Teadustöö võib paljudele tunduda midagi mütoloogilist või siis midagi väga lihtsat. Võib-olla on kusagil mõni mõtleja, kelle tööd on olnud nii kvaliteetsed ja valikud nii asjakohased, et kõik tema publikatsioonid on avaldatud kohe esimesel korra. Ei tea. Ilmselt on siiski enamik uurijaid tundnud nii tagasilükkamise kui ülelihtsustamise “tundeid”. Tagasilükkamise puhul on oluline, et see on justkui hinnang kolleegidelt ning sel põhjusel väga oluline ja ülelihtsustamise puhul on tegemist sageli väliste hindajatega, kes ei ole kunagi publitseerimise kadalippu läbinud ja sel põhjusel lihtsalt ei tea, millest jutt. Siinviidatu on vabalevis olev tekst, mida tasuks lugeda. Aga see võib aega võtta.


It is unusual to introduce a publication by drawing attention to its history of rejection. The piece in question – an editorial ‘From the Editors’ (FTE) – was prepared for a journal widely regarded as one that is in the ‘top-tier’2 (hereafter TOP). The rejected FTE, included as Supplemental Appendix 1, is taken, in this Speaking Out, as an instance of how heterodox scholarship provides insights into the operation and preservation of what I will term TOPness .

Kes on autor, kes võtab arvata:

As a TOP ‘insider’, having been a long serving editorial board member of The Academy of Management Review and then an Associate Editor (AE), I am in a privileged position to ‘speak out’.

Soovitus lugejale:

This Speaking Out is concerned with a single case, so any lessons drawn from its examination should be treated with caution and, ideally, be contrasted against counter-examples.

Vihje selle kohta, miks tagasilükkamine võib “tundeid” tekitada:

The rejected FTE, and also this Speaking Out, are examples of an ‘activism’ that ‘engage(s) in changing the terms through which we [e.g. business school faculty] constitute the academy, and ourselves as academics’ (Cabantous et al., 2016: 210). Such activism strives ‘to put ourselves into critique’ (Fournier and Smith, 2012: 467) in a way that ‘starts from the personal’ (Fournier and Smith, 2012: 465).


I also found it disappointing that I received no scholarly explanation for declining my request to make the source material available and, instead, the justification was framed in terms of an infringement of property rights (e.g. ownership of the text).

Uurimustööde läbiviimise kontekstist:

This exclusionary judgement, I conjecture, stems from a disinclination, or perhaps an incapacity, to recognize that, in the critical genre of heterodox scholarship, at least as I conceive of it, scholarship is intimately related to living in, and radically changing, the world; and that this ‘activist’ commitment extends to the organization and management of academic/ scientific institutions and editorial structures.

Erinevad vaated teadustööle:

In orthodox scholarship, the politics of practical-critical activity is ostensibly evacuated (or concealed) from the determination of what, ‘scientifically’, is reported to be the reality of management and organization, including the reality of CMS which the TOP editor urged me to ‘capture’ and convey in the FTE. Critical scholarship, in contrast, problematizes the ostensible, value-free objectivity of (contemplative) reports of reality, with the intent of transforming the world in a progressive, emancipatory direction.

Willmott, H. (2022). Not the ‘from the editors’: On guarding ‘topness.’ Organization, 29(1), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420972091