Homophily in Human Resource Management Publishing

Abstract

Existing theory suggests that social networks form a major factor in individual and team performance, including in academic collaborative research. However, there is currently a lack of a theoretical framework to explain the social network related factors that influence publication processes and decisions. We address this gap by adopting a theory‐building perspective, analysing a large data set on the impact of social networks. Using a case of one leading journal (Human Resource Management), we collected data on 10 years of publication, exploring 327 papers, written by 667 authors, which represent 839 ties. Examining individual demographic and institutional characteristics, we developed and tested a set of hypotheses, providing a framework for shaping and guiding future academic research collaborations. Our findings suggest that as albeit the intention, diverse collaboration is still at a low level. This contribution adds to the literature on understanding the factors influencing the type of collaborations that lead to publications in leading journals.

Is Global Management Knowledge on the Way to Impoverishment?

“…There is evidence to suggest that, in international business, it is usually the American interests that are presented as global issues, issues in need of understanding, solutions, and research (Joy and Poonamallee 2013). Relatedly, arguments were made that in academia this phenomenon is mirrored by the processes of intellectual hegemony of Anglo-American core (Barnes et al 2017), whose agents treat research as a commodity. As some have suggested, the periphery is positioned to consume rather than produce academic work (Wasserman and Richards 2015).…”

“…This could be viewed as a major issue because the flourishing of global management knowledge (MK) requires heterogeneity of editorial boards. Such diversity is an important precondition because the background likeness of academic gatekeepers can restrict the scope of created knowledge (Barnes et al 2017). The intellectual similarity of editors and editorial board members across the field may plausibly narrow the range of research paradigms, philosophies and topics that are welcome, and dictate what is (and what is not) original and significant contribution to knowledge.…”

“…With reference to top-tier management journals, the editorial preferences and expectations, together with the referees' interpretations and judgements, appear to be determined by the Anglo-American academic culture and ideology (Bengtsson et al 1997). As a result, the published MK is predominantly generated by authors from the elite pro-American schools and those of Anglo-Saxon origin (Vogel et al 2017), while differing voices from the periphery remain unheard (Barnes et al 2017).…”

“…Capitalism, expansionist in its nature, thrives on a search for new markets and permeates modern scholarship (Holtz et al 2017). In this connection, Barnes et al (2017) drew attention that the US academic establishment spreads its hegemony into non-Anglophone world regions leading to mimicry of the MK produced in the Anglo-American core (Ibarra-Colado 2006). As Honig et al (2018) accentuated, "During the past 20 years, emerging economies in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America began to imitate the U.S. brand management research model" (p. 429).…”

“…This article seeks to synthesise three fields of inquirymanagement studies, linguistics and cognitive psychologyto explore an arguably emerging phenomenon of global management knowledge (MK) impoverishment. The argument developed throughout this article builds on a question posed by Barnes et al (2017) in respect of to what extent published MK is universal and to what extent it is culturally embedded in Western thinking and theorising. The two organising assumptions are, first, that a richer and more comprehensive global MK can be attained (Özbilgin accuracy of concepts), the submission stands a reasonable chance to be accepted in a highimpact outlet (Corley and Gioia 2011).…”