Abstract

Recently, the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) has published an interesting debate on the Responsible Research in Business and Management Initiative (RRBM) and the role of our research for the benefit of society, organizations, and workers (Siegel, 2022; Tsui & McKiernan, 2022). While this discussion published in the JMS Point-Counterpoint section is very relevant, in this blog we want to raise some issues in response to Siegel’s (2022) contribution. The discussion published in JMS was meant to provoke debate, and explicitly aimed at capturing ‘extreme opinions’. The question, however, is where are the boundaries of such ‘extreme opinions’? What does actually constitute valid academic argumentation? In this blog, we problematize some of Siegel’s statements. Siegel has an extended publication record in top-tier journals, as well as editorial positions, including a former editor-in-chief for JMS. He, therefore, carries an additional responsibility due to his elite status. Likewise, his former editorship of JMS may have given him a special status, which allows him greater freedom in writing compared to those who may not have such privileges. At the same time, critique on his work is more difficult to publish, based on his elite status.