Search results

Drawing on the experience of the Observatories, a set of interconnected research centers in Italy, this chapter explains why academics are in one of the best positions to orchestrate interorganizational initiatives of change and development, and highlights two prerequisites that appear necessary to render salient this orchestrator role of academics: (i) the extensive use of multiple approaches of collaborative research and (ii) the creation and maintenance of a platform allowing the management and diffusion of the network-based learning mechanisms underlying each change and development effort. The contributions extend existing knowledge on organization development and collaborative research.

Sensemaking is an integral element of human cognition. It is the activity whereby we find answers to questions that arise from experience. It is at the core of collaborative management research as researchers and practitioners work together to build a shared understanding of organizational phenomena and take action based on that understanding, thereby generating actionable knowledge. However, mutual understanding is a complex process which requires a great deal of effort by both researchers and practitioners. While research has described in great detail the consequences of collaborative research endeavors, the challenge of creating a shared sensemaking conducive to these results has been left partially explored. The chapter examines the nature of sensemaking in collaborative management research. A comprehensive framework is proposed and then utilized to examine a collaborative management research effort carried out with an Italian social cooperative.

Purpose – The chapter explores the methodological challenges in doing community-based participatory research (CBPR) in social science investigations with immigrant women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) in Canada.

Methodology/approach – The methodological comments, observations, and challenges discussed in this chapter result from research funded by the Social Science and Humanities Council, a branch of the Canadian Federal Tri-Council. The research that the authors conducted was both quantitative and qualitative in nature. The sample consisted of three groups of women: (1) immigrant women in Canada >10 years, (2) immigrant women in Canada <10 years, and (3) visible minority women born in Canada.

Findings – The chapter highlights some of the lessons learned in conducting CBPR research in the context of immigrant survivors of IPV. This discussion can be relevant to both academics and non-profit/advocacy agencies interested in pursuing community partnership research on interpersonal violence.

Originality/value – There is a paucity of writings on CBPR research in the social science and the challenges. This chapter reveals the methodological challenges that the researchers experienced in doing CBPR with racialized immigrant women who are survivors of IPV. This discussion can be relevant to both academics and non-profit/advocacy agencies interested in pursuing community partnership research on interpersonal violence.

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three streams of thought. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses.

This paper reviews the main approaches that have analysed this topic, drawing a number of conclusions.

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three main perspectives. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed us to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses. To represent the findings of the literature review in this sense, the authors will present, first, a model that serves as a framework to interpret the different solutions proposed in the literature to close the gap from a positivist paradigm. Subsequently, they question this view through a reflection that brings us closer to a more pragmatic and interpretive paradigm of management science to bridge the research–practice gap.

In recent studies, researchers agree that there is an important gap between management research and practice, which may bear little resemblance to each other. However, the literature on this topic does not seem to be guided by a rigorously structured discourse and, for the most part, is not based on empirical studies. Moreover, a sizeable body of literature has been developed with the objective of analysing and contributing solutions that reconcile management researchers and professionals. To offer a more systematic view of the literature on this topic, the paper classifies previous approaches into three different perspectives based on the ideas on which they are supported. Finally, the paper concludes with some reflections that could help to reorient the paradigm from which the management research is carried out.

Combining the goal-setting and job demands-resources (JD-R) theories, we examine how two project resources, collaborative project leadership and financial project resources, enhance high project performance in community-academic health partnerships.

With a sequential explanatory mixed-method research design, data were collected through a survey (N = 318) and semi-structured interviews (N = 21). A hypothesised three-path mediation model was tested using structural equation modelling with bootstrapping. Qualitative data were examined using thematic analysis.

Project workers’ hope, goal-commitment and -stress: (1) fully mediate the hypothesised relationship between highly collaborative project leadership and high project performance; and (2) partially mediate the relationship between financial project resources and high project performance. The qualitative data corroborate and deepen these findings, revealing the crucial role of hope as a cognitive-motivational facilitator in project workers’ ability to cope with challenges.

Project leaders should promote project workers’ goal commitment, reduce their goal stress and boost project performance by securing financial project resources or reinforcing workers’ hope, e.g. by fostering collaborative project leadership.

The findings contribute to the project management and JD-R literature by considering the joint effects of project workers’ hope and two commonly studied project resources (collaborative project leadership and financial project resources) on high project performance. Moreover, we demonstrate the importance of the goal-setting and JD-R theories for understanding complex health-promotion projects connecting academic to community work.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a multi-layered theoretical framework to enable engaged scholarship to develop as a practice in entrepreneurship and small business research. To do so, it illuminates the salient features of engaged scholarship, collaborative learning and actor-network theory (ANT).

The paper follows a narrative or traditional literature review design. Specifically, it adopts a thematic approach for summarising and synthesising a body of literature on engaged scholarship, collaborative learning and ANT with the view to develop a new multi-layered theoretical framework.

