“Why’d You Wanna Study That?” A Process Model of the Under-Legitimation of a Research Topic

Legitimacy is a desirable evaluation that confers substantial benefits to the subject. Although there is recognition that certain research topics struggle to gain legitimacy, the process through which this struggle is sustained remains unclear. To shed light on these dynamics, we analyzed data from an interview study of 31 gender in management scholars located on five continents. We find that gender in management scholarship is granted varying degrees of exchange, procedural, and comprehensibility legitimacy by both academic and non-academic groups. In response to these conflicting legitimacies, gender scholars are subsequently subjected to multiple rhetorical delegitimation strategies by the dominant academic community. To explain how these dynamics persist, we outline an overall process model of the under-legitimation of a research topic comprising four components: value-incongruence, mixed-legitimation, delegitimation, and negative outcomes for the production and dissemination of knowledge. Further, we introduce the concept of privilege legitimacy to describe the distinctive legitimacy afforded to the research topic by male gender in management scholars. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the under-legitimation process and recommend that interventions are needed on the part of the dominant academic community to fully legitimate gender in management scholarship.