Habitat and Habitus: Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research

Alvesson, M; Sandberg, J

Habitat and Habitus: Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research

Alvesson, M Sandberg, J

Permalink

Publisher:: SAGE Publications
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Organization Studies, 2014, 35 (7), pp. 967 - 987
Issue Date:: 2014-07

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Habitat and Habitus_Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research.pdf	Published Version	403.68 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Alvesson, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sandberg, J	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014-07	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Organization Studies, 2014, 35 (7), pp. 967 - 987	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1741-3044	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/43879
dc.description.abstract	This paper argues that scholarly work is increasingly situated in narrowly circumscribed areas of study, which are encouraging specialization, incremental adding-to-the-literature contributions and a blinkered mindset. Researchers invest considerable time and energy in these specialized areas in order to maximize their productivity and career prospects. We refer to this way of doing research and structuring careers as boxed-in research. While such research is normally portrayed as a template for good scholarship, it gives rise to significant problems in management and organization studies, as it tends to generate a shortage of novel and influential ideas. We propose box-breaking research as a strategy for how researchers and institutions can move away from the prevalence of boxed-in research and, thus, be able to generate more imaginative and influential research results. We suggest three versions: box changing, box jumping and, more ambitiously, box transcendence.	en_US
dc.publisher	SAGE Publications	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Organization Studies	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/0170840614530916	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Business & Management	en_US
dc.title	Habitat and Habitus: Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	7	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	35	en_US
utslib.for	1503 Business And Management	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/School of Management
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.declined	2016-05-25T10:56:26.439+1000
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.issue	7	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	35	en_US

Abstract:

This paper argues that scholarly work is increasingly situated in narrowly circumscribed areas of study, which are encouraging specialization, incremental adding-to-the-literature contributions and a blinkered mindset. Researchers invest considerable time and energy in these specialized areas in order to maximize their productivity and career prospects. We refer to this way of doing research and structuring careers as boxed-in research. While such research is normally portrayed as a template for good scholarship, it gives rise to significant problems in management and organization studies, as it tends to generate a shortage of novel and influential ideas. We propose box-breaking research as a strategy for how researchers and institutions can move away from the prevalence of boxed-in research and, thus, be able to generate more imaginative and influential research results. We suggest three versions: box changing, box jumping and, more ambitiously, box transcendence.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/43879