Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Best Journals versus Best Fit Journals

Best Journals versus Best Fit Journals

Ratings: (0)|Views: 212|Likes:
Published by Dr Stephen Dann
Dann, S. (2006) “Best Journals versus Best Fit Journals”, Considerably more sarcastic mix Contains metaphors and snark.
Dann, S. (2006) “Best Journals versus Best Fit Journals”, Considerably more sarcastic mix Contains metaphors and snark.

More info:

Published by: Dr Stephen Dann on Aug 16, 2007
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/15/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Best Journals versus Best Fit Journals: A Strategic Orientation to ResearchQuadrantsDr Stephen Dann, ANUAbstract
This paper is proposing a heresy of sorts – perhaps marketing should practice what itteaches, and develop journal ranks that meet the needs of the organisation, itsstakeholders, and which are based on segmenting the journal output market. This processmay even create, communicate and deliver value for the institution and our governmentand industry stakeholders. What follows is a simple model of heresy that permits theresearch goals of the university, the strengths of the researchers, and the need to enhancemarketing thought within the marketing academy to determine the relative matchbetween research output and ideal publication medium. The author full expects thisnotion of an alternative to the JCR/JM/JMR Billboard Top 40 will go down like theTitanic, but sometimes, it's worth shouting "Iceberg ahead" in hopes of changing thecourse (and destiny) of the ship.
Introduction
O'Connor and Moodie (2006) remind us that once again, the higher education sector inAustralia is under criticism from its political masters - this time over the lack of diversification between the universities. Under the current minister's vision for highereducation, universities are meant to diversify their portfolios, concentrate on theirstrengths, and cede ground to rival institutions in the name of sector wide reform. In thepursuit of this goal, most university systems, schools and departments are rushingtowards the paradoxical goal of diversifying to the same tune. Across the Australianmarketing academy, schools, departments and professors all acknowledge the need forsegmentation, positioning, diversification and the pursuit of publication in the same topten journals. If irony still had meaning in the post-modern world of academia, AlanisMorrissette would sing the praises of this strategy. The problem, in part, is the pursuit of league table style metrics that provide evidence of "best" rather than "best fit".
 
Diversification requires universities to focus on their strengths, but if each university usesthe same measures to determine those "strengths", then the rigid frameworks of "best journals" and "best conferences" will see best-fit modified to match the "best journals".In other words, diversification will result in the uniform pursuit of the same goals, witheveryone citing the same strengths to see themselves competitive on the same scorecard.Rewarding quality by assessing it against a rigid criteria of "best" will simply result inmore of the same outcomes - rejection slips from the same "top tier" journals.
The Standardised Journal Ranking Schema
Journal ranking schema are old news in the business academic sector, with the firststudies of journal quality appearing in 1974, and continuing unabated through to thecurrent paper (Koojaroenprasit et al, 1998, Polonsky and Whitelaw, 2006). To quotePolonsky and Whitelaw (2005):
…with Hawes and Keillor (2002) identifying that between 1980 and 2001 there were at least 16 journal ranking studies in marketing published in academic journals and conferences. Since 2002 there have been additionalranking studies, including; Baumgartner and Pieters (2003), Theoharakis and Hirst (2002), Mort et al. (2004) and Polonsky and Whitelaw (2004). It appears that ranking journals may in fact be a predisposition within business faculties in general (Armstrongand Sperry 1994, Van Fleet et al. 2000).
Twenty two years, twenty journal rankingsystems exist in the published field, with a few more proprietary research ranks existingwithin different universities around the globe. As Polonsky and Whitelaw (2005) note,once the reader looks outside of the top three or five journals, the inconsistency of theselists stand as a tribute to "one size fits nobody" production orientations. Even within thequality index industry there is a mute acceptance of one-dimensional measures of “best”,based on the respondent's perception of "quality" (Baumgarter and Pieters, 2003). Wouldthe academic who endorses this list for funding back the same single item measure from astudent project? For most aspect of the marketing disciplines, the use of a one-dimensional scale of "best" is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of thediscipline and the practice of the industry (Corfman, 1991). Does the systematicavoidance of accepted methodology maintain the relevance of the discipline? One wouldthink not, unless the methodological two-step assists in the creation of "quality index" for
 
AcademyDrivenResearch(Tier 1)Marketing UnitResearchAgenda(Tier 3)AcademyDrivenResearch(Tier 1)Marketing UnitResearchAgenda(Tier 3)UniversityResearchObjectives(Tier 2)Non alignedResearch(Tier 4UniversityResearchObjectives(Tier 2)Non alignedResearch(Tier 4DisciplineResearchGoalsUniversity Research Goals
rating publication outputs. For marketing, an important question needs to be considered– does a single item list of “best” journals match the philosophy of the discipline?Should the notion of market orientation, market segmentation, positioning and anemphasis on not being “everything to everyone” be something we teach but not practice?The author contends that this question of disciplinary relevance is often overlooked inorder to mask the fundamental clash between what marketing preaches and whatmarketing does with league tables of journal rankings.
Model for Assessing Research Output / Research Agenda fit
Research output is assumed to have two core components - the business strategycomponent which represents the organisational research goals of the University, and thegoal of developing knowledge within a specific discipline. Hawes and Keillor (2002 inPolonsky and Whitelaw (2005) recommend that the using the institutional missionstatements in the ranking of marketing journals. This view is also supported by theAACSB (2006) who specify that intellectual contributions, measured in part by peerreviewed journal articles, should be consistent with the school’s mission and strategicmanagement processes. Therefore, pursuit of disciplinary research goals ororganisational research goals gives rise to the 2x2 matrix of discipline/university agendaalignment of the research Ffigure 1). These four areas are defined in the practical contextfor the development of a research output ranking structure as :Figure 1. Discipline and University Research Goals
 
Quadrant 1: Academy driven research whichencourages the development of the marketingdiscipline through the engagement in relevantmarketing academies
 
Quadrant 2: the strategic research goals of thehost institution
 
Quadrant 3: the pursuit of a coherent researchagenda for the marketing department school or group
 
Quadrant 4: Independent research output which is not aligned to the above objectives

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->