基于中国数据的国际管理研究学术进展——基于UTD-24和FT-45的可视化分析北大核心CSCDCSSCI

本研究基于2009年—2015年UTD-24和FT-45使用中国数据源的文献数据库,从研究领域、研究作者和关键词角度分析了基于中国数据的国际管理研究学术进展的现状和趋势,并进一步基于数据挖掘和可视化技术提出描述学术研究发展趋势的一系列挖掘方法和呈现模式,分析了商业管理学术领域对于中国数据源的关注程度、关注点以及研究模式,以期更好地理解近年国际管理理论研究中中国数据的影响力和研究发展图景.在研究领域层面,本文侧重在学科领域、期刊和时间维度上对基于中国数据的关注程度进行分析.在研究作者层面,本文侧重于发现关注中国数据源的研究学者的来源,发现不同来源的研究者对中国数据源的不同研究视角及其之间的合作偏好.在关键词分析层面,本文旨在发现基于中国数据学术研究中的热点问题,把握研究主题随着时间的演变趋势.此外本文还感兴趣于关键词内部之间的关联性,本文通过关键词与地域、研究领域的关联分析探索发掘各个领域或者地域对于研究主题的研究偏好,通过关键词内部的关联性分析获得并发掘出潜在的可以协同研究的主题.     

基于OLAP的农村应急数据集成研究

中国村镇应急服务的系统亟待建设.村镇应急数据来源广泛,种类繁多,资料格式没有归一化,很难在灾害发生时起到直接的决策支持的作用.因此需要将这些数据进行集成与分析,为决策者提供支持.本文研究了村镇应急服务中的信息来源和主题,并分析了OLAP在村镇应急服务中的决策支持作用,并以森林火灾应急服务系统为例加以阐述.基于数据源创建了多维数据集.而不同的主题需要构建不同的多维数据集,多维数据集来源于数据仓库中的数据.基于上述需求,以SQL Server 2005集成服务的API为基础,开发了ETL工具,可以完成基础的数据抽取、清洗及装载工作.     

第2届中国人力资源管理国际论坛会议通知

为探讨转型期中国情境下的人力资源管理与组织行为领域的研究现状、发展前沿和趋势,推动面向实践的有关管理研究主题的开展,现以国内有影响力的学术组织和学术期刊为平台,联合国内著名高校的学术研究群体以及海外有关知名学者,共同举办第2届中国人力资源     

基于文献计量的大数据管理决策研究热点分析

传统的模型驱动的决策范式正在演变成大数据驱动的决策新范式,国家自然科学基金委员会于2015年启动了“大数据驱动的管理与决策研究”重大研究计划,以推动我国管理学领域大数据的基础研究.本文以重大研究计划资助的14个项目的文本信息,及2012年~2019年在51种管理类重要国际期刊上发表的近6000篇论文为基础,利用文本挖掘与文献计量方法,从词粒度和主题粒度展开比较分析,并对部分以大数据作为关键词的文献按研究方向进行分类分析.对比分析结果清晰地呈现出大数据驱动的研究在管理学领域的研究态势和创新脉络;剖析国内学者与国际领域主流关注的焦点与异同;揭示出大数据驱动的管理与决策方向上研究热点及其演化趋势,以及未来值得深入研究的一些科学问题.     

基于文献计量的大数据管理决策研究热点分析北大核心CSCDCSSCI

传统的模型驱动的决策范式正在演变成大数据驱动的决策新范式,国家自然科学基金委员会于2015年启动了“大数据驱动的管理与决策研究”重大研究计划,以推动我国管理学领域大数据的基础研究.本文以重大研究计划资助的114个项目的文本信息,及2012年~2019年在51种管理类重要国际期刊上发表的近6000篇论文为基础,利用文本挖掘与文献计量方法,从词粒度和主题粒度展开比较分析,并对部分以大数据作为关键词的文献按研究方向进行分类分析.对比分析结果清晰地呈现出大数据驱动的研究在管理学领域的研究态势和创新脉络;剖析国内学者与国际领域主流关注的焦点与异同;揭示出大数据驱动的管理与决策方向上研究热点及其演化趋势,以及未来值得深入研究的一些科学问题.     

对我国管理学研究最有影响的国内学术著作——基于CSSCI的分析

统计了南京大学中文社会科学引文索引(CSSCI 2000～2007)的数据,选取管理学论文引用的国内学术著作,选出对管理学领域最有学术影响的77种国内学术著作.简要介绍这些著作的内容,并结合来源文献的主题对这些著作的被引情况进行分析,以反映这些著作在管理学领域的影响.     

