تبادل علمی دانش در مدیریت عملیات

A number of studies have investigated the quality of journals in Operations Management. This research steps back from these studies and investigates the exchange of ideas within Operations Management journals and between other management disciplines (Management, Marketing, and Finance) during the last decade (1998–2007). Journal citation metrics provide a measure for the exchange of scholarly ideas. Operations Management (OM) journals show a willingness to cross-pollinate ideas with other management disciplines. But, they also tend to have a higher level of self citations and lower level of within discipline citation exchanges when compared to other management disciplines. As a result, Operations Management journals may reflect methodological silos in the field that could potentially dampen scholarly exchange. In general, increasing the diversity of scholarly exchanges within Operations Management, and conducting more cross-disciplinary research with other management disciples should improve the scholarly development of Operations Management.

Scholarly progress can be defined as the advancement or exchange of ideas (adapted from wordnet.princeton.edu). Scholarship involves the progressive creation and exchange of knowledge that cumulates over time. Much of our current knowledge has been developed from the Shoulders of Giants from the past (Merton, 1965). That is, “science is by and large cumulative; it builds on what has gone on before” (Bird, 1998, p. 159). Sarton notes “the acquisition and systemization of positive knowledge are the only human activities which are truly cumulative and progressive” (Sarton, 1936). Similarly, scholarship in Operations Management should also be progressive and cumulate over time. However, a narrow disciplinary focus can hinder the development of a field of study. Scholars from different communities should cross-pollinate and learn from one another by exchanging ideas. Often real world problems that managers face do not belong to a single discipline, but are rather inter-disciplinary in nature (Van de Ven, 2007). Management scholars may need to transcend disciplinary boundaries when investigating real world phenomena. The field of Operations Management should not only influence, but also be influenced by other management disciplines. Research can “lock quickly into a single research discipline, paradigm or theory and ignore the developments and insights from other fields that could shed light on the research issue on which they are focusing” (Merchant et al., 2003, p. 251). As a result, Operations Management scholars should actively participate in an ecosystem of exchanging ideas with other management disciplines to enhance learning and create knowledge. This study investigates the exchange of ideas within Operations Management, and between Operations Management and other management disciplines. Journal citation data provides the basis for measuring the exchange of scholarly ideas. Measuring scholarly activity can be a daunting task. The pioneering work of Price (1963) provides one of the first attempts to quantitatively measure scholarly activity. Early measures focused on simple metrics like journal article or publication counts (Vastag and Montabon, 2002). However, these measures only consider the volume of research activity and did not consider the exchange of scholarly ideas. Researchers have argued that cutting edge science increasingly involves collaboration across disciplinary boundaries (Rinia et al., 2002). In spite of this, relatively few empirical studies examine cross-disciplinary citation exchanges in management (Agarwal and Hoetker, 2007). This research attempts to understand citation exchanges between Operations Management and other disciplines, specifically — Management, Marketing and Finance. Citation metrics can help measure the exchange of ideas between disciplines. In particular, the Citation Proportion (CP) (Tahai and Meyer, 1999), and the Balance of Trade (BOT) (Lockett and McWilliams, 2005) can help assess the cross-citation behavior between Operations Management and other management disciplines. These metrics helps understand how Operations Management participates in the larger ecosystem of exchanging ideas with other management disciplines. In addition, other metrics based on self citations (journals citing their own journal articles) and within discipline