It’s too narrow and too dry. It’s written by academics for academics. It’s all theory that no one uses in the real world. Too much DEI – not enough ROI.
Yeah, business research gets a bad rap from the c-suite to the cube farm – and every home office in-between. ‘Publish or perish’ may sound dramatic in the faculty lounge, but it is a far cry from the ‘Eat what you kill’ ethos of business practitioners. Outside academia, few practitioners read business journals aside of a stray Harvard Business Review or MIT Management Review found at a Hudson News. Call it the great disconnect. The leaders who could act don’t have time to sift through the intricacies beyond a Wall Street Journal summation. While graduates may be armed with cutting edge tools, they rarely possess the authority or seasoning to implement them.
George Feiger, a Harvard Ph.D. in Economics who serves as the Executive Dean of the Ashton Business School, framed the issue this way in The Financial Times: “The real issue is a truly dramatic lopsidedness in focus in business schools, where academics measure their success — and their institutions evaluate them — almost entirely according to publications in a proliferating array of journals that nobody reads.”
A NEW APPROACH TO MEASURING RESEARCH
That doesn’t mean some business schools haven’t been able to imprint their discoveries beyond campus. Recently, The Financial Times established a methodology to measure which programs are producing the best research that’s making an impact.
Forget Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Think Rigor, Relevance, and Resonance.
Yes, the FT methodology for its newest ranking of business school research trends to the dense and detailed inclinations of researchers over the simple and succinct tastes of some practitioners. That is why prospective MBA students will find this ranking less useful and perhaps counter-intuitive than potential PhD students. After all, schools that do exceptionally well in academic research are far more likely to have unbalanced reward models for faculty, overweighting research consumed by less than a dozen academics at the expense of teaching quality for thousands of students. In this sense, the FT and the more encompassing research ranking published by UT-Dallas‘ business school propagate a model that is largely costly and inefficient, one that rarely benefits students.
Regardless, the FT methodology is a big tent approach – which factors in eight dimensions – extends beyond the usual weighted calculations of Top 50 academic journals. To start, The Financial Times attaches 14% weights to six dimensions:
* Field Weighted Citation
* Shares of Positive Citations
* Works Cited in Syllabi
* Case Study Writing
* Practitioner Downloads
* Policy Citations
Notably, the Works Cited in Syllabi reflects which books and articles are part of reading lists at other schools. The same is true of Case Study Writing, where schools are rewarded for their cases’ usage in other courses. By the same token, Policy Citations and Practitioner Downloads reflects how often research is cited in outlets like government policies, consultation reports, and think thanks and downloaded by various companies and institutions.
In addition, the FT invests a 10% share to how closely published works align with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which promote solutions to issues ranging from reducing poverty, global warming, and inequality to boosting education, equality, and clean energy. The remaining 6% is devoted to Faculty Productivity – which The Financial Times defines as the “number of FT50 articles per academic faculty member.”
Overall, the ranking hones in on research published over the past three years. In producing it, The Financial Times tapped into online analytics tools such as OpenAlex, Scite, Overton, SSRN, Open Syllabus, and Case Centre. Due to limitations in data collection, however, the FT did not include patent applications or grants received by faculty members.
Harper Center, University of Chicago (Booth)
BOOTH OUTPERFORMS ITS PEERS
In this inaugural ranking, the University of Chicago’s Booth School topped the list. It ranked 1st in three dimensions: Field Weighted Citations, Share of Positive Citations, and Policy Citations. The latter is hardly a surprise, considering Booth has produced three Nobel Laureates in Economics over the past decade. In addition, Booth finished 2nd in producing content addressing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and 4th for Practitioner Downloads. That said, Booth research isn’t particularly popular in business school classrooms. The school ranked 31st in Works Cited in Syllabi according to OpenSyllabus – lower than the Wisconsin School of Business and Texas A&M’s Mays Business School. Even more, Booth didn’t even rank for Case Study Writing.
The Stanford Graduate School of Business landed in the 2nd spot, buoyed by notching the highest score for its faculty producing research that addressed the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. At the same time, Stanford GSB ranked 2nd in weighted citations, 3rd for Policy Citations, and 4th for Share of Policy Citations. Unlike Chicago Booth, the GBS is popular in other business schools’ classrooms. It made the Top 10 for both Case Studying Writing and Works Cited in Syllabus. Alas, Stanford GSB’s research is less popular outside academia, ranking 25th for Practitioner Downloads – lower than Warwick Business School and Michigan State’s Broad College.
Rounding out the top three is Columbia Business School, which placed 2nd in both Share of Positive Citations and Practitioner Downloads. CBS was also the most consistent across the board with its lowest finish coming in UN Sustainable Development Goals (11th). MIT Sloan, 4th overall, actually ranked in the top 5 in five dimensions. The school also registered top 10 finishes in every dimension except Faculty Productivity, where it slumped to 26th. That’s a better fate than 5th-ranked Harvard Business School, which finished 62nd in Faculty Productivity. However, HBS remained the most influential business school among its rivals, ranking 1st in Case Study Writing and 2nd in Works Cited in Syllabi.
UCLA Anderson students outside Marion Anderson Hall.
AMERICAN SCHOOLS DOMINATE LIST
The school with the most Works Cited in the Syllabi of other schools? That honor goes to Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, which finished 6th overall. The Wharton School, ranked 7th overall, is the most trusted source for business practitioners, ranking 1st for downloads. When it comes to a productive faculty, UCLA Anderson took the crown.
At the top, research is a decidedly American affair. Only INSEAD cracked The Financial Times’ top 10 –and 10th at that – though the London Business School trailed closely behind at 11th. As a whole, there are 9 international business schools represented among the top 25, with Hong Kong University (13th) and the University of Toronto’s Rotman School (24th) being the top schools in China and Canada respectively (with no Indian institution even cracking the Top 100). In total, there are 51 American schools ranked among the top 100, easily besting runners-up Great Britain (12) and China (6).
In addition, there are several business schools whose research prowess outpace its ranking (and vice versa). The Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University placed 14th for research – and 61st overall with The Financial Times. The University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business claimed the 16th spot, higher than either the Yale School of Management or Cornell University’s Johnson Graduate School. In contrast, the University of Michigan’s Ross School (56th) and Dartmouth College’s Tuck School (63rd) ranked lower than their reputation might indicate.
To see The Financial Times’ Top 25 Business Schools for Research, go to the next page.
This post was originally published on here
