The paper "The Scholarly Exchange of Knowledge in Operations Management by Linderman and Chandrasekaran" is a food example of management article. In practice, the functional areas in organizations show a high level of inter-dependability. No functional department can exist without co-operating with the other areas of the organization. However, scholarly research does not usually reflect this degree of collaboration among departments. This paper investigates the extent of scholarly work in different management discipline to borrow and gives ideas to research in operations management. It first critically reviews the article by Linderman and Chandrasekaran (2010) which is an investigation of the level of scholarly exchange within the operations management discipline and between it and other disciplines.
The paper then relates the article to concepts in operations management. Finally, the paper concludes there is a need for more frequent exchange of ideas between operations management and other management disciplines. Linderman, K., & Chandrasekaran, A. (2010). The scholarly exchange of knowledge in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 28(4), 357-366. Linderman and Chandrasekaran (2010) is an article that investigates the quality of knowledge exchange among scholarly writers within the area of operations management and across other management disciplines.
According to Agarwal and Hoetker (2007), the authors of articles in operations management journal show a willingness to integrate ideas from other areas in management in their work. On the other hand, the numbers of citations within the discipline are lower, with most authors prone to self-citation. Linderman and Chandrasekaran allege (2010) that this points to a major methodological weakness in operations management research. The authors call for increased diversity in the number of citations from other management disciplines and within operations management itself.
Article Critique The article uses journal citation data to measure the amount of scholarly exchange within the discipline of operation management and other disciplines. However, the effectiveness of such metrics is in doubt. According to Linderman and Chandrasekaran (2010 there are many more journals which contain research on the area of operations management other than the 14 journals whose Journal citation metrics is used in this study. Secondly, the author's critique of Self-citations show ignores the fact that most of the knowledge and ideas in a certain field are published in one dominant journal within the field (Baumgartner and Pieters, 2003).
According to Linderman and Chandrasekaran (2010), a journal risks isolation from others due to a higher level of self – citation. Linderman and Chandrasekaran (2010) point to the fact that leading journals have lower levels of self-citation as evidence of the weakness of self-citation. However, the most important consideration for a scholarly writer is the relevance of the information contained within the Journal he/she chooses to borrow ideas from (Barman, Hanna and LaForge, 2001). It does not make sense for a researcher to look for citation material on a certain subject in another journal while the most relevant information is found in the journal he/she publishes with.
The criticism of self-citation also ignores the fact that studies in other disciplines and journal may employ different methodologies. For comparison purposes, it is important that studies employ metrics and methodologies that make the understanding of their results and easier to evaluate against other results. According to Bergh, Perry and Hanke (2006), it is rare for research in operation management to employ the Case study method but it is widely used in Finance.
These methodological differences make the cross-disciplinary exchange of ideas with operations management difficult and maybe the reason finance and operations management exchange ideas less frequently.