|
1. What inspired you to pursue a career in academia, particularly in international business?
I have always wanted to work internationally, so after the practical side, the academic: When I joined Thames Polytechnic/University of Greenwich as an SL in International Marketing & Management, and Head of the Department of Marketing, it was after 12 years in IB at Unilever, where I was their first female management trainee / line manager, Bowater Europe [co-opted to the Board to look after international marketing and branding], and four years as policy adviser for a senior industry group member of the Economic and Social Committee in Brussels when the UK joined in 1973. Even as a student, after my BSc in Economics I switched to do two international Masters, a Masters in International Public Administration at Tilburg University, and thereafter a further international Masters in Turin studying East-West European economics, history and law. I also spent some time at the UN in Geneva as a board member of the International Student Movement for the UN. Hence, when I was offered this university career in international marketing / IB, I took it, and when Michael Z Brooke asked me to join AIB, I did. I have found that my academic work and interaction with students and colleagues has benefitted greatly from the experience, and particularly the insights, gained from working in the “real world” – though it has sometimes also led me to be dissatisfied with the narrower focus and insensitivity to practical issues of some academic work –something which happily is much less so now than 40 years ago. 2. Contributions to IB My research, which often was innovative, has focussed on three areas, starting with cross-cultural differences. I did a first ever study of Hofstede’s values for 8 CEE countries, with an EU grant, dubbed EVE: Evolving Values in Europe and a study of the impact of cultural differences when building the Channel Tunnel (the TransManche Link papers). My next focus was on emerging markets, looking at the factors mostly cultural and economic, that affected how they functioned and how they interacted with international business. This work, often in collaboration with Chong Ju Choi, while largely conceptual showed the strength of cross-disciplinary thinking bringing in economics, social sciences, ethics and legal studies, and starting from a recognition of current issues that were arising in these international markets and business areas. Later my interest in the softer values affecting international business increased and I made contributions in such areas as knowledge intensive institutions, tacit knowledge, especially in global leadership and global governance, international HR, etc. My wide-ranging interests brought me into contact with academics from a variety of disciplines and from many countries and institutions. This interaction became an IB contribution from 2000 from when I initiated and guest edited 16 Special Issues of major journals, publishing on current topics within one year of the CfP when most journal submissions took more than double that time to appear – thus allowing IB to address current topics effectively. The fast turnround and high quality benefitted IB and also benefitted from our AIB network as a source of excellent authors and fast quality reviews. The last one was on VUCA challenges, with California Management Review. This guest editing has kept me abreast of academic developments in the IB area and allowed me to make a contribution to progress even at the age of > 80. 3. One sentence academic legacy: I have shown that an international focus has many dimensions, in theory and in practice, allowing me to leave a decent corpus of IB publications from cultural, ethical and economic perspectives, to know a large group of both colleagues and students whom I mentored towards making deserved progress, to continue to use my organisational capability and to build a beautiful network of friends. 4. AIB Chapter contributions
5. Stay actively involved AIB UKI is the most dynamic and supportive AIB chapter I know. I enjoyed being a member of the board in those early days when Stephen Young was trying to widen AIB membership to outside the traditional FDI orientation, none asked my age, and I wanted to make a contribution. Yet, neither Greenwich where I was in the 80s nor City in the 90s was an AIB core research hub. Moving to the Netherlands in 2000 to be Dean of TSM Business School moved me out of sight of AIB UKI, and AIB W. Europe did not take its place. I moved back to the UK, to Ashridge for 10 years, in 2007 – again not a core AIB venue and though I continued researching and publishing, I was under the radar physically, research area wise, and did not often present at conferences; perhaps a reason why I was never elected AIB Fellow. I have always maintained contact with many AIB colleagues and when I discovered my ability in editing Special Issues of prominent journals, I had enjoyable engagement with AIB colleagues in canvassing and provoking them to extend their influence as authors and reviewers. 6. What does the award mean to me? The current award is a totally unexpected much appreciated form of recognition, first broached with me well before my current health condition was known. I appreciate it very much and thank everyone involved in the decision and support, especially Noemi. 7. What are some lessons you hope the next generation of scholars will carry forward? What advice do you have for early-career researchers looking to make a lasting impact in international business?
