‘Physics Envy’, Cognitive Legitimacy or Practical Relevance: Dilemmas in the Evolution of Management Research in the UK
| Published date | 01 September 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00766.x |
| Date | 01 September 2011 |
| Author | Alexander D. Wilson,Howard Thomas |
‘Physics Envy’, Cognitive Legitimacy
or Practical Relevance: Dilemmas in
the Evolution of Management Research
in the UK
Howard Thomas and Alexander D. Wilson
Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore, and Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK
Corresponding author email: alexander.wilson@wbs.ac.uk
We reflect on the key debates and controversies that face business schools and
management research. This paper frames the core debates in terms of organizational
legitimacy as a lens through which to analyse the rapid rise and development of business
schools in the UK. The production of management knowledge straddles the precarious
divide between academic rigour and practical relevance. We argue that the conflicting
sources of legitimacy could be undermining the international research competitiveness
of UK schools and that a far-reaching review of management education and research is
necessary.
Introduction
A quarter of a century is a landmark occasion
and certainly one for celebration. As part of this
special issue to celebrate 25 years of the British
Academy of Management (BAM) we take the
opportunity to reflect on the evolution, quality
and reputation and research performance of
business schools in the UK. We explore this
through the lens of legitimacy, arguing that
business schools face increasing ambiguity and
conflict concerning their legitimate form and
function. Specifically, we address management
research and interrogate to what extent the
current discipline-based research model is both
suitable and sustainable for UK business schools.
There is no shortage of debate and controversy
surrounding business schools. Specifically, there
is a growing body of literature and commentary
that addresses allegations of failure (Bennis and
O’Toole, 2005; Bones, 2009), knowledge creation
(Chia and Holt, 2008; Tranfield and Starkey,
1998), issues of pedagogy (Antonacopoulou,
2010; Grey, 2004; Jarzabkowski and Whitting-
ton, 2008), the history and origins of manage-
ment education (Antunes and Thomas, 2007;
Grey, 2010) as well as ideology, purpose and
leadership (Davies and Thomas, 2009; Fragueiro
and Thomas, 2011). The waves of financial crises,
scandals and controversy have sharpened the
focus on business schools and their relationship
with management in general. And within uni-
versities business schools are valued more for
their financial strength than their intellectual
scholarship (Bok, 2003), in strategic terms ‘cash
cows’ for universities (Starkey and Tiratsoo,
2007). Business schools also have been much
maligned in the press which implicates manage-
ment education as a contributory agent in the
recent financial crisis. Equally, the financial crisis
has intensified debate among scholars about the
role and purpose of business schools (see Currie,
Knights and Starkey, 2010). For other authors,
too, the financial crisis signalled a need to
reappraise the role of business schools and the
kinds of managers and management practice they
British Journal of Management, Vol. 22, 443–456 (2011)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00766.x
r2011 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management r2011 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
To continue reading
Request your trial