The internationalization of the Colombian publication in the field of management: Advances and challenges
Published
Oct 3, 2016
Almetrics
Dimensions
Google Scholar
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Abstract
The Colombian management faculties (FCA) face a growing “institutional
pressure” to increment the quantity and quality of their international
publication. The purpose of this text is to establish how the FCA have
answered to such pressure and analyze alternatives to face the challenges
that this internationalization has posed. The systematic investigation in
the Wos and Scopus between 2001 and 2015 reveals an internationalization
process that is in its infancy, which is simultaneous to the process
registered in other Latin American countries. The international discussion
on the management publication opens possibilities that require assuming
reality itself as a reservoir of opportunities to generate original knowledge
and develop indicators that can supply the quotation limitations to
understand the –social– utility of the articles.
pressure” to increment the quantity and quality of their international
publication. The purpose of this text is to establish how the FCA have
answered to such pressure and analyze alternatives to face the challenges
that this internationalization has posed. The systematic investigation in
the Wos and Scopus between 2001 and 2015 reveals an internationalization
process that is in its infancy, which is simultaneous to the process
registered in other Latin American countries. The international discussion
on the management publication opens possibilities that require assuming
reality itself as a reservoir of opportunities to generate original knowledge
and develop indicators that can supply the quotation limitations to
understand the –social– utility of the articles.
Keywords
investigación, management, relevancia, citación, administración, Colombia.pesquisa, management, relevância, citação, administração, Colômbia.research, management, relevance, quotation, administration, Colombia.
References
AACSB International. (2012). Impact of research. A guide for Business Schools. The Association to Advance Collegiate, Schools of Business. Tampa, Florida.
Alvesson, M., and J. Sandberg. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50 (1), 128-152.
Augier, M.; J. March, and B. Sullivan. (2005). Notes on the evolution of a research community: organization studies in Anglophone North America, 1945-2000. Organization Science, 16 (1), 85-95.
Barkema, H.; X. Chen, G. George, Y. Luo, and A. Tsui. (2015). West meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58 (2), 460-479.
Barley, S.; G. Meyers, and D. Gash. (1988). Cultures of culture: Academics, practitioners and the pragmatics of normative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 24-60.
Bartunek, J.M. (2011). What has happened to mode 2? British Journal of Management, 22, 555-558.
Bartunek, J.M., and S.L. Rynes. (2014). Academic and practitioners are alike and unlike: paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40 (5), 1181-1201.
Bennis, W., and J. O’Toole. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83 (5), 96-104.
Calderón, G.; A. Castaño, L. García, L. y E. Castro. (2014). Generación de conocimiento en los grupos élite de investigación en Colombia. Manizales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Calderón, G.; J. Arrubla, L. Gutiérrez, G. Castaño, R. Posada, A. Ruiz, A., H. Serna y J. Vivares.(2010). La investigación en administración en Colombia. Condiciones para la generación deconocimiento, investigadores, institucionalización, y producción científica. Bogotá: Ascolfa.
Coriat, B. (2000). Pensar al revés. Trabajo y organización en la empresa japonesa. México: Siglo XXI.
Corley, K. G., and D.A. Gioia. (2011). Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theorical contribution. Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 12-32.
Dávila, C. (1980). La crisis de la educación en Administración en Colombia. Revista Eafit Temas Administrativos, 39, 20-35.
Dávila, C. (1986). La investigación en administración: anotaciones sobre la experiencia colombiana y políticas para su promoción a nivel nacional y latinoamericano. Revista Cátedra, 1, 13-27.
Dimaggio, P., and W. Powell. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational field. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147-160.
Donaldson, L.; J. Qiu, and B. Luo. (2013). For rigour in organizational management theory research. Journal o Management Studies, 50, 128-152.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16 (3), 620-627.
Eisenhardt, K.M., and M. Graebner. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25-32.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109-123.
Etzkowitz, H.; A. Webster, Ch. Gebhardt, B. Regina, and C. Terra. (2000). The future of the university and the future university: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29 (2), 313-330.
Fernández, C.J., and E. Gantman. (2011). Spain and Argentina as importers of management knowledge (1955-2008): A comparative analysis. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 28, 160-173.
George, G. (2014). Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (1), 1-6.
Gibbons, M.; C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dymnamyc of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, SA: Sage Publication.
Gualdrón, O. (2016). Nuevo Publindex: Modelo clasificación de revistas científicas nacionales. Presentación en “Estado de la ciencia en Colombia”. Foro Semana, Bogotá, mayo 26. Hannan, M. and J. Freeman. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5), 929-964.
