Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:33:54.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Australian Management Research: Prospects for the New Millennium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Gregory R. Elliott
Gregory R. Elliott*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is an abridged and revised version of a report that was originally published in the Australian Research Council (ARC) report ‘Management Research in Australia’, jointly funded by the ARC and the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM). It documents the results of a Delphi study into the future of management research in Australia over the coming decade. An important finding was that there might be a ‘shortfall’ between the likely and desirable level and character of Australian management research. A dominant view of the panel was that management research will become more relevant to the needs of its important client groups, including students, government and business. Significant divergence within the respondent panel is also identified.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , March 1998 , pp. 18 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Delbecq, A, ‘The Case Against Practicality and Relevance as Gauges of Business Schools-Responding to Challenges Posed by Criticisms of Business School Research —Commentary’, journal of Management Inquiry Vol 5, Issue 4, pp 350–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, GR and Glaser, S (1998) ‘Australian Management Education at the Cusp’, Journal of Management Development Vol. 17, Nos 2 & 3, pp 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, MA (1996) ‘The Case Against Practicality and Relevance as Gauges of Business Schools-Responding to Challenges Posed by Criticisms of Business School Research’ Journal of Management Inquiry Vol 5, Issue 4, pp 336–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldfisher, K (1992–1993) ‘Modified Delphi: A Concept for New Product Forecasting’ Journal of Business Forecasting Vol 11, No 4, Winter, pp 10–11.Google Scholar
Jolson, MA and Rossow, GL (1971) ‘The Delphi Process in Marketing Decision-Making’ Journal of Marketing Research Vol 9, No 8, pp 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linstone, HA And Turoff, M (eds) (1975) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Miles, RE, ‘Some Further (and Future) Thoughts on Practicality and Relevance Commentary’ Journal of Management Inquiry Vol 5, Issue 4, pp 352–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, R and Wedemeyer, DJ (1994) ‘Assessing the Validity of the Delphi Technique’ Futures Vol 26, No 3, Apr, pp 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebolt, JW, ‘The Case Against Practicality and Relevance as Gauges of Business Schools-Commentary’ Journal of Management Inquiry Vol 5, Issue 4, pp 355–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniezek, JA (1989) ‘An Examination of Group Process in Judgmental Forecasting’ International Journal of Forecasting Vol 5, NoCrossRefGoogle Scholar