Business School Research Performance An Update

Business School Research Performance: An Update Alan R Dennis Kelley School of Business Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 James S Trieschmann Terry College of Business University of Georgia, Athens GA 30602 Gregory B Northcraft College of Commerce and Business Administration University of Illinois, Champaign IL 66801 Albert W Niemi Cox Graduate School of Management Southern Methodist University, Dallas TX 75275 May 30, 2002 Business School Research Performance: An Update In 2000, we published an analysis of business school research performance from 19861998 that found no link to MBA program performance (Trieschmann, Dennis, Northcraft & Niemi, 2001) Published rankings create status, and as noted by D’Aveni (1996), status has selfreinforcing effects on organizational performance While discussions of MBA program rankings by the popular press have become common in business schools – and Deans’ offices in particular – there have been far fewer ongoing discussions of research performance Our previous analysis was widely used to stimulate discussion about the importance of research and its relationship with MBA education, and the factors influencing research performance and MBA program performance, as well as the relative performance of different schools In an effort to continue the discussion, we present in Table an analysis of research performance from 1997 to 2001 using the same methodology (number of pages published in 20 elite journals, weighted by the size of the discipline) We see a similar pattern of results to our previous analysis Of the 50 top schools from 1986-1998, 45 remain in the top 50, most close to their previous ranking Seven schools have shown a dramatic increase in research performance by 10 or more positions (UNC Chapel Hill, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan State, Emory, Yale, and Virginia), while six schools have fallen by 10 or more positions (Washington Seattle, California Berkeley, Ohio State, Texas A & M, Rochester, and Rutgers) Once again, the top 10 schools accounted for about 25% of the research published in these 20 journals, the top 25 for about 49% and the top 50 for about 70% Once again, most schools have tended to focus their research strength in a few disciplines, rather than spread efforts evenly across disciplines; with the exception of Michigan, all of the top 10 schools have at least one discipline (usually three) in which they are not ranked in the top 20 TABLE Business School Research Rankings Rankings within Disciplines Rank Rank Percent 1997- 1986of 2001 1998 Pages Acc Fin University Ins, Mgt MIS Mgt Mkt POM IB Sci & RE 1 3.96% Pennsylvania 37 63 2 2.58% Michigan 14 10 14 13 2.56% Harvard 12 11 18 11 49 2.51% Stanford 69 45 15 5 2.49% Chicago 35 37 24 14 23 2.41% UNC - Chapel Hill 11 28 17 32 31 2.32% Texas - Austin 12 12 7 95 10 2.32% Northwestern 10 12 2.17% Columbia 10 41 14 10 21 1.92% Indiana 46 36 16 55 18 11 1.86% New York University 26 29 13 87 18 16 12 13 1.77% Massachusetts Inst Tech 19 13 36 32 22 13 1.75% Minnesota 82 40 11 10 23 14 20 1.71% Wisconsin - Madison 27 54 26 56 15 44 1.67% Maryland - College Park 40 19 172 18 20 39 40 16 16 1.67% California - Los Angeles 18 50 24 43 10 11 17 19 1.64% Duke 20 109 33 89 6 18 17 1.60% Cornell 16 46 20 78 14 41 19 12 1.59% Southern California 11 17 34 28 27 22 20 35 1.56% Michigan State 13 58 15 22 76 20 21 28 1.44% Arizona State 50 23 56 33 50 32 22 11 1.43% Washington - Seattle 14 32 140 12 24 13 53 85 23 14 1.39% Illinois 25 25 15 47 36 10 71 90 24 25 1.37% Penn State 17 15 16 19 33 17 25 24 1.32% Carnegie Mellon 29 27 150 25 26 22 1.15% Arizona 16 26 53 27 15 1.11% California - Berkeley 24 22 31 21 28 33 1.03% Georgia 30 34 139 29 32 1.02% Purdue 33 35 103 30 30 1.01% South Carolina 106 65 31 18 0.97% Ohio State 35 32 27 0.96% Florida 33 41 34 34 16 47 28 21 24 40 76 54 85 27 66 73 39 127 21 13 22 46 88 12 64 10 32 30 33 57 30 74 0.95% Georgia State 31 139 45 65 62 31 0.91% Iowa 15 42 107 90 58 25 35 57 0.91% Emory 51 51 138 23 13 73 26 19 36 42 0.89% Notre Dame 23 29 115 40 84 33 31 37 26 0.85% Texas A & M 56 120 87 57 37 52 23 38 45 0.83% Washington - St Louis 21 36 98 49 95 17 45 39 37 0.83% Southern Methodist 79 28 131 81 11 69 19 26 40 38 0.78% Colorado - Boulder 28 47 13 66 38 44 27 96 41 39 0.76% California - Irvine 68 48 65 42 15 16 37 42 29 0.75 % Rochester 22 18 78 29 70 42 36 0.73% Pittsburgh 45 57 59 48 38 36 44 56 0.70% Yale 42 20 57 70 25 35 45 49 0.69% Vanderbilt 41 21 46 34 0.66% Rutgers 38 76 47 51 0.64% Case Western 55 48 62 0.63% Virginia 24 49 43 0.61% Dartmouth 46 31 137 27 50 52 0.60% Boston University 64 110 20 31 10 60 75 50 42 65 17 43 61 34 30 134 41 20 31 40 17 34 27 51 74 46 45 54 39 49 81 15 11 A blank indicates that the university has published no research in this discipline's selected journals References D’Aveni, R.A 1996 A Multiple-constituency, Status-based Approach to Interorganizational Mobility of Faculty and Input-output competition among top business schools Organization Science, 7, 166-189 Trieschmann, J S Dennis, A R Northcraft, G & Niemi, W A 2000 Serving Multiple Constituencies in the Business School: MBA-Program vs Research Performance Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1130-1141 .. .Business School Research Performance: An Update In 2000, we published an analysis of business school research performance from 19861998 that found no link to MBA program performance (Trieschmann,... importance of research and its relationship with MBA education, and the factors influencing research performance and MBA program performance, as well as the relative performance of different schools... rankings by the popular press have become common in business schools – and Deans’ offices in particular – there have been far fewer ongoing discussions of research performance Our previous analysis