Challenges and perspectives for the development of the management sciences subdisciplinarity
| Aug 02, 2024
About this article
Article Category: Research Article
Published Online: Aug 02, 2024
Page range: 170 - 184
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijcm-2024-0011
Keywords
© 2024 Marek Matejun, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Characteristics of respondents to the survey
| Gender | n | % | Period of work at university | n | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 12 | 39% | Up to 5 years | 2 | 6% |
| Male | 19 | 61% | 6–10 years | 7 | 23% |
| 11–15 years | 7 | 23% | |||
| Professor | 7 | 23% | 16–20 years | 5 | 16% |
| Associate professor | 14 | 45% | Above 20 years | 10 | 32% |
| Assistant professor | 7 | 23% | |||
| Lecturer/University Lecturer | 2 | 6% | Theoretical considerations | 3 | 10% |
| Assistant lecturer/Associate lecturer | 1 | 3% | Basic research | 8 | 26% |
| Applied research | 20 | 64% | |||
| 31–40 years | 9 | 29% | |||
| 41–50 years | 11 | 36% | Quantitative research | 14 | 45% |
| 51–60 years | 6 | 19% | Qualitative research | 15 | 48% |
| Above 60 years | 5 | 16% | No empirical research | 2 | 7% |
Opinions of the surveyed scientists about the development prospects of selected emerging subdisciplines in the management sciences
| Emerging management sub-disciplines | Total in the sample | China | Poland | Student’s t-test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | t | ||
| Informatics in management | 4.42 | 0.72 | 4.55 | 0.69 | 4.35 | 0.75 | 0.717 | 0.48 |
| Technology management | 4.16 | 0.73 | 4.09 | 0.54 | 4.20 | 0.83 | –0.441 | 0.66 |
| Tourism management | 3.61 | 1.17 | 4.00 | 0.77 | 3.40 | 1.31 | 1.382 | 0.18 |
| Visual management studies | 3.58 | 0.96 | 4.00 | 0.77 | 3.35 | 0.99 | 1.882 | 0.07 |
| Sports management | 3.26 | 1.21 | 3.36 | 0.81 | 3.20 | 1.40 | 0.412 | 0.68 |
| Military management/national defense management | 3.16 | 1.29 | 3.82 | 0.87 | 2.80 | 1.36 | 2.232 | 0.03 |
| Arts management | 2.71 | 1.16 | 2.55 | 0.69 | 2.80 | 1.36 | –0.691 | 0.50 |
Functions and examples of classification of subdisciplines of the management sciences
| Classification function | Classification example | Characteristics of classification |
|---|---|---|
| Building identity and integrating the scientific community | Second version of classification from the Polish Academy of Science: Committee of Organization and Management. It includes 18 subdisciplines that form a hierarchical system of 4 levels: (1) empirical character, (2) subjective criterion, (3) management level and (4) specific research specialties level ( |
Range: Poland Scope: specific Levels: 4 NoSs: 18 Boundaries: closed |
| Identification of scientists’ research interests | EIASM classification created by the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (n.d.). This is wider classification of economic sciences, including management science subdisciplines. It is divided into 112 specializations at 2 levels: 18 at the first level and 94 at the second level. It has an open nature and additional proposals may be included. | Range: Europe Scope: specific Levels: 2 NoSs: 112 Boundaries: open |
| Distribution of funds for scientific research | Classification of the Narodowe Centrum Nauki panels (n.d.), developed for qualification and assessment of research projects in Poland. It includes the HS panel: humanities, social sciences, and art, which includes the HS4 subpanel: individual, institutions, markets. It contains a classification of 15 subdisciplines characteristic of management. These include: resources and sustainable development; corporate finance, accounting; marketing; strategic management, concepts and methods of management; and human resources management, along with the possibility of taking into account other related issues. | Range: Poland Scope: general Levels: 3 NoSs: 15 Boundaries: open |
| Awarding specialties as part of scientific degrees | The Chinese classification of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council ( |
Range: China Scope: general Levels: 2 NoSs: 5 Boundaries: closed |
| Development of research teams | European Group for Organizational Studies (n.d.) compilation, which operates in dynamic Standing Working Groups (SWGs). Currently, 15 SWGs have been created, including, among others: organization and time; organizing in and through civil society; social movements and organizations; routines and routine dynamic; organizational networks; organizational paradox; digital technology, media and organization; organizing in and for extreme contexts or organization studies in the Anthropocene. | Range: Europe Scope: specific Levels: 1 NoSs: 15 Boundaries: open |
| Classification of scientific journals | The Scopus-Elsevier classification ( |
Range: international Scope: general Levels: 2 NoSs: 11 Boundaries: closed |
| Classification of scientific publications | Journal of Economic Literature codes classification system developed by the |
Range: international Scope: specific Levels: 3 NoSs: 857 Boundaries: open |
| Support in the selection of scientific journals | Range: The United Kingdom Scope: specific Levels: 1 NoSs: 22 Boundaries: closed |
|
| Organization of scientific conferences | The thematic scope created for the National Scientific Conference within “Summer School of Management” cycle entitled “Challenges and Perspectives for the Development of Management Sciences”. It was organized in 2010 by the Technical University of Łódź, Poland. The deliberations focused on 14 management sciences subdisciplines ( |
