The document discusses the 30-year anniversary of the Academy of Management Review journal. It provides a brief history of AMR, noting that it was established in 1976 to publish original management theory. The document discusses an anniversary committee that selected the most innovative articles from the first two decades. It highlights the committee's selection of the most influential articles from each decade, including their average citation counts. The document concludes by celebrating the influential work published in AMR and its commitment to publishing innovative theoretical research.

1. EDITOR’S FORUM
CELEBRATING THIRTY YEARS OF THEORY
PUBLISHING IN AMR: AWARD-WINNING
ARTICLES FROM THE FIRST TWO DECADES
REVISITED
博一 A 班：戴錦秀
學
號 :R78162025
指導教授：李元德老

2. ■The thirty-year anniversary of AMR in
2005 prompted me to cast a backward
glance over the first two decades of
published work. What I found was a
treasure trove of exciting theory that
had, apparently, been waiting for just
such a journal to be established.

3. ■(It is notable that during its first year of
operation, AMR received over 200
submissions.) I asked a Committee
headed by Madan Pillutla and including
Gerald F. Davis and Christopher P.

4. ■Earley to pick what they considered to be
the most innovative,frame-breaking
article from each of the first two decades
of published work in AMR.

5. ■The intent was to emphasize the enduring
consistency of high-quality work
published in the journal and to signal our
continuing commitment to framebreaking,
innovative work that establishes new
theory.

6. ■ I report the results of the nniversary
committee’s decisions below, but
first a little history.

7. ■ When the Academy Board of overnors
made the decision, during the 1973–
1974 term, to establish a new journal
devoted to theoretical and conceptual
work, the discipline of management and
organization studies took a momentous
step toward scientific self-confidence.

8. ■The opportunity to publish original
theory in AMR meant that researchers
were increasingly able to develop
relevant theory within the discipline
(and to export ideas to other isciplines),
rather than having to rely exclusively on
borrowings from across the social
sciences.

9. ■With the publication of the first issue of AMR in
January 1976, the template for the continuing
success of the journal was established. The emphasis
(in the Suggestions for Contributors) was
on “distinguished original manuscripts” that moved
“theoretical conceptualization forward” with “clear
implications of theory for problemsolving.”

10. ■ By the beginning of 1979, there
was an added emphasis on
“provocative manuscripts that
stimulate thought” and “even stir
up controversy.”

11. ■The first issue of AMR (like the current
issue) grouped contributions into articles,
conceptual notes, and book reviews.
Setting the pattern for the future, the very
first issue of AMR included what turned
out to be a must-cite conceptual
contribution from Andrew Van De Ven,
entitled “A Framework for Organization
Assessment.”

12. ■Of course, some things have changed
during the thirty-plus years of AMR’s
existence. During those early days,
Editorial Board members were expected
to review forty to fifty papers per year,
according to the Editor’s Comments in
the fourth issue of Volume 2, nnouncing
the resignation of several board members!

13. ■Perhaps things were a little easier for these
reviewers in that the suggested page
length of submissions was set at twenty,
and was only increased to twenty-five
with the first issue of Volume 10.
(Current guidelines call for thirty-five
pages of text.)

14. ■However,it is noteworthy that, already,
by the first issue of Volume 2, the editor
noted that the length of accepted
manuscripts was causing a backlog in the
publication queue.

15. ■Further, Volume 2 in 1977 also
contained what has become a traditional
lament concerning the “staggering
number of rejected manuscripts” on
management topics characteristic of
leading journals (Jerdee & Rosen, 1977:
659).

16. ■The anniversary committee looked at all
the papers published in the first two
decades and produced an initial shortlist
of twenty-three articles for further
consideration. From this list, the
committee chose a final shortlist of three
articles from the first decade and four
articles from the second decade that best
represented innovative, frame-breaking
qualities.

17. ■It is worthwhile pausing for a moment to
celebrate these influential pieces of work
and to note that, at the time of the
committee’s deliberations (early 2006), the
mean number of citations per article in the
Web of Science to these shortlisted pieces
was 565.

18. From the first decade, the committee
shortlisted the following three articles:
1.Staw, B. M. 1981. The escalation of
commitment to a course of action. 4: 577–587.
2. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984.
Upper echelons: The organization as a
reflection of its top managers. 9: 193–206.
3.Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. 1984. Toward a
model of organizations as interpretation
systems. 9: 284–295.