Carla Millar, 2025 Interviewer: Prof Noemi Sinkovics
0 Comments
In the academic world, it is a rarity that a licentiate thesis leaves a deep mark on future research. Jan's thesis set in the Swedish quality steel sector in the era from 1966 is one staggeringly brilliant exception. Through its discovery that the market for steel did not function as conventional economic theory stipulated, the thesis became the starting point for the department's successful research on industrial networks and firms’ internationalization. Jan became an obvious central figure in the research into the functioning of markets and international business, which gradually gave Uppsala an internationally leading position in these areas.
Fame was achieved even though Jan very sparingly participated in international research conferences. He was a constant source of new approaches and made others feel that research is not only important, but could also be fun. Jan, as a mentor, researcher, and friend, was simply integral to the work that led to international reputation, and which subsequently shaped the “Uppsala School". With his thoughtful manner, soft appearance, and wisdom, he inspired those around him. He worked hard and long hours, but without apparent effort. Despite his unassuming nature, he possessed a strange power to drive research forward by posing stimulating questions rather than delivering directives. The evening walk with the dogs meant that he read our works in the light of the streetlamp. Jan was simply a star. That star has now gone out and made the sky a little darker along our days. A small consolation is that the legacy of his work will inspire generations of researchers for a long time to come. ~ Ulf Andersson The 50th AIB UKI conference at the University of Aston Business School saw you receive two certificates of recognition for your service. One from the AIB UK & Ireland Chapter for your long-standing service and one from the Women in AIB shared interest group for organizing WAIB speed mentoring sessions for five consecutive years.
What was your first AIB UKI conference you attended? What was your first impression? 2002 – where I joined the doctoral colloquium. I was very early days in my doctorate, returning to work after family time out. I had been a lecturer in entrepreneurship in the 1990s at The University of Stirling. When did you get involved with the AIB UKI chapter in a formal role? Can you tell us more about the role? I joined the AIB UK executive board as doctoral colloquium convenor 2012-2017, following on from Marian Jones and Anna Morgan Thomas who were previous DCs when a new role was created on the board early 2000s. This involved running the DC each year at the conference with in the region of 30-40 doctoral researcher attending each year. Students were allocated senior academic panelists in small groups of 3 or 4, who provided feedback. An innovation was the creation of two tracks A and B. The former is for students who have completed data collection, the latter for early stage. These provide much needed support in the IB field for PhD students outside of their host institutions and access to the academic network. It aimed to become inclusive and encourage diversity in the research field. For example we saw an increase women PhD students attending the annual conference. You became the co-opted diversity representative on the AIB UKI board in (please fill in year). What initiatives did you introduce? What inspired those initiatives? I became Equality and Diversity officer and member of the executive committee from 2018 to 24. I launched the first UKI WAIB speed mentoring event at the AIB UKI conference University of Sussex 25-27 April, 2019. I have chaired and organized the sessions each year since, and recruited and training co-chairs to support the events. These have included Rose Narooz, Noemi Sinkovics and Melanie Hasslett. Each year in the region of 20 mentors and mentees attend the event. We have a blog and special session information on the annual conference WEB. In 2018 I was chair for the Teaching in IB track and hosted a teaching café in AIB Minneapolis. In 2019 at AIB Copenhagen, I met with Daira Panina who was interest in setting up the Teaching and Education SIG, which I then joined. I incorporated the T&E SIG role as regional representative for UKI. I am very keen to support doctoral researcher and early career academics. Many of the challenges that emerged from the WAIB mentoring sessions are with regards to balancing research, teaching and administration. Teaching has a key role in developing an academic career in business schools, and the AIB T&E SIG has developed a wealth of pedagogy and teaching content to support IB educators. In 2023 at the AIB UKI conference we launched our first teaching cafes and in 2024 I chaired the first T&E Track with Stefan Zagelmeyer. As I stand down from my membership the AIB UKI, I am delighted that we have great support to continue these initiatives. When did you become a member of WAIB? Which was the