Impact and management studies: Why making practical impact is not a core academic expectation
本文质疑学术界应承担产生实践影响的新期望，认为学术知识对实践的影响通常是间接且长期的，且多数管理研究的影响难以归因于个人或团队，呼吁重新审视对学者的正式要求。
Abstract Lately, a new set of expectations is being formed for academics by various stakeholders, that is, to generate “impact” on practice, in addition to their main roles of conducting research, making academic contributions, and teaching. We challenge the legitimacy of this expectation. Further, we argue that there should be major differences between primary and secondary impact. The impact of new academic knowledge on practice tends to be indirect, and sometimes it takes a long time to materialize, and indeed the impact of most management research cannot be precisely attributed to the work of a single person or team. Furthermore, the new direction and expectation of governments and funding bodies regarding impact on practice might work against some of the basic principles of academia, not least academic freedom itself as a cornerstone of the profession. Arising from this, we call for a reconsideration of the formal requirements of further responsibility and pressure on academics. In making this call, we do not argue against engagement, involvement, and collaboration with industry, or knowledge implementation for organizations, but offer a view on what may be an appropriate expectation set from academe.