基于文献计量的我国政府引导基金研究现状和主题分析

为更好地了解我国政府引导基金的研究现状和发展态势,文章以中国知网和万方数据库中收录的948篇政府引导基金研究论文为数据基础,运用文献计量方法对其研究趋势、研究团队和研究主题进行分析。通过剖析政府引导基金相关从业人员和学术研究人员开展合作研究的情况,以及两者关注主题的差异,发现我国在开展政府引导基金研究方面存在学术研究和实践需求不完全匹配,整体研究水平仍待进一步提高的问题。     

新中国70年工商管理学科科学化历程回顾与展望

针对工商管理学科实践性、应用性强的特点,本文侧重于学科建设的学术研究领域,选择科学化角度总结新中国成立以来工商管理学科的科学化进展,分析中国计划经济时期企业管理科学化实践,从计划经济向市场经济体制转型过程中工商管理学科的形成与发展,以及20世纪中后期以来工商管理学科在学术队伍建设、中国情境的理论研究和国际化等多方面的快速进步,重点剖析了国家自然科学基金对工商管理学科科学化的促进与引领作用。可以清晰地发现,科学化是新中国70年工商管理学科快速发展的主要路径。面向未来,中国工商管理学科所面临的内外部环境发生很大变化,工商管理学科的重要性越来越突出,工商管理学科要在理论与实践相互促进的过程中发展,要在继续重视微观研究的基础上关注宏观问题,更好地服务国家战略需求和企业发展需要,不断提升工商管理学科的科学性,让工商管理成为负责任的科学,依据科学的力量服务社会。     

中国住户调查数据收入变量的比较

随着对中国社会经济相关问题的关注程度日益提高,相应的住户调查数据也在逐渐增多,并且各套数据在调查方式、覆盖目标人群,甚至研究主题设计上都具有较强的相似性。本文对研究中常用的几套中国住户调查数据在样本人群结构偏差、消费与收入之间的关联性以及收入分布与收入不均等程度解释因素的差异性进行了比较。研究发现各数据都存在一定程度的人口结构偏差,但这种偏差对于收入水平和收入不均等程度的影响不明显;在一些数据中,消费和收入之间的关联性比较弱,并且与变量的度量误差对回归结果的影响具有相似性;不同数据来源的对数方差难以从变量结构特征和系数特征中得到解释。     

我国管理科学与工程学科研究热点及演化趋势

揭示学科研究热点及主题演化趋势一直是学术界关注焦点.本研究以2010年～2019年发表在46份代表性期刊上的12 920篇论文为基础数据，利用论文作者关键词探讨了我国管理科学与工程学科的研究进展和发展趋势.研究结果表明：一是我国管理科学与工程学科的研究热点发生了显著的变化；二是我国管理科学与工程学科的研究热点充分考虑了中国的实际情景，并且与全球学科整体的发展前沿基本保持一致；三是我国管理科学与工程学科在核心研究主题保持稳定扩张，在新的研究主题有较大转变；四是我国管理科学与工程各子领域的研究热点主要集中在中国、定价、动态规划、社会网络、供应链管理等主题.     

Forty years of European Management Journal: A bibliometric overview

The European Management Journal (EMJ) is a renowned peer-reviewed journal of international reputation in the fields of business and management research since 1982. EMJ publishes original and high-quality conceptual, empirical, and review research papers that contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge and its application in the field. Until the time of this overview, 2164 papers (including 2004 articles, 96 editorials, 28 conference papers, 27 notes, and 3 short surveys) have been published in the journal between 1982 and 2020. We analyzed all these articles using bibliometric techniques to examine the impact of the journal’s publications, most productive and influential authors, and their contributions in the field of business and management research. Co-authorship among the top authors, co-occurrences of the topics, co-citations of the journals, bibliographic coupling of the authors, affiliating institutes, and countries were analyzed by applying network analysis techniques using VOSviewer software. The advancement of research in the field of management during the last decade is also critically discussed in order to understand recent developments in the field of business and management research.     

Response Rates in Business and Management Research: An Overview of Current Practice and Suggestions for Future Direction

This paper examines response rates (RR) in published research in business and management journals. Its aim is to evaluate the efficacy of RR‐enhancing strategies, explore differences in RR between sub‐disciplines and geographical regions, provide a critical appraisal of RR in business and management research, and offer guidelines for assessing and improving RR in business and management research. Data are analysed from 1093 survey‐based papers published between 2009 and 2013 in a representative sample of business and management journals. The results of the study are discussed, and their implications for RR in business and management research are provided.     

Knowledge dissemination in operations management: Published perceptions versus academic reality

The channels for knowledge generation and dissemination in the business disciplines are many: presenting research at conferences, writing books, distributing working papers, offering insights in society newsletters, giving invited talks, publishing studies in academic journals, and many other venues, including even blogs and perhaps Facebook^®. But the most important venue is probably published research in “top-level” academic journals. In the discipline of Operations Management, many studies and lists have been published that attempt to determine which of these journals are supposedly the “top” according to either citation analyses, the opinion of recognized experts, author affiliations, bibliometric studies, and other approaches. These lists may then, in turn, be used in different degrees to evaluate research. However, what really counts is what the academic institutions actually use for guidance in evaluating faculty research. Based on a new source of ranking data from AACSB-accredited schools, we compare published journal-ranking studies against that of academe to determine the degree to which the studies reflect academic “reality”. We present rankings of OM journals based on this new source of data and on an aggregate of the stream of published studies, and evaluate their consistency.     

