ABSTRACT
Recent research on boards of directors has been criticized from various sources, and alternative directions for future research have been suggested. The criticism involves the fact that since 1990, research about boards of directors has been dominated by a publish-or-perish syndrome that stems from the U.S. tenure track system (Huse 1998, 2000). The consequences of this system have been a search for easily available data and the use of standardized methods. These consequences have been labeled the ‘lamp syndrome’ and the ‘hammer syndrome.’