Range: Poland Scope: specific Levels: 1 NoS: 14 Boundaries: closed |
| Evaluation of university performance | Range: Italy Scope: general Levels: 3 NoSs: 6 Boundaries: closed |
|
| Implementation of official statistics obligations | The Fields of Research (FoR) classification from Australia and New Zealand ( |
Range: Australia and New Zealand Scope: general Levels: 3 NoSs: 75 Boundaries: open |
The opinions of the surveyed scientists about the impact of management science characteristics on the diversity of subdiscipline classifications
| Characteristics of management sciences | Total in the sample | China | Poland | Student’s t-test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | t | ||
| Methodological pluralism and polymethodology of management sciences | 3.65 | 0.84 | 3.45 | 0.52 | 3.75 | 0.97 | –0.937 | 0.36 |
| The current, dynamic/turbulent stage in the development of management sciences | 3.48 | 0.96 | 3.64 | 0.92 | 3.40 | 0.99 | 0.648 | 0.52 |
| Searching for merit and methodological identity of management sciences in the social sciences | 3.38 | 1.21 | 3.27 | 1.01 | 3.44 | 1.34 | –0.366 | 0.72 |
| Focus on analysis of dynamic processes | 3.23 | 1.28 | 3.36 | 1.43 | 3.15 | 1.23 | 0.437 | 0.66 |
| A relatively low level of accuracy, universality, objectivity, and sustainability of scientific laws | 3.10 | 0.84 | 3.18 | 0.75 | 3.05 | 0.91 | 0.398 | 0.69 |
| Relative “youthfulness” of management sciences | 3.07 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 0.89 | 3.11 | 1.08 | -0.286 | 0.78 |
| Importance of research self-reflection in management sciences | 3.06 | 1.12 | 3.36 | 1.03 | 2.90 | 1.17 | 1.103 | 0.28 |
| Belonging of management sciences to a group of highly practical applied sciences | 3.00 | 1.21 | 3.27 | 0.90 | 2.85 | 1.35 | 0.928 | 0.36 |
| The importance of methodological triangulation in management sciences | 2.90 | 1.01 | 2.91 | 1.04 | 2.9 | 1.02 | 0.024 | 0.98 |
| The wide range of applications of qualitative methods | 2.87 | 1.28 | 3.09 | 1.58 | 2.75 | 1.12 | 0.701 | 0.49 |
| Domination of medium range theory and microtheories | 2.77 | 0.77 | 2.82 | 0.87 | 2.74 | 0.73 | 0.273 | 0.79 |
Hierarchization of the diversity factors of management science subdisciplines on the basis of the opinions of the surveyed scientists
| Component No. | Proposed label | Total in the sample | Hierarchy | China | Poland | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |||
| 1 | Methodological specificity of management sciences | 3.03 | 0.94 | 4 | 3.09 | 1.12 | 3.00 | 0.86 |
| 2 | Interpretative specificity of the management sciences | 3.12 | 0.84 | 2 | 3.30 | 0.82 | 3.02 | 0.85 |
| 3 | Dynamics and methodological diversity of the management sciences | 3.56 | 0.54 | 1 | 3.55 | 0.47 | 3.58 | 0.59 |
| 4 | Pragmatic nature of the management sciences | 3.06 | 0.95 | 3 | 3.14 | 0.81 | 3.03 | 1.03 |
| 5 | Theoretical specificity of the management sciences | 2.68 | 0.91 | 5 | 2.82 | 0.87 | 2.60 | 0.94 |
Classification of the determinants of diversity of management science subdisciplines using factor analysis on the basis of the opinions of the surveyed scientists
| Characteristics of management sciences | Component | Consistency assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| The importance of methodological triangulation in management sciences | 0.86 | CR=0.87 | ||||
| The wide range of applications of qualitative methods | 0.82 | AVE=0.69 | ||||
| Searching for merit and methodological identity of management sciences in the social sciences | 0.81 | αCr=0.74 | ||||
| Focus on analysis of dynamic processes | 0.87 | CR=0.78 | ||||
| Importance of research self-reflection in management sciences | 0.74 | AVE=0.54 | ||||
| A relatively low level of accuracy, universality, objectivity, and sustainability of scientific laws | 0.58 | αCr=0.61 | ||||
| Methodological pluralism and polymethodology of management | 0.85 | CR=0.79 | ||||
| sciences | AVE=0.66 | |||||
| The current, dynamic/turbulent stage in the development of management sciences | 0.76 | αCr=0.75 | ||||
| Belonging of management sciences to a group of highly practical applied sciences | 0.87 | CR=0.78 | ||||
| AVE=0.64 | ||||||
| Relative youthfulness of management sciences | 0.72 | αCr=0.53 | ||||
| Domination of medium range theory and microtheories | 0.83 | n/a | ||||
| Cumulative % of explained variance | 22.43 | 39.90 | 54.83 | 67.75 | 78.81 | |
Opinions of the surveyed scientists about the role of determinants from the socioeconomic and scientific environment in shaping the development of subdisciplinarity in management science
| Determinants | Total in the sample | China | Poland | Student’s t-test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | t | ||
| (1) The needs and development prospects of the economic/social sphere vs. (2) scientific sphere | 2.68 | 1.08 | 2.64 | 1.12 | 2.70 | 1.08 | -0.155 | 0.88 |
| (1) Political preferences and regulatory requirements vs. (2) scientists/researchers’ preferences and scientific requirements | 3.81 | 1.17 | 4.18 | 0.40 | 3.60 | 1.39 | 1.741 | 0.09 |
| (1) Development of management sciences so far vs. (2) prospects for the future development of management sciences | 3.94 | 0.77 | 4.09 | 0.54 | 3.85 | 0.88 | 0.827 | 0.42 |
| (1) National vs. (2) international/global trends in management sciences development | 4.29 | 0.82 | 4.27 | 0.65 | 4.30 | 0.92 | –0.087 | 0.93 |