Publicado sep 6, 2016



PLUMX
Almetrics
 
Dimensions
 

Google Scholar
 
Search GoogleScholar


Mario Martinez

Iliana Páez Gabriunas

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Resumen

Este artículo presenta un modelo del comportamiento de los investigadores en administración para comprobar sus preferencias en los Modos de Producción de Conocimiento. Se aplica el análisis de panel de datos a la producción de 240 investigadores en el periodo 2006-2011, y se encuentra que presentan diferencias significativas en tres orientaciones estratégicas (interdisciplinaridad, aplicación e interacción externa) dependiendo de la disciplina y la región en la cual trabajan. Los hallazgos muestran que los investigadores en Management se orientan más a la interdisciplinaridad y la interacción externa que los de Finanzas, estos últimos más a la aplicación, y los Latinoamericanos hacen investigación más orientada a la aplicación que los Anglosajones. Se dejan abiertas nuevas perspectivas para el estudio del problema.

Keywords

orientaciones estratégicas, rigor y relevancia de la investigación, investigación en administración, Modo 2.strategic orientations, relevance gap, business and management research, Mode 2.

References
Albert, M. (2003). Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics. Higher Education, 45 (2), 147-182.

Arocena, R., and Sutz, J. (2001). Changing knowledge production and Latin American universities. Research Policy, 30 (8), 1221-1234.

Bartunek, J. M. (2011). What has happened to Mode 2?. British Journal of Management, 22 (3), 555-558.

Bonaccorsi, A. (2008). Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva, 46 (3), 285-315.

Burgoyne, J.G., and Turnbull J., (2006). Towards best or better practice in corporate leadership development: issues in Mode 2 and design science research. British Journal of Management, 17 (4), 303-316.

Calderón G., Arrubla, J., Castaño, G., Gutiérrez, L., Posada, R., Ruiz, A., Serna, H., y Vivares, J. (2010). La Investigación en Administración en Colombia: Condiciones para la generación de conocimiento, investigadores, institucionalización y producción científica. Ascolfa, Capítulo Antioquía, Medellín.

Cannella, A. A., and Paetzold, R. L. (1994). Pfeffer's barriers to the advance of organizational science: A rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 331-341.

Cohen, J. (1997). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Conpes, 3582 (2009). Política Nacional de Ciencia Tecnología en Innovación. Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social. Bogotá: DNP.

Contreras, C., Edwards, G. y Mizala, A. (2006). La producción científica de economía y administración en Chile. Un Análisis comparativo. Cuadernos de Economía, 43 (128), 331- 354.

Das, T. K . (2003). Managerial Perceptions and Essence of the Managerial Word: What is an Interloper Business Executive to Make of Academic-Researcher Perceptions of Mangers? British Journal of Management, 14 (1), 23-32.

De Moya-Anegón, F., Vargas-Quesada, Z., Chinchilla–Rodríguez, E., Corera–Álvarez, A., González–Molina, F., y Muñoz, J. (2006). Visualización y análisis de la estructura científica española: ISI Web of Science. El profesional de la información, 15 (4), 258-269.

Finnerty, J. D. (1988). Financial engineering in corporate finance: An overview. Financial Management, 14-33.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature. 402, C81-C84.

Hambrick, D.C. (1994). What if the Academy actually mattered ? Academy of Management Review, 19 (1), 11-16.

Hambrick, D.C. (2007). The field of management devotion to theory: too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6), 1346-1352.

Hardeman, S., Frenken., K., Nomaler. O., and Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2015). Characterizing and comparing Innovation systems by different ‘modes’ of knowledge production: A proximity approach. Science and Public Policy, 42 (4), 530-548.

Hessels, L., and H. van Lente (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37 (4), 740-760.

Hessels, L.K.; T. Wardenaar, W. Boon, and M. Ploeg (2014). The role of knowledge users in public–private research programs: an evaluation challenge. Research Evaluation, 23 (2), 103-116 doi:10.1093.

Hodgkinson, G. P., and K. Starkey (2011). Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again: Reframing relevance. British Journal of Management, 22 (3), 355-369.

Huff, A. S. (2000). Changes in organizational Knowledge Production. Academy of Management Review, 25 (2), 288-293.

Huff, A. S., and J. Huff (2001). Re- Focusing the Business School Agenda. British Journal of Management, SI, S49- S54.

Jansen, D., von Görtz, R., and R. Heidler (2008). Structural Holes and Knowledge Production. 5th conference on Applications of Social Network Analysis.

Jansen D., von Görtz R., and R. Heidler (2010a). Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields. Scientometrics, 83 (1): 219-241.

Jansen D., von Görtz R., and R. Heidler (2010b). Is Nanoscience a Mode 2 Field? Disciplinary Differences in Modes of Knowledge Production. Chapter 3. In Governance and Performance in the German Public Research Sector. Higher Education Dynamics, 32 (2), 45-71.

