Abstract
We argue that the creation of new knowledge is both difficult and rare. More specifically, we posit that the creation of new knowledge is dominated by a few key insights that challenge the way people think about an idea; generating high interest and use. We label this the blockbuster hypothesis. Using two large samples of published management studies over the period 1998–2007 we find support for the blockbuster hypothesis. We also find that numerous studies in the leading management journals are flops, having little impact on the profession as measured using citation data. Additional tests indicate that journal “quality” is related to the ratio of blockbusters to flops a journal publishes and that journal rankings are a poor proxy for study influence. Consistent with the notion that editorial boards are able to identify new knowledge, we find that research notes significantly under-perform articles in both the same journal and articles published in lower ranked journals. Taken together, the results imply that only a few scientific studies, out of the thousands published in a given area, change or influence the boundaries of knowledge, with many appearing to have little impact on the frontiers of knowledge. Overall, this analysis indicates that the development of new knowledge is rare even though it appears to be recognizable to knowledge gatekeepers like journal editors.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This index does not correct for the citing population of management journals outside the field of management. In order to deal with this issue, we examined the percentage of citations the journals received outside of the list of management journals maintained by ISI. We found that the citations received from outside the field of management did not vary dramatically across our set of journals.
References
Acs, Z., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patent counts and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069–1085.
Agarwal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting citations in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48, 44–60.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281–1303.
Dahlin, K., & Behrens, D. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34, 717–738.
Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M., & Mudambi, R. (2010). A story of breakthrough vs. incremental innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2), 106–127.
Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366–382.
Gleeson, R., & Schlossman, S. (1992). The many faces of the new look; The University of Virginia, Carnegie Tech, and the reform of American management education in the postwar era. Selections, Spring, 1–24.
Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.
Henderson, R., & Clark, K. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: A reassessment: Comment. American Economic Review, 95, 461–464.
Jovanovic, B. (1979). Job matching and the theory of turnover. Journal of Political Economy, 87(5), 972–990.
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kochen, M., Crickman, R., & Blaivas, A. (1981). Distribution of scientific experts as recognized by peer consensus. Scientometrics, 4(1), 45–56.
Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 93–107.
March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
McFadyen, M., & Cannella, A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 735–746.
Mudambi, R. (2008). Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5), 699–725.
Mudambi, R., & Swift, T. (2011). Proactive knowledge management and firm growth: A punctuated equilibrium model. Research Policy, 40(3), 429–440.
Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.
Pfeffer, J., & Moore, W. (1980). Power in university budgeting: A replication and extension. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 637–653.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Bachrach, D., & Podsakoff, N. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 473–488.
Schlossman, S., Sedlak, M., & Wechsler, H. (1987). The new look; The Ford foundation and revolution in business education. Selections, Winter, 8–28.
Schultz, D. M. (2010). Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate. Scientometrics, 84(2), 277–292.
Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628–638.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.
Smith, K., Collins, C., & Clark, K. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 346–357.
Starbuck, W. (2005). The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16, 180–200.
Trieschmann, J., Dennis, A., Northcraft, G., & Neimi, A. (2000). Serving multiple constituencies in business schools: MBA program versus research performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1130–1141.
Upham, S. P., & Small, H. (2010). Emerging research fronts in science and technology: Patterns of new knowledge development. Scientometrics, 83(1), 15–38.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45–58.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Tim Swift and Thomas J. Hannigan for excellent research support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brouthers, K.D., Mudambi, R. & Reeb, D.M. The blockbuster hypothesis: influencing the boundaries of knowledge. Scientometrics 90, 959–982 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0540-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0540-5