first WAIB event you attended? I became a member of WAIB quite some time ago, probably when I attended my first AIB world conference in Milan in 2008, or a few years later. There was a special panel that I attended that was very interesting and innovating, raising gender related issues and career paths. I was a WAIB mentor for the first time at the Minneapolis conference in 2018. I was so impressed I liaised with the organizer, Saba Colakoglu to host a session for UKI. From the AIB UKI community, who inspired you the most? Who would you say are your role models? Being based at Strathclyde and Glasgow Universities my key role models there were Professors Stephen Young, Marian Jones, Pavlos Dimitratos and Simon Harris. I owe them a lot. Stephan and Pavlos were my PhD supervisors, Marian became my ESRC post doc mentor and Simon my longstanding career mentor. Key themes from panel of the 50th Anniversary of AIB UK & I Chapter - History and Future The Panel took place on 15 April 2023 at the 49th AIB UK & I Chapter Annual Conference at the University of Glasgow. The panel was composed of Peter Buckley (University of Leeds), Davide Castellani (University of Reading), Margaret Fletcher (University of Glasgow), Marian Jones (University of Sheffield), Marianna Marra (University of Sussex), Hinrich Voss (University of Bristol), Catherine Welch (Trinity College Dublin). The panel was organised by Frank McDonald (University of Leeds) and Heinz-Josef Tuselmann (Manchester Metropolitan University).
History of the Chapter The panel began with a reminder of the publication in 2022 of the History of the AIB UK & I Chapter (available on https://www.aib-uki.org/history.html). Marian Jones reflected on her experiences in helping to address the challenges faced by the Chapter, especially cultivating the doctoral work of the Chapter. She also referred to other challenges faced by the Chapter, including encouraging greater involvement by a wide range of scholars and of developing suitable theoretical and methodological approaches to address issues relevant to the discipline. Marian reflected on the ability of the Chapter to effectively address the need for changes it had faced, and she was confident that the Chapter would continue to rise to the key issues it now faces with the grand challenges. What are some of the grand challenges? The presentation by Hinrich Voss (see attached slides) highlighted some of the key grand challenges. These centred on a number of issues that are already evident and that are likely to grow in the coming years. This included climate change and associated issues with loss of land due to rising sea levels, and the availability and security of food and water supplies. Other key issues were the emergence of mega-cities with extremely high populations in the developing world, and high population growth in many parts of the world. These climate change and demographic factors are likely to exerting pressures for large-scale migration of people. The presentation emphasised the need to extend and develop research to enable meaningful contributions to the implications of these matters for the strategy and management of multinational enterprises and for national and international policy issues. Theories and methodologies to address the ‘grand challenges’ Peter Buckley reviewed the history of the emergence of International Business as a discipline and emphasised that it became focused on the strategy and management of the multinational enterprise. Peter illustrated how International Business developed this focus from the work of Hymer, Dunning and others. This had led to well-developed theories such as internalisation theory. These theories had been and were being refined in response to radical changes in international business environments, the rise of emerging economy multinational enterprises, and the development of a better understanding of how diversity in the people that undertake strategy and management issues in multinational enterprises affected outcomes. These changes to the foundations of the study of multinational enterprises had accelerated in recent years and we were now faced were a host of grand challenges that have significant implications for how we should develop the work of our discipline. Peter stressed that solid and robust modelling of the real world is essential to provide the basis for useful work. Catherine Welch emphasised the need for changes in both theorising about and in the selection of appropriate methodologies. This was necessary to enable effective examination of the complex array of phenomena that shaped how international business took place and the effects of this on societies. This required moving away for linear based theorising with oversimplified modelling of the complex factors that influence the activities of and outcomes from multinational enterprises. Developing new non-linear methodological approaches was also highlighted as being necessary. These were available in techniques such as multilevel modelling (MLN) and other