Kurek, K.; P. Geurts, and H. E. Roosendaal (2007). The research entrepreneur: Strategic positioning of the researcher in his societal environment. Science and Public Policy, 34 (7), 501-513.

Llerena, P., and F. Meyer-Krahmer (2003). Interdisciplinary research and the organization of the university: General challenges and a case study. Ciudad: Editorial (## completar)

Malaver, F. (2006). El despegue de la investigación colombiana en administración: análisis de sus avances en el periodo 2000-2006. Cuadernos de Administración, 19 (32), 71-110.

McFadyen, M.A., and A. A. Cannella (2005). Knowledge Creation and Location of University Research Scientist´ Interpersonal Exchange Relations: within and Beyond the University. Strategic Organizations, 3 (2), 131-135.
MacLean, D.; R. MacIntosh, and S. Grant (2002). Mode 2 Management Research. British Journal of Management, 13 (3), 189-207.

Martínez, M. (2012). Creación de conocimiento en el campo de la administración: un estudio sobre la influencia de las orientaciones estratégicas de los investigadores y las redes sociales. Tesis Doctoral- Ph.D. Universidad de los Andes. Facultad de Administración - Acreditada AACSB. Bogotá. Colombia.

Martínez, M., and E. Wills (2010 working paper). Modes of Knowledge Production, Social Networks and Knowledge Creation in Management Schools. Los Andes University. Accredited AACSB. Working Paper.

Metzger, N. y R. Zare (1999). Interdisciplinary research: from belief to reality. Science, 283 (5402), 642-643.

Monroy, S (2006, Julio-Diciembre). Nuevas políticas y estrategias de articulación del sistema de ciencia, tecnología e innovación colombiano. INNOVAR, Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 16 Ed (28).

Naranjo, C. y G. Calderón (2010). La investigación en innovación en Colombia y México. Un análisis de la diseminación en Revistas Científicas. Revista Dyna, 77 (162), 191-203.

Nicolai, A., and D. Seidl (2010). That’s Relevant! Different Forms of Practical Relevance in Management Science. Organization Studies, 31 (9-10), 1257-1285.

Pascal, A.; C. Thomas, and A. Romme (2013). Developing a Human‐centred and Science‐based Approach to Design: The Knowledge Management Platform Project. British Journal of Management, 24 (2), 264-280.

Pettigrew, A. (1997). The double hurdles for management for management research. In: T. Clarke (ed.), Advancement in Organizational Behavior (pp. 277-296). Essays in Honor of Derek S. Pugh. Dartmouth Press, London.

Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18 (4), 599-620.

Porter, A.L., and D.E. Chubin (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8 (3-4), 161-176.

Porter, A.L.; A.S. Cohen, J.D. Roessner, and M. Perreault (2007). Measuring research interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72 (1), 117-147.

Qin, J.; F. W. Lancaster, and B. Allen (1997). Types and Levels of Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research in the Sciences. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 48 (10), 893-916.

Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of management review, 31 (2), 256-269.

Rousseau, D. M. (2007). A sticky, leveraging , and scalable strategy for high-quality connections between organizational practice and science. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5), 1037 -1042.

Rynes, S., Giluk y Brown, 2007. The very separate words of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resources management: implications for evidence - based management. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5), 987-1008.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Starkey, K y Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12 (S1), S3 – S26.

Tranfield, D. y Starkey, K. (1998). The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy. British Journal of Management, 9 (4), 341–353.

Van Aken, J.E. (2005). Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management. British Journal of Management, 16 (1), 19-36.

Van den Besselaar, P y Heimeriks, G. (2001). Disciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary – Concepts and Indicators – 8° Conference on Scientometrics and Infometrics. Australia, July 16-20.

Van Leeuwen, T., and Tijssen, R. (2000). Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation, 9 (3), 183-187.

Vieira, P. C., and Teixeira, A. C. (2010). Are finance, management, and marketing autonomous fields of scientific research? An analysis based on journal citations. Scientometrics, 85 (3), 627-646.

Whitley, R. (2000/1984). The intellectual and social organization of sciences, 2nd edition, UK: Oxford University Press.

Willmott, H. (2012). Reframing relevance as ‘social usefulness’: A comment on Hodgkinson and Starkey’s ‘Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again’. British Journal of Management, 23 (4), 598-604.

Zalewska-Kurek, K. (2008). Strategies in the Production and Dissemination of Knowledge. Dissertation (PhD). University of Twente. Netherlands.
Cómo citar
Martinez, M., & Páez Gabriunas, I. (2016). Orientaciones estratégicas de los investigadores en el campo de la administración: un estudio comparativo entre regiones y disciplinas. Cuadernos De Administración, 29(52), 83–114. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cao29-52.oeic
Sección
Artículos