19. From the second decade, the committee shortlisted
the following four articles.
• Trevin˜o, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision-making
in organizations: A person-situation interactionist
model. 11: 601–617.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories
from case study research. 14: 532–550.
• Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional
processes. 16: 145–179.
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D.
1995. An integrative model of organizational
trust. 20: 709–734.

20. ■As reported in the October 2006 issue, the winner of
the first decade award was the article by Hambrick and
Mason (1984), and the winner of the second decade
award was the article by Mayer, Davis, and
Schoorman (1995). I invited the authors to reflect on
what we have learned
concerning the ideas introduced in their articles, to
bring us up to date, and to examine future possibilities
for further research. Please enjoy revisiting two of the
greatest hits of AMR theorizing in the authors’
discussions of the continuing trajectories of these two
outstanding research programs.

21. 回顧 - 現況理論
一、目前創業研究的理論基礎遍佈經濟學、社會學、心理學等
，其中以經濟學為主要發展核心。由於創業具有跨領域特
性，可大量借用現有的理論基礎（認知理論、社會網絡理
論、資源基礎理論、制度理論等）來解釋與預測許多創業
發生的現象。
二、創業研究仍缺乏一套比較嚴謹的理論基礎與模式架構，
而且創業研究的邊界仍然模糊不清，許多學者 ( 如 Shane
& Venkataraman,2000) 也指出創業研究缺乏專屬的理論
基
礎。

22. 回顧 - 過去理論
一、本研究回顧近 20 年來創業研究的演進，除了發現理論基礎
正在逐漸建立根基，研究焦點也從創業家單一構面轉向多
重
構面之間的互動，其中並以創業機會做為核心，不過在分
析層次的研究設計與多種研究方法運用上仍相對不足。
二、本研究延伸 Low & MacMillan (1988) 、 Ucbasaran, et al.
(2001)
、 Busenitz, etal. (2003) 等學者的論點，針對創業管理未來
的
研究方向，提出以下的建議。

23. 創業管理研究建議
一、繼續強化研究理論的基礎
創業研究的理論基礎有兩大發展方向，一為從經濟學的角度出發，探討
創業的廠商理論。另一新的發展方向則是自認知理論、社會網絡理論、
資源基礎理論與制度理論進行創業研究，目前已經產生大量的研究成果
。我們建議後續研究者應該繼續強化研究理論的基礎，除了由現有理論
出發，朝深化議題的方向發展，也應思考如何整合現有理論，朝向跨領
域的整合方向邁進，可試圖發展一套新的理論基礎。
二、增加對於創業初期過程的研究
相較於國外的研究成果，台灣的起步較晚，研究較集中於創業投資與企
業內部創業等少數議題，明顯缺乏多樣化，尤其針對創業初期過程的探
討相當不足。由於創業與其他領域最大的差異即在於新創事業的萌現
(emergence) 過程 (Davidsson & Honig, 2003) ，亦即創業家如何在複
雜且變動的環境中發掘機會，並著手進行新事業創立的過程。

24. 創業管理研究建議
三、聚焦於創業機會
創業初期的研究可以創業機會為核心，探討創業機會與其它構面間
的互動關係。學者專家建議一些創業機會研究的議題，例如：創業
家認知對機會發掘之影響、社會網絡如何協助創業機會發掘、制度
環境對於創業機會的影響、先驗知識對於創業機會發掘與利用的影
響、過去的創業經驗對於創業機會發掘的影響、創業機會辨識與評
估利用之間的關係等議題。
四、強調多個構面的互動研究
由於創業研究的邊界橫跨了多個領域與多種主題，構面的互動關係
應為未來研究的焦點。 Busenitz et al. (2003) 發現過去的研究，探
討構面間互動關係十分稀少，他認為創業研究若只單一探討某個構
面可能會缺乏完整性，因此建議未來研究應朝向探討不同構面間之
連結關係。

25. 感想
這學期非常感謝李元德老師的指導及鼓勵，讓我有機
會思考之前所未曾接觸及學習的領域歷程，尤其，對新興企
業的議題，如：創業是一個極具創新性與挑戰性的新興研究
領域，有學者提出強化研究理論的基礎、增加對於創業初期
的研究、焦聚於創業機會研究、以及強調多構面的互動研究
等四個未來研究方向建議，目的是為了引發大家對於創業研
究議題的重視，並凝聚華人地區學者在創業研究的合作共識
。我是很認同這樣的想法，也是我這門課中的收穫之一。