How Assumptions About Time Divide and Connect Epistemic Communities in Business and Management

Abstract Business and management studies comprise distinct epistemic communities that frequently do not interact or collaborate. While this has been explained as paradigm incommensurability, construct ambiguity or the variance–process, this CrossRoads article sets out a less commonly invoked source of difference: how our theories conceptualize time. This includes assumptions about whether the future is determined or open (temporal openness), whether and how change takes place (temporal directionality) and the appropriate timescales and detail for analysis (temporal duration). To illustrate the importance of these three temporal dimensions, influential traditions in strategy, entrepreneurship, institutional theory, process studies, population ecology, real‐options and scenario planning are mapped. The mapping demonstrates that many temporal differences between epistemic communities are differences of degree that may offer productive tensions for collaborative approaches, even though some may remain difficult to reconcile. Through a set of diagnostic questions, this CrossRoads piece offers a framework for interdisciplinary temporal brokerage within and beyond business and management.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
British Journal of Management
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.70125
Primary Topic
Management and Organizational Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How Assumptions About Time Divide and Connect Epistemic Communities in Business and Management

Stephanie Decker
British Journal of Management
Management and Organizational Studies
article

How Assumptions About Time Divide and Connect Epistemic Communities in Business and Management

Stephanie Decker
article en

Abstract

Abstract Business and management studies comprise distinct epistemic communities that frequently do not interact or collaborate. While this has been explained as paradigm incommensurability, construct ambiguity or the variance–process, this CrossRoads article sets out a less commonly invoked source of difference: how our theories conceptualize time. This includes assumptions about whether the future is determined or open (temporal openness), whether and how change takes place (temporal directionality) and the appropriate timescales and detail for analysis (temporal duration). To illustrate the importance of these three temporal dimensions, influential traditions in strategy, entrepreneurship, institutional theory, process studies, population ecology, real‐options and scenario planning are mapped. The mapping demonstrates that many temporal differences between epistemic communities are differences of degree that may offer productive tensions for collaborative approaches, even though some may remain difficult to reconcile. Through a set of diagnostic questions, this CrossRoads piece offers a framework for interdisciplinary temporal brokerage within and beyond business and management.

British Journal of Management
University of Birmingham (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Management and Organizational Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon