Czasopismo
Tytuł artykułu
Autorzy
Treść / Zawartość
Pełne teksty:
![http://mbace.eu/fulltxt.php?ICID=1169514 [zdalny]](images/mime-icons/binary.gif "fulltxt.php")
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Abstrakty
Purpose: This article provides a general review of the debate over rigor and relevance in academia, specifically in the scientific field of management. It seeks to contribute to the body of literature while emphasizing instances where the gap between rigor and relevance has been bridged, along with the role of business schools.
Approach: This takes the approach of underscoring the most important works in the present literature regarding rigor and relevance, and then focusing on three points of emphasis: 1) role of business schools in the debate; 2) main points of contention; and 3) strongest examples of success in this field.
Findings: The most important findings in this work indicate that the debate surrounding relevance and rigor still persists and may also be reaching a breaking point where the two sides of the debate cannot reconcile. Various proposed solutions to the debate are available but meaningful action has yet to be taken.
Implications: The practical applications of this work are manifold. Scholars would have a clearer understanding of the environments in which their works are operating and practitioners would find academic works in management more accessible.
Value: This work provides a description of both the points of contention in the rigor vs. relevance debate and the points of successful unification of the two. (original abstract)
Approach: This takes the approach of underscoring the most important works in the present literature regarding rigor and relevance, and then focusing on three points of emphasis: 1) role of business schools in the debate; 2) main points of contention; and 3) strongest examples of success in this field.
Findings: The most important findings in this work indicate that the debate surrounding relevance and rigor still persists and may also be reaching a breaking point where the two sides of the debate cannot reconcile. Various proposed solutions to the debate are available but meaningful action has yet to be taken.
Implications: The practical applications of this work are manifold. Scholars would have a clearer understanding of the environments in which their works are operating and practitioners would find academic works in management more accessible.
Value: This work provides a description of both the points of contention in the rigor vs. relevance debate and the points of successful unification of the two. (original abstract)
Rocznik
Tom
Numer
Strony
32--46
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
autor
- Kozminski University, Poland
Bibliografia
- Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Decisions. London: Harper Collins.
- Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (1999). Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance, MIS Quarterly, 23(1): 3-16, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249403
- Bessant, J. and Tidd, J. (2011). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Lawrenceville: Princeton University Press.
- Clark, T. and Fincham, R. (2009). Introduction: Can We Bridge the Rigour-Relevance Gap? Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): 510-515.
- Dearborn, D.C. and Simon, H.A. (1958). Selective perception: a note on the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21: 140-144, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2785898
- Denyer, D., Tranfield, D. and Van Aken, J.E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29: 393-413.
- Empson, L. (2013). My Affair With the "Other": Identity Journeys Across the Research-Practice Divide. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(2): 229-248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492612 446068
- Gordon, R.A. (1976). Rigor and Relevance in a Changing Institutional Setting. The American Economic Review, 66(1): 1-14.
- Gulati, R. (2007). Tent Poles, Tribalism, and Boundary Spanning: The Rigor-Relevance Debate in Management Research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 775-782, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279170
- Hodgkinson, G.P. and Rousseau, D.M. (2009). Bridging the Rigour-Relevance Gap in Management Research: It's Already Happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): 534-546, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00832
- Kieser, A. and Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): 516-533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831
- Latusek, D. and Vlaar, P. (2014). Exploring managerial talk through metaphor: An opportunity to bridge rigour and relevance? Management Learning, 46(2): 211-232, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350507614529512
- Lewin, K. (1951). Problems in Research in Social Psychology. In: D. Cartwright (ed.), Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row.
- Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L. and Gentner, D. (2003). Analogical learning in negotiation teams: comparing cases promotes learning and transfer. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(2): 119-127, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2003.9901663
- Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Markides, C. (2011). Crossing the Chasm: How to Convert Relevant Research Into Managerially Useful Research, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1): 121-134, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886310388162
- Mintzberg, H. (1977). Policy as a Field of Management Theory. Academy of Management, 2(1): 88-103.
- Neil, A., Herriot, P., and Hodgkinson, G.P. (2001) The Practitioner-Researcher Divide in Industry. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4): 391-423.
- Palmer, D., Dick, B., and Freiburger, N. (2009). Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4): 265-272, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492609343491
- Peters, K. (2008). The Other Two R's: Rigour and Relevance, Management Today, 71.
- Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2006). Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Polzer, J., Gulati, R., Khurana, R, and Tushman, M. (2009). Crossing Boundaries to Increase Relevance in Organizational Research, Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4): 280-286, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1056492609345429
- Porter, L.W. and McKibbin, L.E. (1988). Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st Century? New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Romme, A.G.L. (2003). Making a difference: organization as design. Organization Science, 14(5): 558-573, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.558.16769
- Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R. (1996). Information Technology and Innovation: Strategies for Success, Morristown: Financial Executives Research Foundation.
- Simon, H.A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12(3).
- Thomas, K.W. and Tymon, W.G. (1982) Necessary Properties of Relevant Research: Lessons from Recent Criticisms of the Organizational Sciences, Academy of Management, 7(3), 345-352, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5465/AMR.1982.4285308
- Van De Ven, A.H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- White, S. (2002). Rigor and Relevance in Asian Management Research: Where Are We and Where Can We Go? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2/3): 287-352, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016295803623
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171402695
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.