Editorial

Self Cite

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.Cameron, W.B. (1969, p. 12) Post-graduate programmes are the primary locus where research is produced in Brazil. These programmes have historically contributed to the advancement of knowledge and the training of highly skilled researchers. According to data from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), collected on their platform Geocapes [1], the fields of Administration, Accounting, and Tourism conferred a total of 3,431 doctoral and 8,799 master's degrees in academic programmes between 2017 and 2022. Regarding scientific production, researchers, faculty and students from these programmes have published roughly 50,000 articles in scholarly journals in the same period (Dados Abertos Capes [2]).Although these outcomes cover the first and second missions of the university system (teaching and research), there is a missing link between these activities and their practical application for society. Bridging this gap would enhance the relevance and impact of postgraduate programmes, ensuring that research outcomes are effectively translated into real-world solutions and innovations. Hence, this editorial discusses the societal impact of post-graduate programmes, focusing on the field of Business and Management (B&M). Post-graduate evaluation in BrazilIn an institutionalised format, post-graduate programmes in Brazil date back to the 1960s. Nevertheless, the post-graduate assessment system in Brazil was formed only in 1976, aiming to cultivate and establish high-quality standards for graduate programmes and scientific research within the nation. The first evaluation of post-graduate programmes carried out by peers, with the work of committees of consultants, took place in 1978, establishing the practice of peer evaluation as a fundamental component of the whole evaluation system (Marques, Veiga, & Borges, 2020).Since its creation, the post-graduate evaluation process has undergone multiple revisions to enhance the evaluation procedures. In 1996-1997, CAPES sought the assistance of 18 foreign specialists to improve its evaluation system by obtaining recommendations for modifications. The uncovered challenges included local pressures from the scientific community, which led to inflated assessment marks. These facts ultimately showed that the system could no longer effectively differentiate between different levels of performance

Section: The Societal Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Post-graduate programmes and their societal impact: reflections on the business and management field in Brazil

Sandes-Guimarães,

Hourneaux

2024

Self Cite

“…In the first (Sandes-Guimarães & Hourneaux Junior, 2020), we presented the main concepts and ideas that define research impact. In the second (Hourneaux Junior & Sandes-Guimarães, 2020), we discussed the most important models and frameworks for assessing research impact in the literature.…”

Section: Research Impact – How To Deal With It? Editorial Impact Series Partmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As we showed in the last editorial (Hourneaux Junior & Sandes-Guimarães, 2020), research impact is commonly assessed in two forms, considering either the research process or the research performance. We will not dive into each one’s specificities, as we explained before.…”

Section: Research Impact – How To Deal With It? Editorial Impact Series Partmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial

Sandes-Guimarães

Hourneaux

2021

Self Cite

This publication is the last part of a three-editorial series about research impact. In the first (Sandes-Guimarães & Hourneaux Junior, 2020), we presented the main concepts and ideas that define research impact. In the second (Hourneaux Junior & Sandes-Guimarães, 2020), we discussed the most important models and frameworks for assessing research impact in the literature.If these two challengesidentifying and measuringare not quite enough, another task presents itself to researchers, universities and society in general. It is related to the numerous constraints and difficulties can be found in the literature regarding the research impact assessment.In this editorial, we aim to present the most critical (and controversial) problems and critics in the current debate on research impact and discuss some initiatives and possible solutions to those problems. Main problems and critics on research impactDespite its importance and extensive knowledge, literature also presents diverse problems and some criticism regarding research impact. Some of these issues are discussed next.Causality/attribution The attribution and causality issues are repeatedly highlighted in the research impact literature as one of the main limitations of impact assessment. Causality refers to the challenge in attributing impacts to a specific source or cause. Attribution means the proportion of influence or impact that can be attributed to efforts derived from research projects, researchers or organisations (Derrick & Samuel, 2016;Morgan Jones, Manville, & Chataway, 2017).Using a linear and unidirectional logic model, from inputs to impacts, one can have the impression that the research is solely responsible for impacting that group or community directly and measurably (Edwards & Meagher, 2020). However, it has been recognised that the path between scientific research and its impact is a complex and non-linear process, including several interactions among researchers, users and stakeholders and interconnections among research activities and their outcomes (Penfield, Baker, Scoble, & Wykes, 2014; Riley et al., 2018). In this sense, the impact or the perceived change derives

Editorial: Advice for management researchers on discussing the implications of an article

Cordeiro

Parente²

2022

Writing the Discussion section of an academic article is a challenge for most scholars, especially beginners. Upon reaching this research stage, authors often run out of steam, facing the Discussion as an obligation rather than a chance of strengthening their contribution and relevance (Geletkanycz and Tepper, 2012). Consequently, it looks more like a summary of the results than a forum in which authors address the "so what?" question and explain in-depth the implications of their manuscripthow it advances knowledge and practice related to a theme.We call the authors' attention to the difference between the presentation of the resultsa section in which they describe what the data showand the discussion of the results and their implicationswhich encompasses a deep and reflective text that enlightens the effects/ utility of the research for theory and practice. In contrast to the Results section, Discussion "explains why the results are meaningful in relation to previous, related work and the research question that was explored [. . .] it deals with the claims that might be made, especially new knowledge claims" (Swales and Feak, 2012, pp. 309, 365).Every top-tier journal requires a discussion of the implications, which can be presented within several sections, such as the Discussion of the results, Discussion, Implications, Conclusion/Final remarks and so on. The term used is just a detail of journals' or authors' style. Most important is to be aware that any complete discussion is constituted of several elements (e.g. theoretical/practical implications, study limitations and future research) and that the discussion of the implications is indispensable (Geletkanycz and Tepper, 2012). In this sense, research implication is a necessary condition for a fruitful discussion. Building a discussion without thinking about how the results may generate implications for different domains can be counterproductive. However, in our experience as associate editors of the RAUSP Management Journal, we have noticed that authors have difficulty showing how the research implications articulate with the study's results and research domain.This editorial offers suggestions to help authors build a more critical and reflective discussion of implications. Our focus is on theoretical, practical and social implications, mandatory for manuscripts submitted to RAUSP Management Journal. First, we define these types of implications. Then, three articles published in RAUSP Management Journal are presented as examples of insightful discussions. We finish by offering bits of advice for building substantial discussions and delivering guiding questions that can help authors to gauge whether the crucial elements of the discussion have been covered.