中国A片

商学院的社会影响力抱负是个笑话

卡尔·罗德斯（Carl Rhodes）称，除非研究文化从根本上改变，否则学者们将继续专注于期刊排名

八月 9, 2022
Carl Rhodes
Tramp
Source: Getty

点击阅读英文原文

社会影响力、公共目标和负责任的管理正迅速成为全球商学院的座右铭。这不再是决心从边缘地带煽动变革的激进分子的做法，而已经成为了主流。

最大的国际商学院认证机构——美国大学商学院促进会（Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, AACSB）有着明确的战略愿景，即“在全球范围内改变商学教育，以产生积极的社会影响”。我们被告知，商学院课程里充斥着“贪婪无错”式的资本主义的时代已经一去不复返了。如今，你可以在耶鲁（Yale University）把惭叠础和环境管理联系起来，或者进入哈佛（Harvard University）和沃顿（Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania）的社会影响项目。牛津大学（University of Oxford）萨义德商学院在社会影响教育方面有一个完整的专业。

这一切在商学院中进行的研究意味着什么？今年早些时候，我参加了一个我所在的管理和组织研究领域的会议。我所在的分会场关注的议题是不平等和组织。比起这个学术研究与全球最紧迫的挑战之一相碰撞的场合，还有什么地方更适合来寻找真正的社会影响吗？

但我很失望——虽然这是意料之中的。我们围绕经济不平等和社会不平等如何延续或应如何解决这两个问题，从不同方面发表论文时，有一个压倒一切的主题没有被讨论：学者们能够如何真正利用和发展知识，为解决不平等之恶做出贡献。取而代之主导讨论的是演讲者如何让他们的论文发表在顶级学术期刊上，最好是美国的学术期刊。

我之所以说主导，是因为发表策略不仅仅是讨论的核心主题，而且似乎研究不平等的目的与减少不平等没有任何关系。他们真正的决心是发表对于不平等的精英论文，以推进自己的学术生涯，并成为对“最好的”商学院而言，一种有市场的劳动力商品。

这一事件让我坚信，阻碍商学院社会影响力的真正障碍是我们形成的研究文化，尤其是在过去20多年来形成的文化。这种文化痴迷于让院长们有吹嘘资本的出版物和排名系统。在西方世界，它还助长了学校的营销手段，以吸引利润丰厚的国际学生。

我们的研究已经变得如此市场化，以至于知识创造已沦为一种交换过程，其价值与高校创收和教授薪水挂钩。这肯定会产生影响，但受益者是商学院本身，以及那些精力充沛的教授，他们拥有人脉和专业知识，可以撰写所谓的顶级期刊会刊登的文章。

商学院是一股“行善的力量”？我不这么认为。最狭隘的利己主义占据了主导地位。如果商学院想要真正把自己的目标定为社会价值和造福他人，那么就需要在研究文化和实践方面进行根本性的变革。

无论刊载你文章的期刊是在《金融时报》（Financial Times）的商学院排名所使用的里，还是在得克萨斯大学达拉斯分校（University of Texas at Dallas）发布的的24份榜单上，又或者是在澳大利亚商业院长理事会（Australian Business Deans Council）的“榜单上，你都会得到同样的结果：一种维护传授西方知识的精英机构的特权的排他性方法。这些排名决定了个别学者的表现目标，因为它们决定了评选终身教职和晋升的标准。这些数据被录入系统，继而用于比较全球商学院的“质量”。它们为政府审计机构提供信息，这些机构声称要衡量我们的研究“在全球有多么领先”。

所有这一切在全球商学院创造并延续了一种研究文化，这种文化对精英期刊出版物的崇拜达到了极端分散注意力的地步。按照目前的态势发展下去，最终的结果是我们只与自己有关。

我并不是说在经过严格的同行评议的学术期刊上发表论文不重要。恰恰相反：这是一种系统，不论它有多么不完美，都为知识生成过程提供了不可或缺的检查。但如果你想要的是社会影响，那么期刊出版精英主义就不是最终目标。

当我与高校以外的人交谈时，他们发现我所说的即使不是陈词滥调，也都是显而易见的。当然，真正重要的是研究对象牙塔之外的混乱世界所产生的、或将要产生的影响。我们应该感到尴尬的是，尽管我们夸夸其谈，但似乎仍无法真正理解这一点。

卡尔·罗德斯是悉尼科技大学（University of Technology Sydney）商学院院长。

本文由陆子惠为泰晤士高等教育翻译。

阅读更多相关文章
阅读更多相关文章:&苍产蝉辫;
Business schools
Impact and engagement

请先注册再继续

为何要注册？

  • 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (11)

