PDF(1285 KB)
PDF(1285 KB)
PDF(1285 KB)
跨学科研究对学者学术绩效的影响研究
A study of the impact of interdisciplinary research on the scholars' academic performance
当前,学科交叉融合已成为建构中国自主知识体系的一个重要趋势。那么,跨学科研究是否有助于提升学者的学术绩效?基于最优区分理论,利用中国管理研究国际化20年(2002—2021年)间16 400名工商管理学者发表的37 046篇国际英文管理学论文的大样本数据,实证检验了知识多样性对学者学术绩效的影响。研究发现:(1)知识丰富度,通过创新性机制,提升发文数和论文被引数;(2)知识差异度,通过创新性与合法性双重机制,分别对发文数、论文被引数产生倒“U”型影响;(3)兼顾知识丰富度和知识差异度不利于提升发文数,但能协同提升论文被引数。研究在一定程度上打开了知识多样性对学者学术绩效影响的黑箱,进一步发展了最优区分理论。研究结论对于学者如何开展跨学科研究、有关部门如何建设交叉学科均有一定的启示意义。
At present, interdisciplinary research has become an important trend in building the management theory system of China. We wonder, therefore, whether management scholars will engage in interdisciplinarity research? Based on the optimal distinctiveness theory, utilizing a large sample of 37,046 international management papers from 16,400 Chinese management scholars during 20 years (2002-2021) of the internationalization of Chinese management research, this study empirically examined the impact of scholars' knowledge diversification on their academic performance. We found that, knowledge diversification has a positive effect on academic performance through the innovation mechanism, and that knowledge dissimilarity plays positive and negative roles through both innovation and legitimacy mechanism, eliciting an inverted U-shaped effect. In addition, we analyzed the intertwined effects of the two, finding that combining both knowledge diversification and dissimilarity is not conducive to boosting the publication counts, but it can synergistically contribute to the citation counts. The study has unveiled the black box of how scholars' knowledge diversification affects their academic performance, and therefore advanced the optimal distinctiveness theory. The research findings will have important implications for scholars on how to engage in interdisciplinary research and will also provide insights for policy-makers on establishing interdisciplinary fields.
diversification of knowledge / academic performance / optimal distinctiveness / interdisciplinary research
| [1] |
张玉利, 吴刚, 杨俊, 等. 工商管理学科发展的战略思考与举措[J]. 管理评论, 2021, 33(4):3-11.
|
| [2] |
曹祖毅, 谭力文, 贾慧英. 脱节还是弥合?中国组织管理研究的严谨性、相关性与合法性:基于中文管理学期刊1979-2018年的经验证据[J]. 管理世界, 2018, 34(10):208-229.
|
| [3] |
张琳, 孙蓓蓓, 黄颖. 交叉科学研究:内涵、测度与影响[J]. 科研管理, 2020, 41(7):279-288.
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
Novelty is an essential feature of creative ideas, yet the building blocks of new ideas are often embodied in existing knowledge. From this perspective, balancing atypical knowledge with conventional knowledge may be critical to the link between innovativeness and impact. Our analysis of 17.9 million papers spanning all scientific fields suggests that science follows a nearly universal pattern: The highest-impact science is primarily grounded in exceptionally conventional combinations of prior work yet simultaneously features an intrusion of unusual combinations. Papers of this type were twice as likely to be highly cited works. Novel combinations of prior work are rare, yet teams are 37.7% more likely than solo authors to insert novel combinations into familiar knowledge domains.
|
| [6] |
Organizations depend on experts to oversee and execute complex tasks. When faced with pressures to reduce their dependence on experts, managers encounter a control paradox: they require experts to explicate the very knowledge and discretionary approaches that are the basis of their control for the purpose of undercutting this control. Experts rarely consent to such a situation; therefore, attempts to reduce dependence on experts and control their work are more often aspirational than actual. Drawing on an ethnography of an organization that was required by a government agency to transfer the work responsibilities of experts to employees throughout the organization, this paper describes how a network of actors developed a discursive, political process to renegotiate control of expert work practices. Through censure episodes, long-standing and largely successful expert practices were examined one by one and relabeled as problematic in relation to established goals. The constructed breaches opened expert practices to evaluation, questioning, and eventual delegitimation within the organization. This process depended on the introduction of new roles that revised dependencies and generated new resources. This paper contributes to the understanding of control in organizations by theorizing how the emergent, symbolic work of censure episodes are a means of gradually subverting expert control. Further, these struggles are reconceptualized as multiple-role negotiations rather than bilateral manager–expert struggles.
