Pearce and Huang (2012, this issue) argue that management research has had woefully little impact. In support of this contention, they attempt to demonstrate that there has been a decline in "actionable" management research in selected management journals, suggest that relatively tew mentions of those journals in a publication such as The Economist are evidence of lack of impact, and offer a list of questions which they believe management research could more profitably address. I fully agree with Pearce and Huang's call to explore ways to enhance the impact of management research; however, I have serious questions about the authors' assumptions, logical development, methodology, representation of data, and recommendations. As such, whether there has actually been a decline in the impact and "actionability" of management research, I can't agree that Pearce and Huang's article provides meaningful input to this issue.
展开▼
机译：Pearce and Huang（2012，本期）认为管理研究的影响微乎其微。为了支持这一论点，他们试图证明在某些管理期刊中“可行的”管理研究有所减少，表明在《经济学人》等出版物中相对较少提及这些期刊是缺乏影响的证据，并且提供他们认为管理研究可以更有利地解决的问题列表。我完全同意Pearce和Huang的号召，探索增强管理研究影响的方法；但是，我对作者的假设，逻辑发展，方法论，数据表示形式和建议存在严重疑问。因此，无论管理研究的影响和“可操作性”是否确实有所下降，我都无法同意Pearce和Huang的文章为该问题提供了有意义的信息。
展开▼
