal instability:Temporal instability: Cross-sectional designs, and varying time horizons

Strong interrelationshipsStrong interrelationships among variables

Limited powerLimited power

HypothesesHypotheses

Research norms for management faculty will be lower than other fields

Particularism will have stronger effect on research outcomes than universalism

Prolific authors will have more citations per article than less prolific authors

Study 1: Cross-Discipline Study 1: Cross-Discipline Comparison of Research NormsComparison of Research Norms

We compare research norms for management, business, and faculty from all other disciplines

Data obtained from Higher Education Research Institute annual survey

Surveys collected from full-time faculty at several hundred US institutions

33,986 respondents; 2,300 from b-schools

Hours Per Week Hours Per Week Spent on ResearchSpent on Research

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

None 1 to 4 5 to 8 9 to 12 13 to 16 17 to 20 21 plus

ManagementOther BusinessAll facultyPercent

Hours

χχ2 2 (p=.01) tests confirm that (p=.01) tests confirm that Management distributions Management distributions are different from both are different from both other categories other categories

Total Articles PublishedTotal Articles Published

05

1015202530354045

None 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 50 plus

ManagementOther BusinessAll facultyPercent

Hours

χχ2 2 (p=.01) tests confirm that (p=.01) tests confirm that Management distributions Management distributions are different from both are different from both other categories other categories

Total Articles Published Last 2 Total Articles Published Last 2 YearsYears

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

None 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 50 plus

ManagementOther BusinessAll facultyPercent

Hours

χχ2 2 (p=.01) tests confirm that (p=.01) tests confirm that Management distributions Management distributions are different from both are different from both other categories other categories

Summary of Study 1Summary of Study 1

Management faculty spend less time on research, and are less productive than peers in business or other fields

Lower productivity is consistent with weak consensus, and other problems associated with early-stage paradigms

Consistent with Pfeffer’s assessment of management as ‘pre-paradigmatic’

Study 2: Predictors of Research Study 2: Predictors of Research OutcomesOutcomes

We study concurrent effects of universalism and particularism on multiple research outcomes

Sample consists of 945 strategy faculty - Ph.D. awarded between 1970 – 1990- Full-time faculty at 4 year institutions- All available faculty included in sample

Collected lifetime publication and citation activity (13,000 person-years)

Developed LISREL models based on career stage, through year 10 post-Ph.D.

Comparison Against Comparison Against Long et al (1998)Long et al (1998)

Our studyOur study N = 527 X pubs: 1.11 σ pubs: 2.66

Long and colleaguesLong and colleagues N = 279 X pubs: 1.2 σ pubs: 2.29

RealityReality

Based on Faculty 12 years post-Ph.D.

Productivity Benchmarks:Productivity Benchmarks:MacMillan PublicationsMacMillan Publications

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

75th ile90th ile95th ile99th ile

Years post-Ph.D.

Cum

ulat

ive

Publ

icat

ions

Productivity Benchmarks:Productivity Benchmarks:MacMillan ‘Outstanding’ MacMillan ‘Outstanding’

PublicationsPublications

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

75th ile90th ile95th ile99th ile

Years post-Ph.D.

Cum

ulat

ive

Publ

icat

ions

Productivity Benchmarks:Productivity Benchmarks:CitationsCitations

020406080

100120140160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

75th ile90th ile95th ile99th ile

Years post-Ph.D.

Cum

ulat

ive

Cita

tions

Publications

Cites

Precocity

Ability

Prestige

Lead

A-Tier

GMAT

Boards

Gourman

Impact

Cumulative PublicationsCumulative Publications

5 6 7 8 9 10

N for year 771 728 685 644 610 565

Path from

Precocity 1 .35*** .35*** .32*** .39*** .52*** .36***Ability 2 .21** .21** .22** .11 .06 .12Prestige 3 .13*** .14*** .13** .14** .13** .06

CED 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.21

Cumulative CitationsCumulative Citations

5 6 7 8 9 10

N for year 771 728 685 644 610 565

Path from

Precocity 1 .37*** -.15** -.04 .05 -.06 -.06Ability 2 -.01 .28*** .16** .09 .09 .18*Prestige 3 .03 .04 .09* .02 .03 .02Publications 1