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
What factors affect a scientist’s choice of research problem? Qualitative research in the history and sociology of science suggests that this choice is patterned by an “essential tension” between productive tradition and risky innovation. We examine this tension through Bourdieu’s field theory of science, and we explore it empirically by analyzing millions of biomedical abstracts from MEDLINE. We represent the evolving state of chemical knowledge with networks extracted from these abstracts. We then develop a typology of research strategies on these networks. Scientists can introduce novel chemicals and chemical relationships (innovation) or delve deeper into known ones (tradition). They can consolidate knowledge clusters or bridge them. The aggregate distribution of published strategies remains remarkably stable. High-risk innovation strategies are rare and reflect a growing focus on established knowledge. An innovative publication is more likely to achieve high impact than a conservative one, but the additional reward does not compensate for the risk of failing to publish. By studying prizewinners in biomedicine and chemistry, we show that occasional gambles for extraordinary impact are a compelling explanation for observed levels of risky innovation. Our analysis of the essential tension identifies institutional forces that sustain tradition and suggests policy interventions to foster innovation.
|
| [9] |
Federal agencies and universities in the U.S. promote interdisciplinary research because it presumably spurs transformative, innovative science. Using data on almost 900 research-center–based scientists and their 32,000 published articles, along with a set of unpublished papers, we assess whether such research is indeed beneficial and whether costs accompany the potential benefits. Existing research highlights this tension: whereas the innovation literature suggests that spanning disciplines is beneficial because it allows scientists to see connections across fields, the categories literature suggests that spanning disciplines is penalized because the resulting research may be lower quality or confusing to place. To investigate this, we empirically distinguish production and reception effects and highlight a new production penalty: lower productivity, which may be attributable to cognitive and collaborative challenges associated with interdisciplinary research and/or hurdles in the review process. Using an innovative measure of interdisciplinary research that considers the similarity of the disciplines spanned, we document both penalties (fewer papers published) and benefits (increased citations) associated with it and show that it is a high-risk, high-reward endeavor, one that partly depends on field-level interdisciplinarity.
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
How team composition exactly influences innovation outcomes remains a complex and unsolved puzzle in the literature on creativity and innovation. Our study differentiates two types of team technology-related diversity technological dissimilarity and technological variety, and investigates their influences on the impact of an invention created by a team. Analyses of over half million U.S. utility patents in the 1991-2005 period invented by teams reveal that technological variety of team inventors has a positive effect on invention impact, and that technological dissimilarity between team inventors plays both positive and negative roles, eliciting an inverted U-shaped effect. In addition, we find that the positive effect of dissimilarity is significantly reduced after controlling for variety. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
郭海, 李永慧, 赵雁飞. 求同还是存异?最优区分研究回顾与展望[J]. 南开管理评论, 2020, 23(6):214-224.
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
刘凤朝, 张淑慧, 朱姗姗. 技术知识多样性的双重作用:专利受理及创新影响:基于对象—过程视角的研究[J]. 中国软科学, 2018(9):148-159.
|
| [22] |
林风, 邓锷, 魏琼书, 等. 同行评审制度对交叉学科的影响[J]. 科研管理, 2017, 38(S1):292-296.
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
This paper questions findings indicating that when organizations are hard to classify they will suffer in terms of external evaluations. Here, I suggest this depends on the audience evaluating the organization. Audiences that are “market-takers” consume or evaluate goods and use market labels to find and assess organizations; for them, ambiguous labels make organizations unclear and therefore less appealing. “Market-makers” are interested in redefining the market structure, and as a result, this type of audience sees the same ambiguity as flexible and therefore more appealing. I tested these ideas in a longitudinal analysis of U.S. software organizations between 1990 and 2002. As predicted, organizations that claim ambiguous labels are less appealing to consumers, an audience of market-takers, but more appealing to venture capitalists, who are market-makers. Further, when labels are ambiguous, aversion to or preference for ambiguity arises from the label itself. Identifying with multiple ambiguous labels does not make an organization even less appealing to a consumer or more appealing to a venture capitalist. Finally, all types of venture capitalists are not alike in how they react to a label’s ambiguity. Independent venture capitalists act as market-makers and prefer organizations with ambiguous labels, while corporate venture capitalists act as market-takers and avoid them.
|
| [25] |
何佳讯, 葛佳烨, 张凡. 中国学者管理学研究的世界贡献:国际合作、前沿热点与贡献路径:基于世界千种管理学英文期刊论文(2013-2019年)的定量分析[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(9):36-67.
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
This paper addresses the scope for more integrated general analysis of diversity in science, technology and society. It proposes a framework recognizing three necessary but individually insufficient properties of diversity. Based on 10 quality criteria, it suggests a general quantitative non-parametric diversity heuristic. This allows the systematic exploration of diversity under different perspectives, including divergent conceptions of relevant attributes and contrasting weightings on different diversity properties. It is shown how this heuristic may be used to explore different possible trade-offs between diversity and other aspects of interest, including portfolio interactions. The resulting approach offers a way to be more systematic and transparent in the treatment of scientific and technological diversity in a range of fields, including conservation management, research governance, energy policy and sustainable innovation.
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
