View More View Less
  • 1 North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
  • 2 Department of Finance, Alter Hall, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
Restricted access

Abstract

We argue that the creation of new knowledge is both difficult and rare. More specifically, we posit that the creation of new knowledge is dominated by a few key insights that challenge the way people think about an idea; generating high interest and use. We label this the blockbuster hypothesis. Using two large samples of published management studies over the period 1998–2007 we find support for the blockbuster hypothesis. We also find that numerous studies in the leading management journals are flops, having little impact on the profession as measured using citation data. Additional tests indicate that journal “quality” is related to the ratio of blockbusters to flops a journal publishes and that journal rankings are a poor proxy for study influence. Consistent with the notion that editorial boards are able to identify new knowledge, we find that research notes significantly under-perform articles in both the same journal and articles published in lower ranked journals. Taken together, the results imply that only a few scientific studies, out of the thousands published in a given area, change or influence the boundaries of knowledge, with many appearing to have little impact on the frontiers of knowledge. Overall, this analysis indicates that the development of new knowledge is rare even though it appears to be recognizable to knowledge gatekeepers like journal editors.

  • Acs, Z, Anselin, L, Varga, A 2002 Patent counts and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy 31 7 10691085 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Agarwal, A, Henderson, R 2002 Putting citations in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48:4460 .

  • Cohen, W, Levinthal, D 1990 Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 35:128152 .

  • Colquitt, JA, Zapata-Phelan, C 2007 Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal 50 6 12811303 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dahlin, K, Behrens, D 2005 When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy 34:717738 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunlap-Hinkler, D, Kotabe, M, Mudambi, R 2010 A story of breakthrough vs. incremental innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 4 2 106127 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gittelman, M, Kogut, B 2003 Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science 49 4 366382 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gleeson, R., & Schlossman, S. (1992). The many faces of the new look; The University of Virginia, Carnegie Tech, and the reform of American management education in the postwar era. Selections, Spring, 124.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hall, B, Jaffe, A, Trajtenberg, M 2005 Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics 36:1638.

  • Hargadon, A, Sutton, R 1997 Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42:716749 .

  • Henderson, R, Clark, K 1990 Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35:930 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Henderson, R, Jaffe, A, Trajtenberg, M 2005 Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: A reassessment: Comment. American Economic Review 95:461464 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jovanovic, B 1979 Job matching and the theory of turnover. Journal of Political Economy 87 5 972990 .

  • Keynes, JM 1936 The general theory of employment, interest and money Harcourt Brace Jovanovich New York.

  • Kochen, M, Crickman, R, Blaivas, A 1981 Distribution of scientific experts as recognized by peer consensus. Scientometrics 4 1 4556 .

  • Liebeskind, JP 1996 Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 Winter Special Issue 93107.

  • March, J 1991 Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2:7187 .

  • McFadyen, M, Cannella, A 2004 Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal 47:735746 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mudambi, R 2008 Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography 8 5 699725 .

  • Mudambi, R, Swift, T 2011 Proactive knowledge management and firm growth: A punctuated equilibrium model. Research Policy 40 3 429440 .

  • Narin, F, Noma, E 1985 Is technology becoming science?. Scientometrics 7 3–6 369381 .

  • Pfeffer, J, Moore, W 1980 Power in university budgeting: A replication and extension. Administrative Science Quarterly 25:637653 .

  • Podsakoff, P, Mackenzie, S, Bachrach, D, Podsakoff, N 2005 The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal 26:473488 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schlossman, S., Sedlak, M., & Wechsler, H. (1987). The new look; The Ford foundation and revolution in business education. Selections, Winter, 828.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schultz, DM 2010 Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics 84 2 277292 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seglen, PO 1992 The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43 9 628638 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seglen, PO 1997 Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal 314 7079 498502 .

  • Smith, K, Collins, C, Clark, K 2005 Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal 48:346357 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Starbuck, W 2005 The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science 16:180200 .

  • Trieschmann, J, Dennis, A, Northcraft, G, Neimi, A 2000 Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus research performance. Academy of Management Journal 43:11301141 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Upham, SP, Small, H 2010 Emerging research fronts in science and technology: Patterns of new knowledge development. Scientometrics 83 1 1538 .

  • Zack, MH 1999 Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review 40 4 4558.