Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This essay contributes a new perspective to debates about journal ranking lists and their effects on the practice of scholarship. Our argument is grounded in practice theory and draws on Bourdieu’s concept of field. We examine the effect of metrics, targets, and rankings on human resource development, a conjunctive field associated with the management learning and education (MLE) field. We examine the ways in which boundaries of the MLE field are shaped by journal ranking lists and how, irrespective of seniority in the field, scholars simultaneously experience both power and powerlessness as a result of journal ranking processes. We contribute a new perspective on issues of academic practice with consequences for specialized areas of scholarship. We conclude by proposing practical interventions that senior scholars and journal editors can undertake to challenge the undesirable effects of ranking systems and encourage scholarly diversity.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Valerie Anderson
University of Portsmouth
Carole Elliott
Fachhochschule Kiel
Jamie L. Callahan
Durham University
Academy of Management Learning and Education
University of Portsmouth
University of Roehampton
Academy of Management
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Anderson et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1871b225af1eb19ec9a793 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0037