Practicing what we preach: the geographic diversity of editorial boards.
| Verfasser | Harzing, Anne-Wil |
| Posten | RESEARCH ARTICLE - Report |
Abstract:
* With the increasing globalisation of knowledge and management education, it is important that we build on our scanty understanding of trends and levels of geographic diversification in editorial board membership of management journals.
* Our study examines geographic diversity in editorial boards in Management over a 20-year period. It uses secondary data from 57 journals covering approximately 16,000 editorial board members.
* We found that the geographic diversity of editorial boards (EBs) has increased in the last 20 years, but it is still low for most management journals. Further, two factors partly predict the geographic diversity of EBs of management journals: the editor's country of residence and the field of research.
* Continued active management by editors, professional associations and individual academics alike is necessary to ensure that our editorial boards properly reflect the diverse management community.
Keywords: Editorial boards * Geographic diversity * Management journals * Globalisation
Introduction
Editorial board members and editors of academic journals are considered the gatekeepers of knowledge, because they have significant influence on what is published and, hence, what informs theory development, research and practice (e.g., Braun and Diospatonyi 2005; Konrad 2008; Raelin 2008). This gatekeeping role is the basis for suggesting that editorial boards should be sufficiently diverse in their backgrounds to facilitate the publication of manuscripts with a wide range of research paradigms and methods (Ozbilgin 2004; Feldman 2008). Diversity in research paradigms and methodologies is necessary for the growth of knowledge (Tung 2006). This assertion is based on the business case for diversity in organisations (e.g., Robinson and Dechant 1997). In broad terms, the business case for diversity contends that workforce diversity is good for organisations because demographically different people (e.g., in terms of gender, ethnicity or age) have different backgrounds and, therefore, have different experiences and perspectives. Diverse experiences and perspectives should enhance problem-solving, creativity and innovation (Robinson and Dechant 1997).
We draw on the diversity literature to similarly posit that researchers from different countries, and hence with different training, academic affiliation, doctoral origin and backgrounds, are expected to rely on different paradigms and methodologies in the conceptualisation and execution of their research. This diversity in researcher background is believed to broaden a field of knowledge (Lukka and Kasanen 1996; Tung 2006). But researchers from diverse backgrounds can only broaden the field of knowledge if their work is published. However, editorial boards (EBs) composed of people with similar backgrounds might limit the scope of what is published, because their members are likely to share a common research paradigm and methodological preference due to their similarity (Braun and Diospatonyi 2005; Daft and Lewin 2008; Rosentreich and Wooliscroft 2006).
Further, internationalisation of EBs might be desirable from a fairness perspective. As countries other than the UK and US produce increasing numbers of management scholars, it seems fair to offer those countries representation on EBs of management journals. This fairness motive, however, might also give our global community of scholars an opportunity to access new areas of research and inquiry.
Greater internationalisation of editors and of editorial boards of academic journals might, therefore, be desirable for the evolution of knowledge. A widely held belief is that geographically homogeneous editorial boards comprise members with similar intellectual backgrounds who might favor a narrow set of topics, paradigms and philosophies (e.g., Baruch 2001; Miller 2006; Stremersch and Verhoef 2005). This bias can restrict research innovation and scope. However, our knowledge of trends and current levels of geographic diversification in editorial board (EB) membership is patchy in general and almost non-existent in the field of management in particular. Bedeian and colleagues voice their surprise about this lack of published research, given editorial boards' "paramount role in determining the fate of ideas as well as individual careers" (Bedeian et al. 2009, p. 23). The little research conducted to date in management and non-management fields is chiefly descriptive (e.g., Lukka and Kasanen 1996; Ozbilgin 2004), based on a small number of journals (e.g, Baruch 2001; Stremersch and Verhoef 2005; Svensson 2005; Uzun 2004) and/or spans a short period of time (e.g., Ozbilgin 2004; Polonsky et al. 2006). Burgess and Shaw's (2010) study covers a much larger number of journals (36) and editorial board members (nearly 3,000). However, their study mainly focused on analysing linkages between institutions and journals, and provided only a very limited and descriptive coverage of geographic diversity at one point in time. With the increasing globalisation of knowledge and management education, it is important that we build on our scanty understanding of trends and levels of geographic diversification in EB membership of management journals.