quantitative and qualitative approaches that incorporate non-linear causal pathways. See attached Catherine’s slides. Questions raised about the place of theory and methodology to address the grand challenges The place of theory in addressing the grand challenges was clearly regard as a critical issue in the panel’s discussion. A major issue was the level of abstraction from the complexity of the real world (the assumptions made in theories) that was required to decide on appropriate modelling. In the discussions on this issue the role of theory or what is meant by the term theory was often not clear. In some of the discussion theory seemed to be about predicting outcomes determined from postulations based on high levels of abstraction in the modelling process. This approach it was implied requires additions to and developments of existing theory. This often involved interdisciplinary approaches and a multitude of methodologies to enable the application of appropriate theory to understand real world situations. The view appears to suggest that there is a need in addressing grand challenges issues to clearly identify the boundaries of the applicability of theory. This could involve use of non-linear theories and methodologies. The discussion however revealed questioning of the oversimplification of the real world that often accompanies such predictive modelling. This it was argued can lead to a degree of sterility in theory that renders research too abstract to be of value for explaining real world phenomena. This can and often does makes predictions connected to the grand challenges of little value. The more explanatory approach to modelling is focused on explaining and thereby understanding phenomena in many and diverse situations rather than making predictions. Marian Jones referred to a paper by Locke and Golden-Biddle, (1997) that had insights into how we might develop more explanatory approaches to theorising. The debates on what theory is and what it is for in the social sciences is of course not new and has been extensively discussed for many years (DiMaggio, 1995, Melitz, J., 1965). Obtaining a better idea of the how we should model and design research on issues connected to the grand challenges is however important if we are to make useful contributions to the debate on these crucial issues. It seems that we need a clearer understanding what is meant by theory and its purpose in the context of the grand challenges. Modelling based on predictive theorising using high level abstraction (often involving unrealistic assumptions) might be most useful for macro issues. For example, the importance for the development of key principles for cross-border strategy and management of firms arising from important national and international carbon reduction policies. Explanatory theorising based on modelling with lower levels of abstraction (with more realistic assumptions) might be best suited to understanding micro issues. This may for example include the implications of the psychological and sociological characteristics of managers of multinational enterprises for how adjustment by firms works in the context of national and international policies on carbon reduction. This distinction between predictive and explanatory theory may however be a false dichotomy and the real requirement may be developing and using appropriate theory that has sufficient explanatory power to make meaningful predictions. This may boil down to establishing clear boundary conditions in which the findings of the research prevail. This has implications for the type of research projects that are necessary to address the grand challenges and for the kind of research that is publishable in journals and other types of outlets. There may be a ‘horses for courses’ decision on modelling and methodological approaches that depends on what the research is seeking to achieve and in which conditions the results are appliable. There is it seems a need for reflection and discussion on what is meant by appropriate modelling to effectively address the grand challenges and on finding suitable methodologies required to investigate phenomena associated with the grand challenges. The issue of applying the results of research on the grand challenges to users was not explicitly considered. We need however to consider where our research can usefully be applied. Several possibilities exist: for the strategy and management of multinational enterprises, for those affected by the activities of multinational enterprises, for governmental and non-governmental organisations developing policies towards multinational enterprises. Applying the results of research on the grand challenges to users (in terms of other areas of academic research and for practitioners in the public and private sectors) is crucial if our discipline is to make useful contributions to addressing the grand challenges. The targeting and application of research to users of results of research may have important implications for what is appropriate modelling