Elitist Journal Lists Undermine The Social Purpose Of Business Schools

May 8, 2026 - 04:41

A new critique argues that the Financial Times' list of ranking-worthy academic journals actively undercuts research into power, inequality, and corporate responsibility. According to scholars Carl Rhodes and Alison Pullen, the narrow focus on a handful of so-called "elite" publications forces business schools to prioritize abstract, theory-heavy work over studies that address real-world social problems.

The problem, they contend, is structural. Business school rankings heavily weight faculty publications in a select group of journals. This creates a powerful incentive for professors to chase citations and prestige rather than tackle messy, urgent issues like labor exploitation, environmental harm, or the concentration of corporate power. Research that questions the status quo or advocates for systemic change often struggles to fit the rigid, quantitative mold favored by top-tier outlets.

Rhodes and Pullen argue this system is not just intellectually limiting but ethically damaging. By rewarding conformity to a narrow academic canon, the rankings discourage the kind of critical, interdisciplinary work needed to hold business accountable. "The social purpose of business schools is being sacrificed for the sake of league table positions," they write.

The authors call for a fundamental rethinking of how research quality is measured. Instead of relying on a shortlist of "prestigious" journals, they suggest that business schools and ranking bodies should value impact beyond academia-such as influencing policy, supporting community initiatives, or informing public debate. Without such changes, they warn, business schools risk becoming irrelevant to the very societies they claim to serve.