Measuring Research Performance in Business and Management Studies in the United Kingdom: The 1992 Research Assessment Exercise*

This paper presents the results of a statistical analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE92) for the 85 business and management departments in UK institutions of higher education. The aims of the paper are, first, to construct a set of quantitative indicators of research outputs and inputs which can be used by individual departments for comparative purposes and second, to investigate the extent to which variations between departments in the research rating obtained in the RAE92 can be explained by these indicators of research outputs and inputs. One of the main findings is that around 80 per cent of the variation in the research rating obtained by business and management departments are accurately predicted by a regression model that contains only a small number of regressors. These include: size of department, articles in refereed academic journals, research students and research income.     

Relationships among the academic business disciplines: a multi-method citation analysis

A great number of papers have been published that compare the quality or impact of academic journals. This article seeks to broaden the debate on journal evaluation by showing how top journals in various academic business disciplines, as defined by the Financial Times list of top research outlets, relate to one other. Using large-scale sociometric analyses on about 140,000 citations we found that the integration of the citation network has increased over time. Moreover, the information flow from Finance and Economics to Management has become stronger and, within Management, a polarization between information generators and users has taken place. We also found that most business academics published in distinct and mostly non-overlapping disciplines. The only exceptions were Finance and Economics as well as Strategic Management and OB/HR. Surprisingly, we also found that the general business journals, which could be assumed to be cited by most other journals across the management disciplines, are not central to the entire field. For instance, they are not complementary at all to Finance and Economics. Instead, Operations Research (OR) and Management Information Systems journals occupy the central space on the perceptual map. This indicates that these disciplines (and OR in particular) are complementary with Management and with Finance and Economics.     

Knowledge generation and governance in management research

We consider how historical developments led to an emphasis on positivistic research approaches in business schools, and we explain how alternative assumptions could be the basis for academic management knowledge. We then discuss the governance structures journals use to determine which articles to publish and how reviewer motivations may influence these processes. Given this academic research and publishing context, we argue that it is not surprising that management research relevant for management practice receives little support. We propose changes to encourage more innovative research that offers stronger ties between management research and practice.     

基于管理类国际权威期刊的中国管理科学与工程学科研究现状分析

基于管理科学与工程学科2010~2019年发表在46份国际权威期刊上的13391篇论文数据,利用文献计量学分析方法,从文献发表记录和基金资助文献两个维度对管理科学与工程学科19个领域的研究现状进行分析。研究结果表明:近10年来,管理科学与工程学科的研究热点主要集中在“博弈论”“创新”“定价”“项目管理”“动态规划”和“供应链管理”等方向。美国、中国、英国、加拿大、德国的发文量排名前5位。在发文量最多的5个国家中,中国国家自然科学基金委员会资助的论文数量排名第一位,且信息系统与管理、管理系统工程是获得资助最多的领域。此外,在国家自然科学基金资助项目中,“供应链”是最热门的主题,“交通管理”和“优化”等主题受到较大关注。在中国大陆机构中,香港城市大学、香港科技大学、香港理工大学、香港中文大学和清华大学的发文量位居前5位。     

Journal Rankings in Business and Management and the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK

The public availability of detailed data from the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK allows an analysis of the publications cited in submissions to the Business and Management panel. Eighty per cent of the 9,942 publications submitted were journal articles. Submissions to the RAE can be scored in terms of the number of citations they make to journals that appear on various lists, such as the Financial Times list. The concentration of articles in a minority of journals, with 50% of all citations to just 126 journals, means that a core list of business and management journals can be compiled. The core list presented contains 562 journals out of the 1582 journal titles that were cited in Business and Management submissions. It includes all journals with more than two citations overall at least one citation in a 5^*, 5 or 4 rated submission. It also includes all journals cited in the RAE from Starbuck's ranked lists of journals and the Financial Times list.     

Aiming for Excellence: Reflections on the Advanced Institute of Management Research and its Elite

In 2002, the UK government launched the Advanced Institute of Management Research, a major initiative intended to raise the quality of research in business schools. Rather than offering research grants in open competition, AIM deliberately funded a select few leading lights in management. Insufficient allowance was made for the Research Assessment Exercise, which measured research excellence in terms of papers published in top journals. The AIM's elite exploited its existing publishing advantage, and AIM provided further resources to aid their efforts. The AIM recruited willing acolytes to work with its elite in fashioning the sort of papers required by the top journals of management – positive papers, consensual and endlessly citable. Analysis of the publishing patterns of AIM senior fellows reveals research cliques and publication silos rather than a network organization. Much as the elite saw its AIM funding as recognition of its own excellence, so AIM itself came to be seen as acknowledgement of the excellence of management research as a whole. That AIM existed to raise management research from intellectual poverty was forgotten. The AIM was wound up in 2012, having spent £30 million, most of it on the subject's elite. The problems that beset management research remain.