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.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an existing collaborative research methodology process (Sabri, 2018), contextualise it for application in humanitarian supply chains and test it empirically.

Building on collaborative research methodology and humanitarian supply chain literature, the Sabri’s (2018) collaborative research methodology process is further developed to comprise eight phases of collaborative research contextualised for the humanitarian supply chain domain. The process is applied in a collaborative research case of academia–practitioner knowledge co-creation in a humanitarian supply chain setting, focussing on environmental sustainability improvement. The collaborative case analysis suggests a number of refinements to the elements of the process. This study undertook two cycles of academia–practitioner collaborative research.

In testing the process, a noticeable improvement in the collaboration among different humanitarian stakeholders was observed, leading to improved stakeholder management. The implementation improved the sustainability awareness and social inclusion of the affected population. Rurality, remoteness, security issues and resistance of field staff against change were among the main challenges for supply chain researchers to engage in collaborative research in the humanitarian domain.

The paper addresses the rigour‒relevance‒reflectiveness debate in the humanitarian supply chain domain. A collaborative research methodology process derived from action research is further developed using humanitarian literature, and then it is applied in a humanitarian logistics case focussed on environmental sustainability. The present collaborative research process facilitates engaged scholarship among the humanitarian stakeholders, as the researchers’ roles move from observatory to participatory knowledge broker.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the co‐production of knowledge and dialogic relationships via the collaboration between business practitioners and academic researchers.

The motivations, expectations, communication processes, and final performance of those engaged in collaborative management research are explored by applying a two‐pronged methodology with a content analysis and an e‐mail survey. The authors conducted a content analysis on 136 articles identified out of a total of 2,029 articles from six leading journals during 2006‐2011 which fulfilled the criteria of being coauthored by both professors and practitioners. An e‐mail survey of six open questions was given to pre‐screened authors in the first stage to investigate the in‐depth dialogue processes and stories of these collaborations.

The results revealed that collaboration topics of interest focused mostly on organizational behavior, business policy, and strategy, and that theoretical inquiry and case study were the most used research methods. According to the 68 valid returned e‐mail surveys, the providing of consulting services by professors in firms plays a critical role in facilitating knowledge co‐creation between practice and knowing. The findings also highlight key factors of sustainable co‐production relationships.

This study provides an empirical, valuable step towards an investigation into the co‐creation dialogue experiences of practitioners and academics in three dimensions: purpose, procedure, and promise.

Reports from a systems development research tradition in which emphasis is put on relating research activities to practice and on establishing fruitful collaboration between groups of researchers and practitioners. Describes and evaluates a specific research project in which a large group of researchers and practitioners worked together to understand, support, and improve systems development practices in four organisations over a period of three years. Uses the case to reflect on the research goals, approaches, and results involved in this tradition for researching systems development practice. Proposes collaborative practice research as a way to organise and conduct research into systems development practice based on close collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Exemplifies the use of pluralist research methodology by combining action research with experiments and conventional practice studies. Argues that collaborative practice research offers one practical way to strike a useful balance between relevance and rigour. Concludes with a discussion of the implications for the relation between research and practice within the systems development discipline and with lessons on how to design research efforts as collaborations between researchers and practitioners.

Based on the combined experiences of operations and supply chain management (O&SCM) scholars and a reflective practitioner, the paper compares, contrasts and reconciles the competences needed to research O&SCM practice and to practice O&SCM research. The purpose of this paper is to locate these competences for young faculty in relation to their ambitions and career choices.

The paper is based upon the contributions made at European Operations Management Association 2014 Young Scholars Workshop (YSW). The theme and programme of the workshop was “Operations management – research and practice”.

The paper outlines first the concept of the YSW, the evolution of themes and the specific focus of the 2014 workshop. It concludes with a reflection on the career development of O&SCM scholars, their potential role, as academics or practitioners, in the development of O&SCM theory and practice, and the role of collaborative research in that development.

This paper shows what it takes for O&SCM researchers to engage with “the world around us” involves and, vice versa, how “doctorate” OM and SCM practitioners may successfully solve practical problems and engage with the O&SCM world surrounding them in doing so.

The paper presents a collection of viewpoints of O&SCM scholars and a reflective practitioner on the competences needed to research OM practice and to practice OM research.

The purpose of this paper is to present a cost‐benefit interpretation of academic‐practitioner research by describing and analysing several recent relevant examples of academic‐practitioner research with a focus on doctoral theses carried out at universities and business schools in clusters of research centred in North America, Australia and Europe.