exchange (journals citing journals within the same discipline) help understand the amount of intra- , inter- and self citations that occur among the disciplines. The importance of exchanging scholarly ideas via journals cannot be overstated. Journals provide one of the principle mediums for communicating, diffusing, and archiving scholarly ideas. Cole and Cole (1973, p. 16) view journal communication as “the nervous system of science — the system that receives and transmits stimuli to its various parts.” The effectiveness of journals not only facilitates scholarly exchanges, but also helps create a body of knowledge over time. Understanding journal communication can provide insights into the development of Operations Management, and how Operations Management communicates with other management disciplines. Journal citations formally document scholarly communication. “A citation occurs between journals A and B when an article in A references an article that was published in B. Journal A is called the citing journal while B is referred to as the cited journal” (Nerur et al., 2005, p. 71). When journal A cites journal B, journal A essentially imports knowledge from journal B while Journal B exports knowledge to Journal A (Lockett and McWilliams, 2005). Consistent with Lockett and McWilliams (2005), this research uses citation exchanges between journals to measure the scholarly development in a discipline. Citations metrics have been commonly used to study business journals in disciplines such as Marketing (Guidry et al., 2004), Management (Agarwal and Hoetker, 2007), and Finance (Coe and Weinstock, 1984). They “provide an accurate and [a] less biased way of determining the influence of a journal by measuring its use.” (Guidry et al., 2004, p. 46). Citation metrics can serve as a measure of the exchange (Judge et al., 2007, Stephan and Levin, 1991 and McFadyen and Cannella, 2004) and progress of scholarly ideas (Martin and Irvine, 1983). Higher citation metrics indicate more scholarly exchanges and hence knowledge creation. Studying citation metrics longitudinally also gives valuable insight into the evolution and status of a discipline (Franke et al., 1990, Zinkhan et al., 1992, Lukka and Kasanen, 1996 and Baumgartner and Pieters, 2003). A longitudinal investigation can reveal trends and transitions in performance over time (Barman et al., 1991). Such an analysis shows how journals contribute to the exchange ideas, and can provide insight into how a discipline evolves. This research investigates the scholarly exchange of ideas in Operations Management journals via journal citations, and makes comparison with journals in Management, Marketing, and Finance. Although a number of disciplines could have been considered, Operations Management, Marketing, and Finance are principle functions of any business (Schroeder, 2007, Stevenson, 2007 and Jacobs and Chase, 2006). In addition, Management is germane to any business activity (Daft, 2003 and Robbins, 2003). These disciplines should be most relevant to Operations Management since decisions made in one of these disciplines typically influence or are influenced by Operations Management (Schroeder, 2007). The influence of Operations Management and other management disciplines (Management, Marketing, and Finance) is studied through the cross-citation behavior among these disciplines. Findings from this research suggest that Operations Management exhibits a higher level of cross-citation behavior with other management disciplines (when compared to Management, Finance, and Marketing). But, Operations Management also has higher rates of self citations (journals citing articles from the same journals) and lower within discipline journal citation exchanges (journals citing other journals in the same discipline). In contrast, Finance has the lowest level of self citations (among the four disciplines) and has the most within discipline citation exchanges. Finance journals tend to exchange ideas with each other, while Operations Management journals tend not to exchange with one another. In general, relative to the other disciplines, Operations Management appears more willing to communicate with journals outside its discipline but less willing to communicate with journals inside its discipline. Increasing cross communications within Operations Management journals holds the potential to increase scholarly development.