#1 Submitted by Rob_MacIntosh on 八月 10, 2022 - 10:47am
The challenge we face is that we have misaligned incentive systems Carl. As you note, what matters for many/most academics is publication in outlets that are predominantly read by other academics ... and the gatekeeping process is overseen by other academics. Two other significant communities therefore tend to be overlooked ... one is students and the other is end-user audiences (e.g. practicing managers). The impact agenda is a step in the right direction but even this, at least as configured in the UK REF exercises of 2014 and 2021, is predicated on the assumption that impact follows peer-reviewed publication. High quality theorising is important but it isn't necessarily the only way to engage with the very real and very pressing concerns about sustainability, inclusion/inequality and innovation that face us. Robert MacIntosh
#2 Submitted by ... on 八月 10, 2022 - 3:56pm
Nice article. And I agree with the comment posted by Robert MacIntosh. It's an issue of re-balancing mission focus and associated measurement and reward systems.
#3 Submitted by qeis.kamran on 八月 10, 2022 - 4:30pm
An insightful and in-depth account of how we have wronged our field, where relevance to practice , which must be the essential frontier and criteria for rigor, has been replaced by and reduced to the reductionism of publication elitism in a top down manner of detachment.
#4 Submitted by cynicus academicus on 八月 10, 2022 - 10:24pm
I would buy the usual critical management rant if there was something practical that was being proposed, particularly given that the culture and incentives are very much driven by the deans. So rather than rant, I would recommend doing something given the position of power the author has as a dean and then coming back with solutions that others could follow.
#5 Submitted by mjmolbhamacuk on 八月 11, 2022 - 9:55am
"Could there be a better place to look for real social impact than where academic research meets one of the most urgent global challenges?" Yes, there are in fact many better places to look for this. Anywhere from student admissions to teaching, from outreach to consulting, from where and how data are gathered to reports to funding bodies. Almost anywhere is a better place than in an academic conference really. It is also somewhat tiring to see top-tier American journals being criticised by people who do not publish in them!
#6 Submitted by carynbeckdudley on 八月 11, 2022 - 2:11pm
Carl’s statement, “The real barrier to business school societal impact is the research culture we developed, especially over the last 20 years or so” points directly to the heart of the matter and speaks precisely to the need for cultural and systemic change. The drive to publish in a top-tier academic journal is a reality that many in academia can’t escape, primarily because performance success is rooted in that very achievement. And while research helps create new knowledge, it doesn’t always serve the greater good by purposefully creating a positive impact on society. One way that AACSB is catalyzing change is through our 2020 business accreditation standards. As a consultative, peer-reviewed process, earning AACSB accreditation requires business school leaders to hold each other accountable for committing to innovation and creating a positive impact on society—including through scholarly contributions, curriculum, and community involvement, which are all defined by the institution’s mission and the markets they serve. AACSB accredits over 950 business schools across more than 50 countries and territories. All of these schools have made long-term commitments to innovation in business education, and this collective effort is making an impact. Although systemic change is not easily achieved, transforming business education for positive societal impact is our vision. There is still much work to be done, and our efforts to redefine academic research are a cornerstone to achieving this vision. Our path forward must include constructive criticism, a collective dedication to identifying opportunities for change, and accountability. While AACSB can effect some institutional change through the expectations of our business accreditation standards, true change will stem from a redesign of 中国A片’s incentive structures. If rankings continue to heavily weigh top-tier journal publishing, realizing this change will be extremely difficult. I, too, challenge my colleagues in 中国A片 to continue to reimagine how research can better serve society’s core issues. Creating a positive impact on society through research is a responsibility we all bear.
#7 Submitted by albertswright_252358 on 八月 11, 2022 - 3:08pm
"On the current trajectory, the end game is that we are only relevant to ourselves." spoken by a true academic. A practical way to resolve this is to start by massively limiting the number of research papers that can be written (let alone published) by individuals ( say 2 per year) and institutions (say 10 per thousand students,per year.) This reduced number should then be reviewed by local "citizen Juries) and the winners published by the University and the local press. Too much of the public sector lives in its own ivory tower contemplating its navel and promoting its self interest.
#8 Submitted by gfeiger on 八月 11, 2022 - 4:06pm
Anyone who has spent time in academia knows this. Those who want to get stuff done, for the most part then either choose not to enter, or to leave after a time. The academic processes of promotion and reputation building then act as a sorting mechanism. After a while, who do you think is left in academia?
#9 Submitted by ScepticAcademic on 八月 11, 2022 - 11:38pm
Presumably, as a Dean, the author is leading the way, by scrapping journal ranking-based appointment and promotion criteria in his own school?
#10 Submitted by acerpacer on 八月 12, 2022 - 7:29pm
Commitmments eh? anyone can make any commitments to whatever. What is average tenure of a business school dean? Do accreditation bodies withdraw accreditations for lack of delivering on committments? Is this publicised? is this on their websites? or is it that institutions can maintain accreditation by simply making even more commitments and paying the fees?
#11 Submitted by An Academic Somewhere on 八月 13, 2022 - 12:55pm
The commitments by universities, schools and deans, the accreditations by the certification industry, the rankings and awards by this rag and others are mostly nothing but window dressing for PR purposes, as well as tick-boxing and "bluewashing" similar to the CSR commitments and reports made by large corporations. It is all - or most of it is - claptrap at the highest order with no or little positive "impact" on the ground (for students, staff or society at large). On the contrary, most of this only increases the administrative burden and fuels a growing bureaucracy draining away precious resources from teaching and research, the core purpose of a university. These kind of "bullshit" activities are all part of a marketized HE system where education is nothing, but a tradeable commodity and research seen as just another income stream (e.g., grant capture). Individual tools or measures may change but the culture will not, as long as the commercial imperative holds sway over universities offering a product for individual gain (for student and staff careers alike) and not providing a public service for the common good and a higher purpose. You may call the above a rant if you wish. I am just fed-up with the vacuous strategy blabber emanating from management, consultants, government and accreditation bodies alike. I know they all must justify to themselves and others their “bullshit jobs” (courtesy of the late David Graeber) but the emperor has no clothes mostly.

您可能也喜欢

ADVERTISEMENT