Using case study examples, a value proposition framework for undertaking collaborative research for higher degree level study is developed and presented.

Value proposition benefits from this level of collaborative research can be summarised as enhancing competencies at the individual and organisational level as well as providing participating universities with high‐quality candidates/students and opportunities for industry engagement. The project management (PM) professional bodies can also extend PM knowledge but they need to be prepared to provide active support.

A model for better defining the value proposition of collaborative research from a range of stakeholder perspectives is offered that can be adapted for researchers and industry research sponsors.

Few papers offer a value proposition framework for explaining collaborative research benefits. This paper addresses that need.

The purpose of this paper is to provide of a review of the theory and models underlying project management (PM) research degrees that encourage reflective learning.

Review of the literature and reflection on the practice of being actively involved in conducting and supervising academic research and disseminating academic output. The paper argues the case for the potential usefulness of reflective academic research to PM practitioners. It also highlights theoretical drivers of and barriers to reflective academic research by PM practitioners.

A reflective learning approach to research can drive practical results though it requires a great deal of commitment and support by both academic and industry partners.

This paper suggests how PM practitioners can engage in academic research that has practical outcomes and how to be more effective at disseminating these research outcomes.

Advanced academic degrees, in particular those completed by PM practitioners, can validate a valuable source of innovative ideas and approaches that should be more quickly absorbed into the PM profession's sources of knowledge. The value of this paper is to critically review and facilitate a reduced adaptation time for implementation of useful reflective academic research to industry.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on interactive research as a means to create relevant knowledge in the domain of operations management in general and specifically in the context of production start-up.

The reflection on the use of interactive research in production start-ups was based on a study of two completed interactive research projects. The lens for reflection was a framework including context, quality of relationship, quality of the research process itself and outcomes.

The context was industrial manufacturing companies in Sweden, with different kind of challenges related to production start-ups, such as collaboration between involved functions and suppliers, competence development and work routines. Indicators of the quality of relationship between researchers and practitioners were initiated development activities and new collaboration between functions, within the company, between companies and in supply chains. The reflection of the quality of the research process itself was based on an interactive research process including four iterative steps with regular follow-ups allowing joint practitioner and researcher reflection on the progress. Identified outcomes included increased awareness and competence on how to deal with production start-ups, improvements of communication, work procedures and structures, better use of competences, increased cross-functional dialogue and cultural understanding.

Implications for practitioners are the possibilities for knowledge creation through interactive collaboration in research projects enabling exchange between researchers from complementary fields and other companies dealing with production start-ups.

The interactive research approach enables joint knowledge creation in a fast-changing context such as production start-ups as well as value-adding results both for practitioners in industry and for academia.

The authors draw on Howard and Thomas-Hughes' (2020) framework for quality assessment of co-produced research, to interrogate our assumptions and processes and to reflect on our project. They consider if they achieved our planned outcomes around developing practice, enabling a range of voices and perspectives within their research, and enacting change within the university museum.

The authors’ early years residency programme explores the potential of collaborations with community groups to transform knowledge and practice through action research. As museum educators, the authors find synergy between the participatory pedagogies underpinning their practice and the co-construction of knowledge within action research. Both are committed to enabling diverse interpretations within a collective and supportive framework. Within their project, practitioners from the museum and playgroup worked collaboratively to collect video footage, photos, children's artwork and reflective journals and memos.

The process of action, observation and reflection revealed much about the authors’ different perspectives and they found variations in both pedagogy and practice. Although the authors had a shared commitment to providing high quality, memorable, exciting opportunities for the children, the exploratory nature of the project meant that they did not agree what these experiences might look like in advance, and so they had different understandings of what they saw.

Although the authors’ methodological framework was designed to make their research collaborative, structural challenges and the contexts of the art museum and university reinforced long established hierarchies. While some felt supported by the research process and the prestige of working with a university museum to gain legitimacy for their practice, others were disempowered by these same structures. The authors consider their obligations as practitioner-researchers to become aware of the role they play in maintaining, as well as challenging, hierarchies and assumptions.

Young children in museums is a growing area of study and this practitioner-led action research project develop a new strand of enquiry within this field. Through this research the authors can collaborate with community partners to record, analyse and make visible the many different ways in which young children experience the museum. As research led institutions, university museums are ideally placed to develop research in partnership with local public bodies and community groups. However, future work in this area would benefit from a more explicit consideration of the constraints implicit within the institutions within which they all operate.