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}
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.
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