and methodological approaches to secure useful and robust findings. The importance of interdisciplinary research was acknowledged in the discussions. How to develop such research and how to get it published was touched upon but needs more refection and discussion. Agreement was reached on the need to read widely beyond our discipline and indeed beyond the social sciences to develop a better understanding of how to address the grand challenges. The means to develop collaboration to address the grand challenges Marianna Marra highlighted the opportunities to develop collaboration with the Special Interest Group (SIG) in International Business and International Management of the British Academy of Business (BAM. Joint developments with AIB and the SIG including workshops and special sessions at BAM conferences had and were planned to take place. Opportunities to develop collaboration to help to address the grand challenges were welcomed by the BAM SIG and offered connection to the wider Business and Management community via the BAM network. Margaret Fletcher outlined the resources available and the main activities of the AIB Teaching and Education Shared Interest Group that could be harnessed to help to link research on the grand challenges to teaching. See attached Margaret’s slides. Davide Castellani (Chair of AIB UK & Ireland Chapter) provided assurances that the Chapter was and would continue to develop policies and programmes to help our discipline to address the grand challenges. He also highlighted that the Executive of the Chapter welcomed any thoughts and suggestions to help to develop this work. Comments, questions and discussion on issues raised by the panel are welcomed on this blog. This will hopefully help us to define and develop the key issues that need to be tackled to enable our discipline to respond effectively to the grand challenges. ~ Frank McDonald, University of Leeds References Abbott, A., 1988. Transcending general linear reality. Sociological Theory, 69-186. Locke. K., and Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and "Problematizing" in Organizational Studies. Academy of Management Journal 40, 1023-1062 DiMaggio, P.J., 1995. Comments on" What theory is not". Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391-397. Melitz, J., 1965. Friedman and Machlup on the significance of testing economic assumptions. Journal of Political Economy, 73, 37-60. Van Tulder, R. and van Mil, E., 2022. Principles of Sustainable Business: Frameworks for Corporate Action on the SDGs. Taylor & Francis.
A sign of his stature in the field of international business was reflected when he was appointed the international business specialist for the Business and Management Panel for the first RAE (the precursor to REF) in 1992. He reprised this role again in 2007. His research output was prodigious and made significant contributions to our discipline. When he retired from his post at the University of Glasgow in 2014 many leading scholars in international business paid tribute to the work of Steve. His work with Neil Hood played an important role in stimulating research in some of the fundamental issues in international business. Throughout his career he influenced many scholars several of whom became leading lights in our discipline. A notable person whose work was greatly influenced by Steve was Pavlos Dimitratos, who also sadly departed from us this year.
It is notable that those that knew him all mention that he was an excellent scholar, but they were all struck by what a fine person he was. They mention his humility and his interest not only in the academic development of people, especially PhD students and earlier career researchers, but also for their general well-being. Many people in our community, including several of our leading lights, acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Steve not only as a scholar that helped them to develop their work, but as a friend who generously gave of his time and talent to help them. He stands as an example to us that being a good scholar is more than being a producer of high-quality research. It involves contributing towards the development of all scholars in our community and of taking an interest in their well-being. Steve was a first-rate scholar and more importantly a fine human being. He will be sadly missed. - Executive Board of AIB UK & Ireland Chapter
Pavlos was a highly regarded and prolific scholar, publishing widely in the area of international entrepreneurship and SMEs. His work on micro-multinationals was pioneering. His research has been very influential and received several thousand citations, significantly advancing our knowledge of phenomena at the intersection of IB and IE. However, Pavlos stood out for his modesty, not seeking accolades for himself but sharing the credit with others. Furthermore, his passion for, and support and guidance of, doctoral students and early career researchers has made a major contribution to the development of the next generation of IB/IE researchers.