Although we value diversity in methodological approaches as much as we value diversity in editorial boards, we feel that at this stage--where our knowledge is mostly based on descriptive data for a limited number of journals--progress in the field is best served by using a large-scale sample with a traditional hypothesis-testing approach. We contribute to knowledge in this field by drawing on network theory to examine the current levels, and trends over a period of 20 years, in the geographic representation in editorial boards of 57 journals across five fields of management, covering approximately 16,000 editorial board members. Specifically, we tested the relationship between the country or region in which a journal editor works and the geographic distribution of that journal's editorial board members, as well as the development over time of this relationship. We also examine the impact of the field of research on the level of geographic diversity of editorial boards.
Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
Intellectual diversity, the representation of different views and perspectives, is generally seen as desirable for the development of a field of knowledge (Baruch 2001; Hodgson and Rothman 1999; Stremersch and Verhoef 2005; Tung 2006). Geographic diversity is an imperfect, albeit acceptable, proxy for intellectual diversity. Past studies have eloquently argued for the influence of a myriad of factors, such as academic affiliation, doctoral origin, professional age, area of expertise and professional training, on cognitive similarity that delimits what is considered valuable research (e.g., Bedeian 2004). Nevertheless, geographic diversity has been commonly used in past research into diversity in academic journals (e.g., Polonsky et al. 2006; Svensson 2005; Thomas et al. 1994), reflecting the difficulty of conducting a more fine grained analysis by, for instance, professional training within countries across subfields and age cohorts. Furthermore, demography research scholars consider demographic characteristics to be "reasonable proxies for underlying differences in cognitions, values, and perceptions" (Joshi et al. 2010, p. 10).
It is possible that the association found in past studies between country of origin of editorial board members and the journal's editor is partly due to being part of the same local research networks. For instance, anecdotal and empirical evidence points to the isolation of non-US scholars from influential US based research networks as an explanation for the dominance of US editorial board members (Baruch 2001; Hodgson and Rothman 1999). Networks comprise the work and social contacts an individual has inside and outside of his/her organisation (Ibarra 1995), which enable him/her to secure benefits (such as EB membership or access to the editor) by virtue of his/her membership in those networks (Portes 1998). It is reasonable to assume that the association found between the country of origin of the journal editor and editorial board members partly stems from individuals having more same-country contacts in their networks than geographically diverse contacts. This low geographic diversity in academic networks emanates from greater opportunities to interact with one's own country colleagues than with colleagues from other countries. For example, living in the same country might increase the probability of face-to-face interaction because of physical proximity (Zitt and Bassecoulard 2004). Face-to-face interaction enhances familiarity and facilitates the development of trust allowing for closer relationships between individuals (Smith 1991). Therefore, it has been suggested that journal editors are more likely to choose EB members from their own country than from other countries, because those are the people in their networks that they know best (Feldman 2008) or in fact know at all, either personally or by the quality of their work.
In sum, based on network theory and scarce empirical evidence on the association between country of origin of EB members and journal's editor, we expect that journals have the largest proportion of EB members from the country in which the editor works. We believe it is necessary to test this hypothesis with a large and diverse sample, because Baruch (2001) is the only study that examined this relationship using a very small sample of journals, published either in the UK or US, between 1980 and 1995. We examine this relationship for a much larger sample and extend the time period to 2009. Further, we include both US and a wide range of non-US journals to provide a counterbalance to previous research that has mostly focused on a presumed ethnocentric bias of US journals (e.g., Baruch 2001...
Um weiterzulesen
FORDERN SIE IHR PROBEABO ANCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
