Making a Niche: The Marketization of Management Research and the Rise of ‘Knowledge Branding’
提出“知识品牌”概念，指学者为创建和维护研究利基而进行的市场导向工作，探讨其对管理研究子领域形成的影响，并呼吁反思学术市场化带来的危害。
In this essay, we discuss an underexplored and consequential aspect of management scholarship that we term ‘Knowledge Branding’. Knowledge Branding refers to forms of market-oriented work undertaken when creating, maintaining and developing niches of research. We consider some of the conditions and consequences of Knowledge Branding in the formation and expansion of management research sub-fields, and then suggest how its more damaging effects might be mitigated. We invite participation in a ‘difficult conversation’ about the culture of market-oriented knowledge production in management research, not only by raising uncomfortable questions about its grip on our field but also because we acknowledge our complicity in what we discuss. One of us (Hugh) has had an academic career spanning four decades, has been keenly observing the evolution of management scholarship, and has been questioning recent trends such as the commercialization and marketization of higher education, the commodification of academic labour, and the rise of managerialism evident in the use of performance measurement systems such as journal lists. At the same time, he has served on panels responsible for evaluating business and management research (e.g., the UK research evaluation exercises, RAE and REF). By associating funding more directly to short(-ish) term performance metrics, such exercises are seen to have accelerated the marketization of research that we consider here. The other (Afshin) has started his academic career relatively recently. He has closely and personally experienced and observed the intensifying pressures upon Early Career Researchers (ECRs) to maximize ‘hits’ in ‘top’ journals that are fuelled by the importance placed by ‘consumers’ (students) and managers (deans, appointment and promotion committee members) on rankings of business schools and universities. Writing this essay was prompted by our reflections on the process of preparing and revising a paper for a special issue of Journal of Management Studies dedicated to ‘Political CSR’ (Scherer et al., 2016). Our participation in a number of workshops, conference sessions, and the review processes in relation to the preparation and revision of the paper led us to reflect in a more sustained way upon a process that we believe to be consequential in the rise of Political CSR, and that we characterize as Knowledge Branding. Based on personal experiences and discussions with a number of colleagues, we have come to believe that Knowledge Branding exerts an increasing influence in the formation and expansion of management research sub-fields which we term Knowledge Brands (KBs). Examples with which we have more familiarity include ‘Political CSR’, ‘Strategy-as-Practice’, ‘Institutional Logics’ and ‘Institutional Work’. There are also methodological KBs, such as the ‘Gioia Methodology’, that cut across diverse sub-fields. This list is by no means exhaustive and it would be surprising, in the context of intensifying competition to occupy the restricted spaces in ‘top’ journals, if the phenomena of Knowledge Branding and KBs were absent from other management sub-disciplines (e.g., finance and marketing) or other fields of the social sciences. We are not taking issue with the disciplinarity of research in management and the lifecycle of sub-disciplines that have been explored and debated extensively by others. Nor do we seek to reflect on the role of management academics (along with consultants and other professional groups) in developing and marketing managerial techniques and in giving rise to ‘management fashions’ (Abrahamson, 1996). Instead, our essay foregrounds the nature and effects of an intensification of market-based organizing in the establishment and consolidation of management research sub-fields. We do not suggest here that Knowledge Branding is a wholly new phenomenon. We do believe, however, that it is becoming more widespread and significant as an outcome, but also as a medium, of the intensification of market pressures and managerialism in our field. If our speculative observations resonate with our readers, then we hope that our sketch of Knowledge Branding will prompt more systematic scrutiny and evaluation of its operation and effects. We hope that our focus upon KBs is not perceived as a negative or vindictive effort to disparage their architects and exponents. Our purpose has been to interrogate the phenomenon, not its pro-sumers. The intent of our admittedly tentative and anecdotal sketch of Knowledge Branding has been to stimulate the development of a more inclusive and incisive frame of analysis for appreciating and debating, and potentially diminishing, the influence of market-oriented research activity, including Knowledge Branding, that is introverted and instrumental in orientation. More specifically, we have sought to air our concern that Knowledge Branding mobilises and strengthens divisive and individualizing forces that damage the ethico-political fabric of an already fragile research community. Reflecting upon and questioning our practices as management researchers is essential in the quest to re-enchant research by dispelling the intellectual ennui and displacing the conservatism that is corrupting the distinctive, critical core of our work. Protecting and nourishing this core is fundamental to the potential progressive contribution of our research to both understanding and practicing management.