No abstract

This article constructs an alternative analytic lens by which to consider the “everyone wins” conclusions drawn within most workplace spirituality (WPS) research. The article offers a critical 2 × 2 matrix that makes visible two potentially negative organizational dimensions of WPS: control and instrumentality. The article investigates into the four quadrants of WPS: seduction, evangelization, manipulation, and subjugation, through practical examples. It concludes with implications for the workplace and offers an agenda for future research.

Although the volume of business and management education (BME) research has expanded substantially, concerns remain about the field's legitimacy and its ability to attract new and dedicated scholars. An obstacle that may impede field development is lack of knowledge about influential works and authors to frame topical areas of inquiry and future research questions. We used citation analysis to track the development of BME research by uncovering 100 highly cited articles that revolve primarily around four research topical areas: (a) Entrepreneurship Education, (b) Distance Education/Online Teaching and Learning, (c) Business Student Ethics, and (d) Characteristics/Critiques of Business Schools. We then used legitimation code theory to categorize these articles on the basis of richness of knowledge ideas (Knowledge Code), the reputation of scholars (Knower Code), the combination of knowledge

Previous studies of author productivity in business and management education (BME) research have focused on single disciplinary areas, and even single journals. This study is the first to examine the productivity of BME scholars across multiple disciplinary areas (i.e., accounting, economics, finance, information systems, management, marketing, and operations/supply chain management). We analyzed a pool of 17 BME journals with the highest hg‐index, by including the top three journals in the accounting and information systems areas, the top two journals in each of the other disciplinary areas, and an interdisciplinary BME journal. This examination covered a 10‐year period (2005‐2014), 4,464 articles and 9,617 article co‐authors. We identified 7,209 unique authors in this pool and ranked their productivity to create a “Key Authors” list. Each of the top 99 authors had five or more articles in our database. Our findings indicate the potential for cross‐disciplinary dissemination of research ideas and opportunities for scholars to enhance their research profile, because even a small increase in productivity can lead to substantial movement in the BME rankings of authors.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

While the scholarship of teaching and learning literature has made great advances in our understanding of how learning might best occur, the syllabus as a teaching and learning tool appears to have been almost completely left out of the developmental conversation. Overwhelmingly, extant literature about syllabi and their use focuses on operational course norms-what to include, policies to be delineated, structural aspects to be covered. However, the student development literature and in particular, the Generation Y age cohort literature, indicates that information processing norms may increasingly degrade students' ability to use course syllabi for their intended purpose. In this article, we explore how and why the role of a course syllabus has changed, particularly in the management education realm, using the andragogy literature to frame the discussion. Employing four analytic frames from the current syllabus development literaturesyllabus as contract, as power, as communication or signaling device, and as collaboration-we offer current and andragogically revised excerpts from our own syllabi as part of the conversation.

Any new field of inquiry struggles with issues such as domain uniqueness, research methodologies, construct definition and operationalization, and foundational literature identification. Following Hambrick's (1990) seminal study of strategic management, we similarly examine the management, spirituality, and religion (MSR) field. Using Hambrick's methodology for citation analysis and a dataset of the founding decade of MSR empirical articles, we offer a guide for those doing MSR research. Study outcomes include the 50 most cited MSR works, the 50 most cited journals that MSR scholars use as the foundation of their research, and a theme analysis of the 50 foundational works. Our goals are threefold: to list the seminal works that should inform the framing of future work, to list a variety of possible MSR journal scholarship inspirations and outlets, and to empirically demonstrate current and past MSR research topics so new and experienced MSR scholars can move beyond extant work.

Despite calls for and advances in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) over the years, research-intensive institutions have a persistent reputation as preferring and demanding Boyer's "scholarship of discovery" at the expense of SOTL work. In this article, we challenge the dominant narrative that research-focused institutions-the Carnegie "R1"and "R2"-do not engage in or value SOTL research in business and management education (BME). In a previous empirical study, we found evidence that a surprising proportion of R1 and R2 schools are already creating and disseminating innovative and impactful BME work. Using diffusion of innovations theory, we argue that those institutions can provide leadership due to their BME work, and examine what this might mean in terms of the prospects for diffusion of BME research among all research-intensive institutions. Due to