We will organize an event in the forthcoming AIB UK&I conference to celebrate the achievements of Pavlos as well as a remembrance book to enable colleagues to write their memories of Pavlos, which will be treasured by his wife Lyudmyla and his young daughter Jorcina, and all who knew him. We will never forget Pavlos. His memory will live on and he will always have a special place in our hearts. AIB UK&I Board Improving the Transparency of Your Research: Authors: Aggie Chidlow (University of Birmingham, UK) & Catherine Welch (University of Sydney, Australia)
As scholars we embrace the opportunities to contribute to and move forward ongoing research debates via the creation and publication of journal articles within the academic communities to which we belong. In doing so, our work plays an important part of the evolutionary process of knowledge development and, therefore, should be guided by disciplinary norms and values of science centered on openness, replicability and transparency. Surprisingly, and as pointed out by Eden (2010), John et al., (2012), Ioannidis et al., (2014) and Banks et al., (2016), these fundamental pillars of science have not (yet) been fully embraced by all researchers due, apparently, to the absence of persuasive incentives that would nudge scientific practices towards them. So, to influence that a number of academic associations and journals have started to either revise or develop their policies and procedures for publications in order to enhance evidence trails and reanalysis of data as part of their code of ethics. For example, the Academy of International Business hosted a panel during its annual meeting in 2020 dedicated to provide an overview of what different academic associations and research communities are doing to encourage or even mandate practices to improve transparency. What is more, the Journal of International Business Studies, which is the leading journal in our scientific field, has recently published an editorial setting out a new approach to data access and research transparency (DART) within the international business community (Beugelsdijk et al., 2020). The aim of DART (as a policy) is to encourage sharing of research data to enable the further accumulation of knowledge. However, as sharing of data is not always feasible or ethically appropriate, the intention of DART is to enhance research transparency in an actionable, sensitive, and pragmatic way, while at the same time enabling researchers to pursue a wide range of research methodologies. So, what is research transparency? Generally speaking, in social science the term “research transparency” relates to a shared principle that “academic scholars have an ethical obligation to disclose their evidence-based knowledge claims in order to facilitate replicability of their work (Lupia & Elman, 2014; Moravcsik, 2019). The concept has three normative dimensions:
What it means? All those three components form an integral part of research transparency. So, if research data is unavailable, data collection procedures mysterious and the analysis of the data used baffling then the methodological underpinning of knowledge creation becomes opaque, leaving readers not only to doubt the research findings, but also unable to debate, replicate and extend it. This does not just damage the credibility of the research, but also hampers future research on the topic. Why should we care? Academic journals, professional associations, publishers, review boards, governmental funding bodies and the public, to name a few, are increasingly pressing via their code of ethics and data policies for scholars to make their data, methods and analysis widely available in order to ensure legitimacy and credibility of their empirical scholarly work. It is becoming harder to obtain funding, publish in top journals as well as debate and justify a cagey academic study. All Higher Education Institutions, irrespective of their geographical locations, are increasingly mandating transparency and rigour as research standards across all their disciplines. These requirements are normally set out in their statements on research integrity as well as research strategies. So, the insurgency in research transparency that is currently taking place across the social sciences is not going to go away. Watch out: The change is already on its way! We need to embrace it in order to ensure the credibility of our scientific claims.  The AIB UK&I chapter hosts a Speed-Mentoring Event for Women in AIB as part of the annual AIB UK&I conference. The aim is to provide a supportive platform for junior faculty, early career researchers and doctoral students to engage in one-on-one interactions with senior women academic mentors through a series of focused conversations about career-related issues. Mentees will meet with mentors in a ‘speed-dating’ format. The mentor-mentee conversation is intended to provide helpful advice on a wide range of topics to women looking for answers and insights to career-related questions and challenges they are facing.
Please refer to the conference pages for details on how to attend this event.