Helfat, C. (2007). Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization, 5 (2), 185-192.
Ibarra, E. (2006). Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in Latin America: Thinking otherness from the margins. Organization, 13 (4), 463-488.
Kim, L. (1998). Crisis construction and organizational learning. Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9 (4), 506-521.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Universidad de Chicago.
Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple Helix, Quadruple Helix…and N-tuple of Helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-Based Economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3 (1), 25-35.
López, F. (1998). Educación en administración y modas administrativas en Colombia. Revista Eafit, 109, 59-88.
Malaver, F. (2000). La investigación en gestión empresarial. Academia, Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 23, 67-81.
Malaver, F. (2006). El despegue de la investigación colombiana en Administración: análisis de sus avances en el periodo 2000-2006. Cuadernos de Administración, 18 (32), 71-109.
Malaver, F. y M. Vargas. (2005). Las políticas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en Colombia 1990-2005: sus logros, fracasos y desafíos. Cuadernos de Administración, 18 (30), 39-78.
Merton, R.K. (1968). The Mathew Effect in Science. Science, 159 (3810), 56-63.
Mintzberg, H. (2005). Directivos, no MBAs. Una visión crítica de la dirección de empresas y la formación empresarial. España: Universidad de Deusto.
Nelson, R. (1995). Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. Journal of Economic Literature, 33 (1), 48-90.
Nelson, R., and H. Pack. (1999). The Asian miracle and modern growth theory. Economic Journal, 109 (457), 416-436.
Ogliastri, E. (1982). Investigaciones en Administración. Memorias, II Encuentro de investigadores en Administración. Cali, ICFES-Universidad del Valle.
Orozco, L.A. (2015). Diversidad y heterogeneidad en redes de colaboración científica. Un estudio de las escuelas de administración de América Latina. Bogotá, Universida Externado de Colombia.
Orozco, L.A., and J.L. Villaveces. (2015). Heterogeneus research networks in Latin American Schools of business management. Academia, Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 28 (1), 115-134.
Pfeffer, J., and C.T. Fong. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1 (1), 78-95.
Rafols, I.; L. Leydesdorff, A. O’Hare, P. Nightingale, and A. Stirling. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41, 1262-1282.
Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior – SNIES. (2016). Ministerio de Educación Nacional. Recuperado el 10 de junio de 2016 de http://snies.mineducacion.gov. co/consultasnies/programa
Stiglitz, J. (1996). Some Lesson from de East Asian miracle. World Bank Research Observer, 11 (2), 151-178.
Thomas, H., and A.D. Wilson. (2011). “Physics Envy”, cognitive legitimacy of practical relevance: Dilemmas in the evolution of management research in the UK. British Journal of Management, 22 (3), 443-456.
Transfield, D., and K. Starkey. (1998). The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: Towards policy. British Journal of Management, 9, 341-353.
Whitley, R. (2008). Variety of knowledge and their use in business and management studies: Conditions and institutions. Organization Studies, 29 (4): 581-609.
World Bank (1993). The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Oaks, California, EEUU: Sage Publications.
Alvesson, M., and J. Sandberg. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50 (1), 128-152.
Augier, M.; J. March, and B. Sullivan. (2005). Notes on the evolution of a research community: organization studies in Anglophone North America, 1945-2000. Organization Science, 16 (1), 85-95.
Barkema, H.; X. Chen, G. George, Y. Luo, and A. Tsui. (2015). West meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58 (2), 460-479.
Barley, S.; G. Meyers, and D. Gash. (1988). Cultures of culture: Academics, practitioners and the pragmatics of normative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 24-60.
Bartunek, J.M. (2011). What has happened to mode 2? British Journal of Management, 22, 555-558.
Bartunek, J.M., and S.L. Rynes. (2014). Academic and practitioners are alike and unlike: paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40 (5), 1181-1201.
Bennis, W., and J. O’Toole. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83 (5), 96-104.
Calderón, G.; A. Castaño, L. García, L. y E. Castro. (2014). Generación de conocimiento en los grupos élite de investigación en Colombia. Manizales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Calderón, G.; J. Arrubla, L. Gutiérrez, G. Castaño, R. Posada, A. Ruiz, A., H. Serna y J. Vivares.(2010). La investigación en administración en Colombia. Condiciones para la generación deconocimiento, investigadores, institucionalización, y producción científica. Bogotá: Ascolfa.
Coriat, B. (2000). Pensar al revés. Trabajo y organización en la empresa japonesa. México: Siglo XXI.
Corley, K. G., and D.A. Gioia. (2011). Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theorical contribution. Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 12-32.