Applying the theory of engaged scholarship to pivot entrepreneurship/SME research provides scholars with an opportunity to unlock the theory vs practice paradox. Moreover, engaged scholarship offers valuable instructions for encouraging interactionism between entrepreneurship researchers and practitioners as well as reconcile their polarised views. Co-production and co-creation of knowledge addresses the concerns often raised by the practitioner community regarding the relevance and applicability of academic research to practice.

The proposed multi-layered framework provides entrepreneurship researchers, and the practitioner community with a taxonomy to use to encourage a joint approach to research. Developing deep partnerships between academics and practitioners can produce outcomes that satisfy the twin imperatives of scholarship that can be of high quality as well as a value to society.

The paper advances the theory and practice of engaged scholarship in new ways that are not common in entrepreneurship/SME research. This enables engaged scholarship to develop as a practice in entrepreneurship and small firms’ research. Through applying the proposed multi-layered framework in research, academics can deliver fully developed solutions for practical problems. The framework is useful in the theory vs practice and entrepreneurship researchers vs practitioner debates.

The aim of this research is to evaluate the conditions of production of methodological knowledge on innovation management. It seeks to present the experience of an applied research team working with practitioners of R&D by means of an inter‐disciplinary research team in social sciences. The theoretical framework aims to present two approaches for knowledge production: collaboration with practitioners and interdisciplinary research in social science.

The methodology is a case study focused on the various forms of collaborative research. While the literature mainly considers only one form of collaborative research, the author distinguishes between mono‐disciplinary and inter‐disciplinary collaborative research on one hand, and between mono‐partner and multi‐partner collaborative research on the other, leading to four typical research situations. The paper examines empirically the rigor‐relevance debate as seen as the researchers and the practitioners.

The findings bring to light different criteria that influence the production of knowledge, within the rigor‐relevance dilemma, according to the collaborative research situations and the epistemological posture of researchers from various disciplines.

The practical implications concern the conditions under which a research program in social sciences can reach both rigor and relevance and produce methodological knowledge. It provides a guide for effective collaboration between social science academics and managers.

This research enlightens the conditions of collaboration between the academic world and the industrial world, which is key to foster innovation, particularly in social sciences.

The value of the paper is to illustrate that collaborative research requires a “boundary organization” to create new knowledge, which is a type of task force capable of mediation between academia, industrials and consultants.

Prior research has highlighted the isolation felt by some researchers engaged in academic writing. This article aims to examine whether such isolation might be partially overcome by membership of an online community of writers (CoW), hosted by higher education (HE) library services.

A review of the literature was followed by an innovative piece of action research based around the authors' own long distance collaborative writing task in order to explore the issues at first‐hand. Case studies of existing online writing communities known to the authors but not currently hosted by libraries were also undertaken.

Themes emerging include the importance of finding a medium for a CoW that is familiar and comfortable. Motivators to join a CoW include demands that academics be research active. Demotivators may include lack of trust and reluctance to share.

There are still questions to be answered and decisions to be taken about the initiation of a CoW. Further research is needed into topics such as mentoring roles and trust‐building but this work should provide a springboard.

HE libraries might consider a CoW as a research support mechanism.

The concept of a CoW is a novel one, as is the idea that such a collaboration might be hosted by HE libraries that might consider a CoW as an innovative addition to their existing portfolio of research support services.

As the field of action-oriented research becomes increasingly diffuse and diverse, this paper seeks to identify common ground across the multiple modalities of action research and collaborative management research through articulating and exploring a general empirical method that is grounded in the recognizable structure of human knowing. This method is grounded in: attention to observable data (experience), envisaging possible explanations of that data (understanding), and preferring as probable or certain the explanations, which provide the best account for the data (judgment). Engaging this method requires the dispositions to perform the operations of attentiveness, intelligence, and reasonableness, to which responsibility is added when we seek to take action. This paper seeks to provide insight into the multiple modalities of action research and collaborative management research and to illustrate how each modality engages the recognizable operations of human knowing.

This paper presents recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy. It provides an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications covering various library types, study populations and research contexts. The selected bibliography is useful to efficiently keep up with trends in library instruction for busy practitioners, library science students and those wishing to learn about information literacy in other contexts.

This article annotates 424 English-language periodical articles, monographs, dissertations, theses and reports on library instruction and information literacy published in 2021. The sources were selected from the EBSCO platform for Library, Information Science, and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and WorldCat, published in 2021 that included the terms “information literacy,” “library instruction,” or “information fluency” in the title, abstract or keywords. The sources were organized in Zotero. Annotations summarize the source, focusing on the findings or implications. Each source was categorized into one of seven pre-determined categories: K-12 Education, Children and Adolescents; Academic and Professional Programs; Everyday Life, Community, and the Workplace; Libraries and Health Information Literacy; Multiple Library Types; and Other Information Literacy Research and Theory.

The paper provides a brief description of 424 sources and highlights sources that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions.

The information may be used by librarians, researchers and anyone interested as a quick and comprehensive reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy within 2021.