Drift or Shift? Continuity, Change, and International Variation in Knowledge Production in OR/MS

References

  • Abbott A.The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (1988) (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ackoff R. L. A comparison of operational research in the U.S.A. and in Great Britain. Oper. Res. Quart. (1957) 8:88–100CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ackoff R. L. Some unsolved problems in solving problems. Oper. Res. Quart. (1962) 13:1–11CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ackoff R. L. Science in the systems age: Beyond IE OR, and MS. Oper. Res. (1973) 21:661–671LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ackoff R. L. Resurrecting the future of operational research. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (1979) 30:189–199CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Barley S. R., Kunda G. Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1992) 37:363–399CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Byrt W.Management Education: An International Survey (1989) (Routledge, London, U.K) Google Scholar
  • Charnes A., Cooper W. W. Management models and industrial applications of linear programming. Management Sci. (1957) 4:38–91LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Churchman C. W., Ackoff R. L., Arnoff E. L.Introduction to Operations Research (1957) (John Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
  • Corbett C. J., Van Wassenhove L. N. The natural drift: What happened to operations research? Oper. Res. (1993) 41:625–640LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Dando M. R., Bennett P. G. A Kuhnian crisis in management science. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (1981) 32:91–103CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dando M. R., Sharp R. G. Operational research in the U.K. in 1977: The causes and consequences of a myth? J. Oper. Res. Soc. (1978) 29(10):939–949CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Doyle J. R., Arthurs A. J. Judging the quality of research in business schools: The UK as a case study. Omega (1995) 23:257–270CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Engwall L., Alvarez J. L. Mercury and Minerva: A modern multinational academic business studies on a global scale. The Diffusion and Consumption of Business Knowledge (1997a) (Macmillan Press, London, U.K) 81–109Google Scholar
  • Engwall L. The Vikings versus the world: An examination of Nordic business research. Scandinavian J. Management (1997b) 12:425–436CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fleischmann B. Operations research activities in Germany. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (1995) 87:440–444CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Geoffrion A. M. Forces trends, and opportunities in MS/OR. Oper. Res. (1992) 40:423–445LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon R. A., Howell J. E.Higher Education for Business (1959) (Columbia University Press, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gourvish T. R., Tiratsoo N.Missionaries and Managers: American Influences on European Management Education 1945–60 (1998) (Manchester University Press, Manchester, U.K) Google Scholar
  • Hall J. R., Hess S. W. OR/MS: Dead or dying? RX for survival. Interfaces (1978) 8:42–44LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hansen P. A short discussion of the OR crisis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (1989) 38:277–281CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hausman W. H., Scudder G. D. Priority scheduling rules for repairable inventory systems. Management Sci. (1982) 28(11):1215–1232LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kao C., Lee C.-K., Chen C.-Y. Overview of OR practice in Taiwan companies. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (1997) 48(6):569–579CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Keys P.Understanding the Process of Operational Research: Collected Readings (1995) (John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U.K) Google Scholar
  • Kirby W. K. Operations research trajectories: The Anglo-American experience from the 1940s to the 1990s. Oper. Res. (2000) 48:661–670LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kirby W. K., Capey R. The origins and diffusion of operational research in the U.K. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (1998) 49:307–326CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Krarup J. EURO 20th anniversary: The prospective future. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (1995) 87:415–421CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Leavitt H. J. On the export of American management education. J. Bus. (1957) 30:153–161CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Locke R. R.Management and Higher Education Since 1940 (1989) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K) Google Scholar
  • Meredith J. R. Reconsidering the philosophical basis of OR/MS. Oper. Res. (2001) 49:325–333LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Morton G. Linear programming—An application in a textile mill. Oper. Res. Quart. (1958) 9(3):198–206CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ormerod R. J. An observation on publication habits based on the analysis of MS/OR journals. Omega (1997) 25:599–603CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ormerod R. J. Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation? Omega (2000) 28:241–245CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ormerod R. J., Kiossis I. OR/MS publications: Extension of the analysis of U.S. flagship journals to the United Kingdom. Oper. Res. (1997) 45:178–187LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ormerod R. J., Delibassi P., Morris C. Research strategies used by OR/MS workers: Extension of the analysis of U.S. flagship journals to the United Kingdom. Oper. Res. (2000) 48:527–534LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Pappis C. P. OR in Europe: Facts about EURO member societies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (1995) 87:424–429CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pidd M., Dunning-Lewis P. Innovative research in OR/MS? Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2001) 128:1–13CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pierson F. C.The Education of American Businessmen (1959) (McGraw-Hill, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Porter L. W., McKibbin L. E.Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st Century? (1988) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
  • Reisman A., Kirschnick F. The devolution of OR/MS: Implications from a statistical content analysis of papers in flagship journals. Oper. Res. (1994) 42:577–588LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Reisman A., Kirschnick F. Research strategies used by OR/MS workers as shown by an analysis of papers in flagship journals. Oper. Res. (1995) 43:731–740LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Riffe D., Lacy S., Fico F.Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (1998) (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) Google Scholar
  • Rothkopf M. H. Ten years of the OR practice section. Oper. Res. (1994) 42:31–33LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Rynes S. L., Bartunek J. M., Daft R. L. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Acad. Management J. (2001) 44:340–355CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Smiddy H. F., Naum L. Evolution of a “science of managing” in America. Management Sci. (1954) 1:1–31LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Smith K. A., Willis R. J., Brooks M. An analysis of customer retention and insurance claim patterns using data mining: A case study. J. Oper. Res. Soc. (2000) 51:532–541CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Steer D. T., Page A. C. C. Feasibility and financial studies of a port installation. Oper. Res. Quart. (1961) 12(3):145–160CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Taha H. A., Wolf H. M. Evaluation of generator maintenance schedules at Entergy electric system. Interfaces (1996) 26(4):56–65LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Topkis D. M. Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice. Oper. Res. (1978) 26(2):305–321LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Trefethen F. N., McCloskey J. F., Trefethen F. N. A history of operations research. Operations Research for Management (1954) 1(Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD) Google Scholar
  • Trieschmann J. S., Dennis A. R., Northcraft G. B., Niemi Jr A. W. Serving multiple constituencies in the business school: M.B.A. program versus research performance. Acad. Management J. (2000) 43:1130–1141CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Üsdiken B., Leblebici H., Anderson N., Ones D. S., Sinangil H. K., Viswesvaran C. Organization theory. Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology (2001) 2(Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) 377–397CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Whitley R.The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (2000) (Oxford University Press, Oxford U.K) Google Scholar
  • Whitley R., Thomas A., Marceau J.Masters of Business? Business Schools and Business Graduates in Britain and France (1981) (Tavistock Publications, London, U.K) Google Scholar
  • Wright C. M., Mehrez A. An overview of the representative research of the relationship between quality and inventory. Omega (1998) 26(1):29–47CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.