.39*** .68*** .63*** .62*** .75*** .70***

CED 0.49 0.60 0.51 0.50 0.61 0.58

Impact (cites/article)Impact (cites/article)5 6 7 8 9 10

N for year 771 728 685 644 610 565

Path from

Precocity 1 -.23*** -.13** -.10+ -.22** -.35*** -.22***Ability 2 .40*** .27*** .24*** .33*** .53*** .48***Prestige 3 .01 .04 .01 .04 .01 .04Publications 1

-.30*** -.31*** -.28*** -.05 -.11* -.19***

Citations 2

.91*** .89*** .83*** .69*** .74*** .66***

CED .63 .59 .52 .49 .52 .47

ConclusionsConclusions

Based on crude metrics, Pfeffer’s ‘pre-paradigmatic’ critique appears valid

Structural models draw a very different conclusions: Research outcomes driven by universalism vs. particularism

Strategy research has attributes of bothboth a young and mature field: A unique finding

Does Kuhn’s Model Apply to Does Kuhn’s Model Apply to Management?Management?

Paradigm development is inherently Tayloristic

Management practices continually evolving, and research must follow

Some fields are characterized as ‘multi-paradigmatic’

Back-Up Slides

Sample Faculty by Degree DateSample Faculty by Degree Date

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1970 72 74 76 78 1980 82 84 86 88 1990

# grads

degree year

Sample BreakoutSample Breakout

53%

12%

16%

19%

Samplenon-Ph.D.No degree dateOutside date range

We performed tests for We performed tests for missing degree date and missing degree date and persons excluded from persons excluded from McGraw Hill McGraw Hill DirectoryDirectory

Lotka’s LawLotka’s Law Lotka (1926): The number of persons

making 2 contributions is about one-fourth of those making one; the number making three contributions is about one-ninth, etc.; the number making n contributions is about 1/n2 of making one.

Inverse-square law validated in many other disciplines; untested in management

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Articles

% o

f Aut

hors

Current Study Lotka's Inverse-Square Law

Results of Lotka’s Law Results of Lotka’s Law Study 2 SampleStudy 2 Sample

Prior Use of PrestigePrior Use of PrestigePrestige an indicator of:

Study Universalism ParticularismAllison & Long (1987) XAllison & Long (1990) XBakanic et al. (1987) XBaldi (1995) XBeyer et al. (1995) XCable & Murray (1999) XCrane (1967) XLong, Allison & McGinnis (1979)

X

Reskin (1977) X

Prior Use of PrecocityPrior Use of Precocity

Precocity an indicator of:Study Universalism Particularism

Baldi (1995) XBeyer, et al. (1995) XCable & Murray (1999) XLong, Allison & McGinnis (1979) XPark & Gordon (1996) XReskin (1977) XRogers & Maranto (1989) X

Gourman ComparisonsGourman Comparisons Correlation with Gourman

1989National Research Council’s Committee for the Study of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States

.798n = 68

Carnegie Commission on Education’s’ categorization of research institutions .697n = 87

American Council on Education’s 1970 assessment of graduate institutions in the United States

.793n = 50

National Academy of Sciences’ 1982 ranking of doctoral institutions .733n = 43

US News & World Reports 1992 ranking of doctoral institutions .765n = 50

Coe & Weinstock’s (1984) ranking of institutions based on publications in the field of management

.643n = 62

Sharpin & Mabry’s (1985) ranking of institutions based on citations in management .463n = 62

Conference Boards’ (1982) ranking of perceived intra-disciplinary university prestige .718n = 68

Perty & Settle’s (1988) ranking of prestige based on faculty publishing in economics. .756n = 67

All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level, two-tailed test

Nested Models for DimensionalityNested Models for Dimensionality

Tests of dimensionality based on 5 year outcomes. Similar results obtained when using other outcome years.

Model2 df 2 /df 2 Reduction

Absolute null – all 9 indicators loading on a common dimension

630.53 24 26.27

All predictors as one factor, and all outcomes as one dimension

544.91 26 20.95 85.62

Precocity and ability as one factor, outcomes as separate dimensions

151.77 20 7.59 393.14

Hypothesized model 90.75 16 5.67 61.02

Research Outcome ClustersResearch Outcome Clusters

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8Log of publications

Log

of c

itatio

ns

Minors

Coase-Major Hybrid

Coases

Grinders

Stars

Majors