Where Are We in the “Long March to Legitimacy?” Assessing Scholarship in Management Learning and Education
本文评估了2002-2007年间四大管理学习与教育期刊的学术合法性，与顶级管理期刊AMJ对比，发现AMLE在多数指标上领先，并为作者和编辑提供了提升领域合法性的建议。
Although scholarship in management learning and education (MLE) has existed for many years, its volume and visibility have increased dramatically over the past decade. With the addition of Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE) in 2002 and Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education (DSJIE) in 2003 to the long-established journals of Management Learning (ML) and Journal of Management Education (JME), the number of major journals dedicated to MLE scholarship doubled. As such, it seems a good time to examine the current state of MLE research in terms of multiple indicators of scholarly legitimacy. Accordingly, we review 6 years (2002–2007) of primary research studies in these “Big-Four” MLE scholarship journals with respect to consequential, procedural, structural, and personal legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) and compare them to articles from the premiere empirical management journal, Academy of Management Journal (AMJ). Results suggest differences in legitimacy across journals, with AMLE leading the group of MLE journals along most indicators. Suggestions for both authors and editors to further advance the field's legitimacy are offered.