ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGY
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-69712018000300304 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT Purpose: Our study compares methodological procedures of Brazilian papers with those of papers published in AMJ, OS, ASQ, JMS and SMJ in field of strategy from 2006 to 2015. Originality/value: Our study 1. identifies and describes methodological differences, offering a benchmark to improve future studies; 2. starts a discussion about the reasons those differences exist and their implications towards advancing the field of strategy; and 3. suggests forms of overcoming the current constraints and improving the quality of our research. Design/methodology/approach: Based on a systematic review, we analyzed ten Brazilian journals with the highest impact factor and five top journals. The search yielded a final sample of 1294 empirical papers. The data was analyzed through content analysis, for which our coding schema contained three dimensions: research design, measurement, and analytic approach. Findings: We found some methodological differences that may characterize Brazilian papers as testers and top journals as expanders, reinforcing results found by other studies, concerning the necessity of developing the Brazilian strategy field to be more competitive with the international field at large. Therefore, we concluded that it is desirable to improve our research methods as a field and possibly to overcome methodological differences, helping not only to develop theories but also to consider the Brazilian reality. |
id |
MACKENZIE-2_7910ac48d082bcd5c3681aa5ba719a46 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1678-69712018000300304 |
network_acronym_str |
MACKENZIE-2 |
network_name_str |
RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGYResearch methodsQuantitativeQualitativeData analysisStrategy fieldABSTRACT Purpose: Our study compares methodological procedures of Brazilian papers with those of papers published in AMJ, OS, ASQ, JMS and SMJ in field of strategy from 2006 to 2015. Originality/value: Our study 1. identifies and describes methodological differences, offering a benchmark to improve future studies; 2. starts a discussion about the reasons those differences exist and their implications towards advancing the field of strategy; and 3. suggests forms of overcoming the current constraints and improving the quality of our research. Design/methodology/approach: Based on a systematic review, we analyzed ten Brazilian journals with the highest impact factor and five top journals. The search yielded a final sample of 1294 empirical papers. The data was analyzed through content analysis, for which our coding schema contained three dimensions: research design, measurement, and analytic approach. Findings: We found some methodological differences that may characterize Brazilian papers as testers and top journals as expanders, reinforcing results found by other studies, concerning the necessity of developing the Brazilian strategy field to be more competitive with the international field at large. Therefore, we concluded that it is desirable to improve our research methods as a field and possibly to overcome methodological differences, helping not only to develop theories but also to consider the Brazilian reality.Editora MackenzieUniversidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie2018-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-69712018000300304RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie v.19 n.3 2018reponame:RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzieinstname:Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM)instacron:MACKENZIE10.1590/1678-6971/eramr180009info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLEONEL,RONEI DA S.PICHETH,SARA F.SILVA,FERNANDA R. DACRUBELLATE,JOÃO M.eng2018-07-17T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1678-69712018000300304Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/ram/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevista.adm@mackenzie.br1678-69711518-6776opendoar:2018-07-17T00:00RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie - Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGY |
title |
ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGY |
spellingShingle |
ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGY LEONEL,RONEI DA S. Research methods Quantitative Qualitative Data analysis Strategy field |
title_short |
ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGY |
title_full |
ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGY |
title_fullStr |
ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGY |
title_full_unstemmed |
ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGY |
title_sort |
ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRAZILIAN JOURNALS AND TOP JOURNALS IN STRATEGY |
author |
LEONEL,RONEI DA S. |
author_facet |
LEONEL,RONEI DA S. PICHETH,SARA F. SILVA,FERNANDA R. DA CRUBELLATE,JOÃO M. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
PICHETH,SARA F. SILVA,FERNANDA R. DA CRUBELLATE,JOÃO M. |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
LEONEL,RONEI DA S. PICHETH,SARA F. SILVA,FERNANDA R. DA CRUBELLATE,JOÃO M. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Research methods Quantitative Qualitative Data analysis Strategy field |
topic |
Research methods Quantitative Qualitative Data analysis Strategy field |
description |
ABSTRACT Purpose: Our study compares methodological procedures of Brazilian papers with those of papers published in AMJ, OS, ASQ, JMS and SMJ in field of strategy from 2006 to 2015. Originality/value: Our study 1. identifies and describes methodological differences, offering a benchmark to improve future studies; 2. starts a discussion about the reasons those differences exist and their implications towards advancing the field of strategy; and 3. suggests forms of overcoming the current constraints and improving the quality of our research. Design/methodology/approach: Based on a systematic review, we analyzed ten Brazilian journals with the highest impact factor and five top journals. The search yielded a final sample of 1294 empirical papers. The data was analyzed through content analysis, for which our coding schema contained three dimensions: research design, measurement, and analytic approach. Findings: We found some methodological differences that may characterize Brazilian papers as testers and top journals as expanders, reinforcing results found by other studies, concerning the necessity of developing the Brazilian strategy field to be more competitive with the international field at large. Therefore, we concluded that it is desirable to improve our research methods as a field and possibly to overcome methodological differences, helping not only to develop theories but also to consider the Brazilian reality. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-69712018000300304 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-69712018000300304 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1678-6971/eramr180009 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Editora Mackenzie Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Editora Mackenzie Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie v.19 n.3 2018 reponame:RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie instname:Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM) instacron:MACKENZIE |
instname_str |
Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM) |
instacron_str |
MACKENZIE |
institution |
MACKENZIE |
reponame_str |
RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie |
collection |
RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie - Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revista.adm@mackenzie.br |
_version_ |
1752128650117906432 |