Please note: The number of participants accepted for this event is limited. Applications will be processed on a first-come, first-served basis. We look forward to meeting you there. Session Chair: Dr Margaret Fletcher, University of Glasgow Co-Chair: Dr Rose Narooz, University of University of Glasgow By Dr Margaret Fletcher, Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
Why participate in speed mentoring? The WAIB speed mentoring events offer junior and early career academic female staff the opportunity to access specific knowledge to manage their academic career based on the experiences of senior female academics who have an established track record in International Business. Whilst the institutions and schools we work in may provide formal mentoring opportunities these will be limited to having one mentor and the mentor may not be part of the IB community, or have faced specific gender related issues that women experience. Formal mentoring requires significant resources to operate and as a result may be limited to a specific time frame, such as during probation / new lecturer programmes, other initiatives that support later stage career development may be terminated due to changes in resource allocation, or may not be routinely provided by the School. Relevant IB mentors may not be available in the workplace. The WAIB speed mentoring can provide specific advise tailored to issues that predominantly affect women. I was very fortunate to be awarded a Post Doc Scholarship that included mentoring in a strong IB group, but this isn’t the case for all. The events not only support the mentees, the mentors have found participating enjoyable and beneficial. Mentors get the opportunity to meet with their peers, the other mentors, as well as the mentees. It really is a great forum for women at all stages in their careers and lives to connect and support each other. The events provide opportunities to build, develop and enhance networks of global scholars, between and amongst mentees and mentors. As a mentor, I was able to reflect on the experience, knowledge, expertise and strategies I had acquired since completing my own doctorate, that I was able to share at the session. Questions can be based around personal and family or specific work based issues, and be general or very specific. For example common questions address how to manage work-life balance, develop career progression in terms of research and publications, build an academic network in international conferences, become an editorial board member (and does this help for publications), balance research, teaching and administration, keep motivate for continuous publications? The advantage of the speed mentoring format is that participants can gain access to different experiences of several successful academics from around the world to help them gain confidence to develop and manage their own career pathways. cpoib prize at the AIB UKI 2019 conference not By Prof Christoph Dörrenbächer, Editor of Critical Perspectives on International Business
This is the third year in a row in which the critical perspectives on international business (cpoib) prize at the AIB UKI conference was not awarded. The prize is awarded for ‘the most innovative paper which tackles a new or under-researched topic and which contributes to the understanding of the impact of international business on society’. In one year, we did not hand out the prize on request of one co-author of the nominated paper who was a central figure in the organizing committee of that year’s AIB UKI conference. In the two other years, the shortlist of the three best-ranked papers provided by the organizing committee of the AIB UKI conference did not allow for a nomination due to a missing fit with the criteria for the prize. Even extending the list to the top 10 ranked papers did not lead to a positive result. Does this mean we ask for something impossible? For sure, asking for a new or under-researched topic that contributes to the understanding of the impact of international business on society is a double hurdle. But while a decent number of papers that applied in the past for the cpoib award dealt with new and under-researched topics, hardly any paper aimed at understanding the impact of international business activity on society. This is astonishing, as calls for more societal relevance of IB research have been around for long – it is now almost 30 years since the debate about the ‘future of IB’ took off. More recently, this debate and the calls for more societal relevance of IB research seem to gain steam. A number of contributions claim that IB researchers should (re)engage with the real world (Delios, 2017) and tackle ‘societies’ grand challenges’ (Buckley, Doh, and Benischke, 2017). Does this imply that we have to wait yet another year for submissions to the next AIB UKI conference? I guess not. I rather go with Jonathan Doh’s (2017) argument that scholarly outlets in IB are often not interested in publishing more applied direct and relevant insights. cpoib surely is interested in and does publish such research. But so far, the journal is not on the radar of many IB scholars. A recent investigation* into who writes for cpoib and who cites papers published there found that cpoib is well recognized outside the IB discipline, e.g. in general management, business ethics and organization studies. At the same time, recognition from within the IB field is weak. It is often scholars at a more mature career development stage who publish there; those who can afford publishing in a CABS 2* journal. Here is where we need to take action. We (those who work for the journal) need to intensify our efforts to make cpoib better known in the IB scholarly field and move up the rankings. At the same time, we hope that more scholars interested in a societally engaged IB will consider cpoib as a useful outlet to publish their research. This will turn the nomination for the cpoib award from a hopeless endeavour today to a research competition that matters. *Dörrenbächer C. and Gammelgaard, J. (2019), “Critical and mainstream international business research. Making critical IB an integral part of a societally engaged international business discipline”, Critical perspectives on international business, issue 2/3, forthcoming |
Authors
Scholars from the field of International Business and other related disciplines Archives
June 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed
Support |
© COPYRIGHT 2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
|