Explore the vast range of titles available.

In December 2007, we traveled to Springfield, Illinois, to engage more than 150 physicians, state and local public health officials, university officials, judges, and attorneys in a scenario exercise to prepare for a future influenza pandemic. The event was organized by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was just one of the numerous workshops and stakeholder meetings on pandemic influenza that we would facilitate and/or participate in both domestically and internationally that year as part of the University of North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness (UNC CPHP). A primary mission of centers such as the UNC CPHP, which opened in 2003, was to link university faculty members and public health practitioners by bringing academic rigor to state and local health departments, adding qualified state and local public health professionals to the faculty, and influencing scholarly research and its translation to real-world action. These partnerships provided students a window into health security, thereby inspiring them to devote their careers to threats such as COVID-19 through government service.1 The UNC CPHP was one of a network of 27 Centers for Public Health Preparedness that grew from the events after 9/11, when health emerged as a national security concern.2 Consequently, substantial federal investment in domestic health security transformed and modernized public health, especially after passage of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act in 2006 mandated research to improve federal, state, local, and tribal public health preparedness and response systems.

Numerous studies use quantitative measures to evaluate retention, advancement and success in academic settings. Such approaches, however, present challenges for evaluating the lived experiences of academics. Here, we present a qualitative thematic analysis of self-reports of positive and negative experiences that occurred while conducting academic field research. Twenty-six semistructured interviews highlighted two central themes: (1) variability in clarity of appropriate professional behavior and rules at fieldsites, and (2) access, or obstacles therein, to professional resources and opportunity. In some instances, respondent narratives recalled a lack of consequences for violations of rules governing appropriate conduct. These violations included harassment and assault, and ultimately disruptions to career trajectories. A heuristic construct of a traffic light describing Red, Yellow, and Green experiences illustrates the ramifications of this distribution of clarity and access within fieldsite contexts. These results extend the findings from our previously reported Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE) about the climates and contexts created and experienced in field research settings. Moreover, this study addresses specific tactics, such as policies, procedures, and paradigms that fieldsite directors and principal investigators can implement to improve field experiences and better achieve equal opportunity in field research settings. Numerosos estudios usan medidas cuantitativas para evaluar la retención, el ascenso y el éxito en ámbitos académicos. Tales aproximaciones, sin embargo, presentan retos para evaluar las experiencias vividas por los académicos. Aquí presentamos un análisis temático cualitativo de los autoreportes de experiencias positivas y negativas que ocurrieron mientras conducían investigación de campo académica. Veintiséis entrevistas semiestructuradas destacaron dos temas centrales: (1) variabilidad en la claridad de la conducta profesional apropiada y las reglas de los sitios de campo, y (2) acceso, u obstáculos en él, a la oportunidad y los recursos profesionales. En algunas instancias, las narrativas de los respondedores recordaron una falta de consecuencias por las violaciones a las reglas que rigen la conducta apropiada. Estas violaciones incluyeron acoso y asalto, y finalmente disrupciones en las trayectorias de sus carreras. Un constructo heurístico de un semáforo que describe las experiencias de Rojo, Amarillo, y Verde ilustra las ramificaciones de esta distribución de claridad y acceso dentro de los contextos de los sitios de campo. Estos resultados extienden los hallazgos de nuestra Encuesta de las Experiencias de Campo Académicas (SAFE) previamente reportada acerca de los climas y contextos creados y experimentados en entornos de investigación de campo. Adicionalmente, este estudio aborda tácticas específicas, tales como políticas, procedimientos y paradigmas que los directores de sitios de campo e investigadores principales pueden implementar para mejorar las experiencias de campo y lograr de mejor manera la igualdad de oportunidades en sitios de investigación de campo.

The remarkable ascent of entrepreneurship witnessed as a scientific field over the last 4 decades has been made possible by entrepreneurship’s ability to absorb theories, paradigms, and methods from other fields such as economics, psychology, sociology, geography, and even biology. The respectability of entrepreneurship as an academic discipline is now evidenced by many other fields starting to borrow from the entrepreneurship view. In the present paper, seven examples are given from this “pay back” development. These examples were first presented during a seminar at the Erasmus Entrepreneurship Event called what has the entrepreneurship view to offer to other academic fields? This article elaborates on the core ideas of these presentations and focuses on the overarching question of how entrepreneurship research impacts the development of other academic fields. We found that entrepreneurship research questions the core assumptions of other academic fields and provides new insights into the antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences of their respective core phenomena. Moreover, entrepreneurship research helps to legitimize other academic fields both practically and academically.Plain English SummaryEntrepreneurship research questions the core assumptions of other academic fields and legitimizes them both practically and academically. Since the 1980s, entrepreneurship research has seen tremendous growth and development, establishing itself as an academic field. Entrepreneurship is also taught extensively in leading business schools around the world. Indeed, few business schools do not address entrepreneurship in their curriculum. This represents a sea change: although entrepreneurs and new ventures had a remarkable impact on society, academia barely noticed it in the 1980s. Simply put: economics and business students rarely, if ever, encountered any mention of entrepreneurship during their studies. While entrepreneurship research has now developed its own methodological toolbox, it has extensively borrowed perspectives, theories, and methods from other fields. In the 2020s, we now find that entrepreneurship scholars are sharing its toolbox with other academic fields, questioning the core assumptions of other academic fields and providing new insights into the antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences of their respective core phenomena. Moreover, entrepreneurship research helps to legitimize other academic fields both practically and academically. Hence, entrepreneurship research now plays not just an important role in entrepreneurship education, practice, and policy but also throughout many other research fields.

