Power, Powerlessness, and Journal Ranking Lists: The Marginalization of Fields of Practice

Abstract

This essay contributes a new perspective to debates about journal ranking lists and their effects on the practice of scholarship. Our argument is grounded in practice theory and draws on Bourdieu's concept of field. We examine the effect of metrics, targets and rankings on Human Resource Development (HRD), a conjunctive field associated with the Management Learning and Education (MLE) field. We examine the ways in which the boundaries of the MLE field are shaped by journal ranking lists and how, irrespective of seniority in the field, scholars simultaneously experience both power and powerlessness as a result of journal ranking processes. We contribute a new perspective on issues of academic practice with consequences for specialized areas of scholarship. We conclude by proposing practical interventions that senior scholars and journal editors can undertake to challenge the undesirable effects of ranking systems and encourage scholarly diversity.

Where is the visible commitment to gender in the advertised content of UK management degree programmes?

“…Relatively small changes of emphasis in the self-assessment templates for institutions putting themselves forward for accreditation (and re-accreditation) that show how equality and inclusivity are reflected in the curriculum would, we suggest, result in a greater visible signal to prospective students of management of the centrality of gender in management practice. Institutional and individual practices can be influenced by external actors, as has been obvious with regard to journal ranking lists (Anderson et al , 2020). Although these lists are contested their acknowledged influence on academic practice nevertheless points to the potential that accreditation bodies such as AACSB, EQUIS and AMBA to perform a form of soft governance (Burchell et al , 2015) to the curricular highlighting of gender issues.…”

Celebrating Human Resource Development Review’s 20 Years of Growth

“…Almost a decade on, I am cynical of ranking lists (Anderson et al, 2021). I recognize that they are seen as “coin of the realm,” but what often (although not always!)…”

Future‐proofing IJMR as a leading management journal: Reach, relevance and reputation

“…These measures were seen to be needed at a time of growing numbers and types of journals on offer. These rankings have since been co‐opted by universities to make decisions on hiring and promotions, with profound implications for academic careers and the wider direction of research (Anderson et al., 2021; Callahan, 2018). The impact of Open Access will be particularly marked for early career scholars, or scholars from lower‐ranking universities, since Open Access shifts the burden of funding from university libraries to individual academics, with the latter being expected to pay the fee to publish their paper.…”