Editorial. Management studies in context: International, interconnected, yet still unique.

As Peter Galvin noted in the editorial relaunch of JMO, ‘globalisation does not necessarily equate with homogeneity’ ‘the world remains close to as heterogeneous as ever, and that it is the level of interconnectedness that is increasing’ (2014: 1). It is this notion of interconnectedness which unites the seven papers presented in this edition of JMO. While each paper resides within traditional areas of human resource management, from organisational justice through to job satisfaction, they do so in a way in which each challenges assumptions of one ‘best way’ or of simple answers. Each is clearly presented as context-driven research to represent a move away from the pervasive academic paradigm of ‘gap spotting’ as the benchmark for publishable research. The need for research, which is not only important but also interesting, is a common theme in discussing publishable research. However, there is a third area – relevance – that does not receive the same level of attention. The notion of

As Peter Galvin noted in the editorial relaunch of JMO, ‘globalisation does not necessarily equate with homogeneity’ ‘the world remains close to as heterogeneous as ever, and that it is the level of interconnectedness that is increasing’ (2014: 1). It is this notion of interconnectedness which unites the seven papers presented in this edition of JMO. While each paper resides within traditional areas of human resource management, from organisational justice through to job satisfaction, they do so in a way in which each challenges assumptions of one ‘best way’ or of simple answers. Each is clearly presented as context-driven research to represent a move away from the pervasive academic paradigm of ‘gap spotting’ as the benchmark for publishable research. The need for research, which is not only important but also interesting, is a common theme in discussing publishable research. However, there is a third area – relevance – that does not receive the same level of attention. The notion of relevance requires our research to speak to and engage a wider community. Within the academic sphere, relevance is intertwined with the vexed issue of impact, but we suggest that this is not just in terms of what Pettigrew aptly describes as ‘the retreat to defining scholarship just in terms of publication in A-rated journals’ (2011: 348). Instead, impact is the more nuanced view (which Pettigrew notes was a feature of a European Social Research Council report – way back in 1994!), which found that ‘One of our themes is that management research still does not make enough impact on users and thus on management practice. But its capacity to do so is not in doubt’ (cited in 2011: 349). While focussed on the notion of theoretical contributions, writing in the Academy of Management Review some 17 years after the ERSC report, Corley and Gioia express similar frustration. They offer that; If we do not change our scholarly traditions in ways that enhance theoretical relevance to practice and sensegiving potential to the wider audiences, then we will continue to underperform our adaptive role in society and condemn ourselves to increasing irrelevance and diminishing influence in describing, explaining, understanding, and improving organizations and their management (Corley & Gioia, 2011: 29). With the new focus of JMO as well as these two cautions to the fore, we would like to briefly introduce the seven papers that are the basis of this issue and show how each contributes to research that covers a range of countries, is context specific and is relevant.