辨别主要BME文献流的引用模式:给BME学者的教训

Q2 Social Sciences
J. Arbaugh, A. Hwang, Jeffrey J. McNally, Charles J. Fornaciari, Lisa A. Burke-Smalley
{"title":"辨别主要BME文献流的引用模式:给BME学者的教训","authors":"J. Arbaugh, A. Hwang, Jeffrey J. McNally, Charles J. Fornaciari, Lisa A. Burke-Smalley","doi":"10.1108/OMJ-06-2020-0967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to compare the nature of three different business and management education (BME) research streams (online/blended learning, entrepreneurship education and experiential learning), along with their citation sources to draw insights on their support and legitimacy bases, with lessons on improving such support and legitimacy for the streams and the wider BME research field.,The authors analyze the nature of three BME research streams and their citation sources through tests of differences across streams.,The three streams differ in research foci and approaches such as the use of managerial samples in experiential learning, quantitative studies in online/blended education and literature reviews in entrepreneurship education. They also differ in sources of legitimacy recognition and avenues for mobilization of support. The underlying literature development pattern of the experiential learning stream indicates a need for BME scholars to identify and build on each other’s work.,Identification of different research bases and key supporting literature in the different streams shows important core articles that are useful to build research in each stream.,Readers will understand the different research bases supporting the three research streams, along with their targeted audience and practice implications.,The discovery of different support bases for the three different streams helps identify the network of authors and relationships that have been built in each stream.,According to the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to uncover differences in nature and citation sources of the three continuously growing BME research streams with recommendations on ways to improve the support of the three streams.","PeriodicalId":39393,"journal":{"name":"Organization Management Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discerning citation patterns in dominant BME literature streams: lessons for BME scholars\",\"authors\":\"J. Arbaugh, A. Hwang, Jeffrey J. McNally, Charles J. Fornaciari, Lisa A. Burke-Smalley\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/OMJ-06-2020-0967\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper aims to compare the nature of three different business and management education (BME) research streams (online/blended learning, entrepreneurship education and experiential learning), along with their citation sources to draw insights on their support and legitimacy bases, with lessons on improving such support and legitimacy for the streams and the wider BME research field.,The authors analyze the nature of three BME research streams and their citation sources through tests of differences across streams.,The three streams differ in research foci and approaches such as the use of managerial samples in experiential learning, quantitative studies in online/blended education and literature reviews in entrepreneurship education. They also differ in sources of legitimacy recognition and avenues for mobilization of support. The underlying literature development pattern of the experiential learning stream indicates a need for BME scholars to identify and build on each other’s work.,Identification of different research bases and key supporting literature in the different streams shows important core articles that are useful to build research in each stream.,Readers will understand the different research bases supporting the three research streams, along with their targeted audience and practice implications.,The discovery of different support bases for the three different streams helps identify the network of authors and relationships that have been built in each stream.,According to the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to uncover differences in nature and citation sources of the three continuously growing BME research streams with recommendations on ways to improve the support of the three streams.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organization Management Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organization Management Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-06-2020-0967\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-06-2020-0967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文旨在比较三种不同的商业和管理教育(BME)研究流(在线/混合学习、创业教育和体验式学习)的性质,以及它们的引文来源,以深入了解它们的支持和合法性基础,以及改进这些流和更广泛的BME研究领域的支持和正当性的经验教训。,作者通过对三个BME研究流之间差异的测试,分析了三个研究流的性质及其引文来源。,这三个流在研究重点和方法上有所不同,如在体验式学习中使用管理样本、在线/混合教育中的定量研究以及创业教育中的文献综述。它们在承认合法性的来源和动员支持的途径方面也有所不同。体验式学习流的潜在文献发展模式表明,BME学者需要识别并建立在彼此的工作基础上。,在不同的流中识别不同的研究基础和关键支持文献,显示了有助于在每个流中建立研究的重要核心文章。,读者将了解支持这三种研究流的不同研究基础,以及它们的目标受众和实践意义。,发现三个不同流的不同支持基础有助于识别在每个流中建立的作者网络和关系。,据作者所知,本文首次揭示了三个持续增长的BME研究流在性质和引文来源方面的差异,并就如何提高这三个流的支持提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discerning citation patterns in dominant BME literature streams: lessons for BME scholars
This paper aims to compare the nature of three different business and management education (BME) research streams (online/blended learning, entrepreneurship education and experiential learning), along with their citation sources to draw insights on their support and legitimacy bases, with lessons on improving such support and legitimacy for the streams and the wider BME research field.,The authors analyze the nature of three BME research streams and their citation sources through tests of differences across streams.,The three streams differ in research foci and approaches such as the use of managerial samples in experiential learning, quantitative studies in online/blended education and literature reviews in entrepreneurship education. They also differ in sources of legitimacy recognition and avenues for mobilization of support. The underlying literature development pattern of the experiential learning stream indicates a need for BME scholars to identify and build on each other’s work.,Identification of different research bases and key supporting literature in the different streams shows important core articles that are useful to build research in each stream.,Readers will understand the different research bases supporting the three research streams, along with their targeted audience and practice implications.,The discovery of different support bases for the three different streams helps identify the network of authors and relationships that have been built in each stream.,According to the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to uncover differences in nature and citation sources of the three continuously growing BME research streams with recommendations on ways to improve the support of the three streams.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Organization Management Journal
Organization Management Journal Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Organization Management Journal is a blind peer-reviewed online publication sponsored by the Eastern Academy of Management. OMJ is designed as a forum for broad philosophical, social, and practical thought about management and organizing. We are interested in papers that address the interface between theoretical insight and practical application and enhance the teaching of management. OMJ publishes scholarly empirical and theoretical papers, review articles, essays and resources for management educators. Appropriate domains include: -Organizational behavior- Business strategy and policy- Organizational theory- Human resource management- Management education, particularly experiential education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信