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

165Citations
Citations of this article
273Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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. © The Author(s) 2014.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2014). Habitat and Habitus: Boxed-in versus Box-Breaking Research. Organization Studies, 35(7), 967–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614530916

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free