Dávila, C. (1980). La crisis de la educación en Administración en Colombia. Revista Eafit Temas Administrativos, 39, 20-35.
Dávila, C. (1986). La investigación en administración: anotaciones sobre la experiencia colombiana y políticas para su promoción a nivel nacional y latinoamericano. Revista Cátedra, 1, 13-27.
Dimaggio, P., and W. Powell. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational field. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147-160.
Donaldson, L.; J. Qiu, and B. Luo. (2013). For rigour in organizational management theory research. Journal o Management Studies, 50, 128-152.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16 (3), 620-627.
Eisenhardt, K.M., and M. Graebner. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25-32.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109-123.
Etzkowitz, H.; A. Webster, Ch. Gebhardt, B. Regina, and C. Terra. (2000). The future of the university and the future university: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29 (2), 313-330.
Fernández, C.J., and E. Gantman. (2011). Spain and Argentina as importers of management knowledge (1955-2008): A comparative analysis. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 28, 160-173.
George, G. (2014). Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (1), 1-6.
Gibbons, M.; C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dymnamyc of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, SA: Sage Publication.
Gualdrón, O. (2016). Nuevo Publindex: Modelo clasificación de revistas científicas nacionales. Presentación en “Estado de la ciencia en Colombia”. Foro Semana, Bogotá, mayo 26. Hannan, M. and J. Freeman. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5), 929-964.
Helfat, C. (2007). Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization, 5 (2), 185-192.
Ibarra, E. (2006). Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in Latin America: Thinking otherness from the margins. Organization, 13 (4), 463-488.
Kim, L. (1998). Crisis construction and organizational learning. Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9 (4), 506-521.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Universidad de Chicago.
Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple Helix, Quadruple Helix…and N-tuple of Helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-Based Economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3 (1), 25-35.
López, F. (1998). Educación en administración y modas administrativas en Colombia. Revista Eafit, 109, 59-88.
Malaver, F. (2000). La investigación en gestión empresarial. Academia, Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 23, 67-81.
Malaver, F. (2006). El despegue de la investigación colombiana en Administración: análisis de sus avances en el periodo 2000-2006. Cuadernos de Administración, 18 (32), 71-109.
Malaver, F. y M. Vargas. (2005). Las políticas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en Colombia 1990-2005: sus logros, fracasos y desafíos. Cuadernos de Administración, 18 (30), 39-78.
Merton, R.K. (1968). The Mathew Effect in Science. Science, 159 (3810), 56-63.
Mintzberg, H. (2005). Directivos, no MBAs. Una visión crítica de la dirección de empresas y la formación empresarial. España: Universidad de Deusto.
Nelson, R. (1995). Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. Journal of Economic Literature, 33 (1), 48-90.
Nelson, R., and H. Pack. (1999). The Asian miracle and modern growth theory. Economic Journal, 109 (457), 416-436.
Ogliastri, E. (1982). Investigaciones en Administración. Memorias, II Encuentro de investigadores en Administración. Cali, ICFES-Universidad del Valle.
Orozco, L.A. (2015). Diversidad y heterogeneidad en redes de colaboración científica. Un estudio de las escuelas de administración de América Latina. Bogotá, Universida Externado de Colombia.
Orozco, L.A., and J.L. Villaveces. (2015). Heterogeneus research networks in Latin American Schools of business management. Academia, Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 28 (1), 115-134.
Pfeffer, J., and C.T. Fong. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1 (1), 78-95.
Rafols, I.; L. Leydesdorff, A. O’Hare, P. Nightingale, and A. Stirling. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41, 1262-1282.
Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior – SNIES. (2016). Ministerio de Educación Nacional. Recuperado el 10 de junio de 2016 de http://snies.mineducacion.gov. co/consultasnies/programa
Stiglitz, J. (1996). Some Lesson from de East Asian miracle. World Bank Research Observer, 11 (2), 151-178.
Thomas, H., and A.D. Wilson. (2011). “Physics Envy”, cognitive legitimacy of practical relevance: Dilemmas in the evolution of management research in the UK. British Journal of Management, 22 (3), 443-456.
Transfield, D., and K. Starkey. (1998). The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: Towards policy. British Journal of Management, 9, 341-353.
Whitley, R. (2008). Variety of knowledge and their use in business and management studies: Conditions and institutions. Organization Studies, 29 (4): 581-609.
World Bank (1993). The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Oaks, California, EEUU: Sage Publications.
How to Cite
Malaver Rodríguez, F. (2016). The internationalization of the Colombian publication in the field of management: Advances and challenges. Cuadernos De Administración, 29(52), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.11144/javeriana.cao29-52.ipcc
Section
Artículos