Junior faculty search committees serve as gatekeepers to the professoriate and play vital roles in shaping the demographic composition of academic departments and disciplines, but how committees select new hires has received minimal scholarly attention. In this article, I highlight one mechanism of gender inequalities in academic hiring: relationship status discrimination. Through a qualitative case study of junior faculty search committees at a large R1 university, I show that committees actively considered women's—but not men's—relationship status when selecting hires. Drawing from gendered scripts of career and family that present men's careers as taking precedence over women's, committee members assumed that heterosexual women whose partners held academic or high-status jobs were not \"movable,\" and excluded such women from offers when there were viable male or single female alternatives. Conversely, committees infrequently discussed male applicants' relationship status and saw all female partners as movable. Consequently, I show that the \"two-body problem\" is a gendered phenomenon embedded in cultural stereotypes and organizational practices that can disadvantage women in academic hiring. I conclude by discussing the implications of such relationship status discrimination for sociological research on labor market inequalities and faculty diversity.

Prior research suggests that academic scientists who collaborate with firms may experience lower publication rates in their collaborative lines of work because of industry’s insistence on intellectual property protection through patenting or secrecy. In contrast, we posit that university–industry collaboration can sometimes foster specialization and boost academic contribution to open science. Specifically, research lines with both scientific and commercial potential (i.e., in Pasteur’s quadrant) provide an opportunity for a productive division of tasks between academic scientists and their industry counterparts, whereby the former focus on exploiting the scientific opportunities and the latter focus on the commercial ones. The main empirical challenge of examining this proposition is that research projects that involve industry collaborators may be qualitatively different from those that do not. To address this issue, we exploit the occurrence of simultaneous discoveries where multiple scientists make roughly the same discovery around the same time. Following a simultaneous discovery, we compare the follow-on research output of academic scientists who collaborated with industry on the discovery with that of academic scientists who did not. We find that academic scientists with industry collaborators produced more follow-on publications and fewer follow-on patents than did academic scientists without industry collaborators. This effect is particularly salient when the research line has important commercial implications and when the industry partner is an established firm. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1235 .

This article expands on my presidential address to further bolster the case that sociology has, from its inception, been engaged in social justice. I argue that a critical review of our discipline and our Association’s vaunted empiricist tradition of objectivity, in which sociologists are detached from their research, was accomplished by a false history and sociology of sociology that ignored, isolated, and marginalized some of the founders. In the past half-century, scholaractivists, working-class sociologists, sociologists of color, women sociologists, indigenous sociologists, and LGBTQ sociologists have similarly been marginalized and discouraged from pursuing social justice issues and applied research within our discipline. Being ignored by academic sociology departments has led them to create or join homes in interdisciplinary programs and other associations that embrace applied and scholar-activist scholarship. I offer thoughts about practices that the discipline and Association should use to reclaim sociology’s social justice tradition.

Research on entrepreneurship has flourished in recent years and is evolving rapidly. This article explores the history of entrepreneurship research, how the research domain has evolved, and its current status as an academic field. The need to concretize these issues stems partly from a general interest in defining the current research domain and partly from the more specific tasks confronting the prize committee of the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship has developed in many sub-fields within several disciplines—primarily economics, management/business administration, sociology, psychology, economic and cultural anthropology, business history, strategy, marketing, finance, and geography—representing a variety of research traditions, perspectives, and methods. We present an analytical framework that organizes our thinking about the domain of entrepreneurship research by specifying elements, levels of analysis, and the process/context. An overview is provided of where the field stands today and how it is positioned relative to the existing disciplines and new research fields upon which it draws. Areas needed for future progress are highlighted, particularly the need for a rigorous dynamic theory of entrepreneurship that relates entrepreneurial activity to economic growth and human welfare. Moreover, applied work based on more careful design as well as on theoretical models yielding more credible and robust estimates seems also highly warranted.

The aim of this paper is to extend recent reflection on the evolution of strategic management by analyzing the field's object of study: strategy. We show how the concept of strategy has formed the backbone of the development of strategic management as an academic field and how consensus regarding it has evolved in the academic community during the stages of its historical development. We also address changes in the structure of the definition as it evolved through the growth of internal consistency, the centrality degree of the key terms that have shaped it, and how this evolution fostered the emergence of new research topics during the development of the discipline.

This article focuses on the lived experience of practising academics as part of an inquiry into the vexed question of 'academic identities'. Identity is understood not as a fixed property, but as part of the lived complexity of a person's project. The article reports on data from a small study in one university. The data suggest that academic identity is complex and that, moreover, it cannot be read off from descriptions of teaching, research, or management roles. Respondents in all roles were able to maintain highly distinctive, strongly framed academic identities. Experiences of class, gender and the significance of family are reported as having continued salience in respondents' lives. Moreover, despite all the pressure of performativity, individuals created spaces for the exercise of principled personal autonomy and agency. The article concludes that paying detailed attention to how changes are being experienced is an important element in theorising trends in the sector.

The dominant narrative about the rise of international business (IB) focuses on early research and the institutionalization of a new academic field. In this study, we explore the role of case writing in the field’s formative period from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s. Based on an analysis of teaching cases on IB topics, we demonstrate that case-based teaching, including the writing of cases, was an innovative pedagogical method that made a strong impact on the formation of the new academic field. Analyzing the cases and the background and affiliation of their authors offers new insights into the linkages to other disciplines from which the new academic field emerged. The analysis of the cases also provides new insight into how the case authors connected to the new practical experiences from an increasing number of multinational enterprises, particularly from the US, and conceptualized the experiences into a pedagogical language. The investigation covers 489 cases written by scholars located in 18 countries from the early 1950s to 1963, as well as archival studies of the business schools and institutions that initiated the production of cases.