A number of studies have identified the leading journals in Operations Management (Agarwal, 2002, Barman et al., 2001, Gorman and Kanet, 2005 and Malhotra and Grover, 1998). This research steps back from these studies and looks at the field of Operations Management as a whole and how it participates in the ecosystem of ideas with other management disciplines. Scholars in business schools engage in professional science (Van de Ven, 2007) to advance knowledge by investigating the real world problems faced by managers ( Van de Ven, 2007 and Simon, 1976). Often, these problems do not belong to a single discipline but are rather inter-disciplinary in nature. Understanding these problems requires a cross-disciplinary research agenda with ‘common interests’ between disciplines. Problems related to Operations Management frequently have a common interest with Marketing, Finance, and Management ( Schroeder, 2007, Stevenson, 2007, Jacobs and Chase, 2006 and Daft, 2003). A citation analysis can help inform how disciplines create knowledge and share ideas with one another. This study investigates two different issues: First, how does Operations Management exchange citations with other Management disciplines? Second, what is the proportion of citation exchanges both within and between disciplines? The analyses reveal that although Operations Management shows a willingness to exchange ideas across disciplines, it shows little willingness to exchange ideas within the discipline. In contrast, Finance shows a willingness to exchange ideas within the discipline, but has little willingness exchange ideas between disciplines. Some scholars have argued that journal diversity or the extent that a journal publishes articles on a wide variety of topics and methods leads to better overall outcomes (Tellis et al., 1999). Diversity plays an essential role in Operations Management since problems encountered in this discipline traverse social, behavioral, and technical issues. However, Operations Management tends to divide itself into subfields of study (e.g. analytical vs. empirical) which may have deleterious effects of the development of a body of knowledge. The self citation measures, reflect this division where Operations Management journals have the highest aggregate self citation rate of 57.4%. Creating epistemological silos within Operations Management can break down scholarly communication and knowledge creation. Incorporating more methodologies in Operations Management can increase diversity. In contrast, Finance scholars have common understanding of the importance of diverse methods and thus have the highest percentage of within discipline exchanges (see Table 6). In general, a more pluralistic approach to research methodologies would better enable Operations Management scholars to develop a more rigorous and relevant body of knowledge (Van de Ven, 2007). Other management disciplines often employ a broader range of methodologies. Finance, for example, routinely employs case study, analytical, cross-sectional, and experimental methodologies. However, only in few instances has Operations Management made use of case study (e.g. Wu and Choi, 2005) or experimental (e.g. Wu and Katok, 2006, Croson and Donohue, 2003 and Schultz et al., 1999) methodologies. Swink (2009) also notes the different assumptions made by analytical and empirical researches that can lead to a breakdown in communication. However, different methodologies can help inform each other and triangulate the limitations inherent in a particular methodological perspective. In general, broader use of diverse methodologies and deeper exchanges between methodological perspectives can increase the quality of scholarship in Operations Management. This study uses the Citation Proportion (Tahai and Meyer, 1999) to measure the impact of cross-citations behavior between disciplines. The CP shows a higher level of isolation between Operations Management and Finance, but this diminishes somewhat over time. One may wonder why Finance and Operations Management do not exchanging ideas more frequently given their common interests? In practice, Finance and Operations Management have significant implications for one another. For example, capital budgeting decisions effect capacity expansion decisions, currency fluctuations can impact global operations, and process improvements can influence a host of financial metrics. Operations Management scholars should engage Finance along with other management disciplines. This may involve co-production of knowledge with scholars from other disciplines by jointly engaging in research projects together. Chen et al. (2005) provide an example of the benefits of joint research with Finance colleagues. The BOT of trade metric further emphasizes the need for co-production of knowledge with other management disciplines. Although Operations Management fares better than most, all the disciplines tend to function in silos and do not share too many ideas with one another. Special issues in these disciplines can facilitate cross-disciplinary work. Research shows that articles published in special issues tend to promote cutting edge research that encourages cross-pollination of ideas across disciplines (Conlon et al., 2006). Broader and deeper exchanges with one another could help foster an ecosystem among the disciplines that better addresses relevant problems faced by practitioners. Managers rarely face problems that can be solved solely from one functional perspective — however it appears that we do not conduct research this way. In addition, the data analyses indicate that Operations Management tends to cite other disciplines more than it is cited. That is, Operations Management is informed by other disciplines more than it is informing other disciplines. This suggests opportunities to further influence other disciplines. Possibly, researchers could engage one another on multi-disciplinary research projects. Engaging scholars through common research forums might be one way to help inform others of the impact of Operations Management on their fields of expertise. An extension of this study would be to go beyond management disciplines and investigate the exchange of knowledge among Operations Management and other core disciplines such as economics, psychology, and sociology. Perhaps Operations Management principally imports ideas from these core disciplines and does little exporting. Should Operations Management solely rely on the core disciplines to develop theories, or can it benefit from developing theories in Operations Management that the core disciplines do not address?