Search results

The “relevance literature” often moans that the publications of top-ranked academic journals are hardly relevant to managers, while actionable research struggles to get published. The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon.

This paper addresses the relevance debate in management science through the theoretical frame of the theories of the firm.

This paper proposes that business organizations should tend to internalize specific applied research. Applied to management research, this could explain why the “market” for academic publications might be more relevant for generalizable and conceptual research than for applied, contextualized research.

The paper is conceptual. However, it provides a new prospect to the rigor-relevance debate and to the ranking of researchers and business schools.

Business organizations should tend to internalize specific, applied research. Consequently, academic publications should concentrate on generalizable, “Mode 1” research.

The conclusions could justify the evolution of the rating of universities and researchers towards a multi-dimensional rating, including measures of the socio-economic impact of the research, instead on focusing on academic publications only.

This paper offers a new point of view on the rigor-relevance debate. It supports the idea that applied and conceptual research are different forms of knowledge and should be “traded”, produced and rewarded differently.

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.

The purpose is to investigate a position for engaged scholarship bridging the gulf between theorizing and practice in a social system perspective using Design Thinking for assisting the emergence of a semantic reservoir in a polycentric network “in spe”.

The paper combines social systems theory with the concept of engaged scholarship based on Design Thinking, and illustrates how such a research position might be applied to problems of polycentric networks as a theoretical/methodological case.

The paper concludes on a possible role for an engaged scholarship as a midwife assisting the emergence of a shared semantic reservoir that is needed to make commitments and couplings possible to become a polycentric network. Design Thinking is explained as a structured way to irritate (disturb) other systems, and the role of a shared semantic reservoir for a polycentric network “in spe” is accounted for.

Bridging the gulf between theorizing and practice in management theory is under-explored, and social systems theory underlines the immanent rigor-relevance gap, which this paper suggests a way not to overcome, but to bridge. The discussion of the rigor-relevance gap is revisited. Also, the critical process for a shared semantic reservoir to emerge in the formation of poly-centric networks is underexplored and so are its role for coupling of networks. The conceptual understanding thereof is also contributed to.

The purpose of this paper is to address the research-practice gap in management and advocate the need for an independent organization, called the evidence-based management (EBMgt) collaboration to facilitate generation and dissemination of knowledge that is rigorous, relevant, and actionable.

The authors use a theory-building approach to collaboration. They identify existing challenges in the research-practice gap literature and argue that EBMgt offers the most viable alternative to narrow this gap. They offer a theory of collaboration with supporting propositions that engages the generators, disseminators, and users of management knowledge in an ongoing sustainable collaboration toward EBMgt.

The authors envision evidence at the center of the EBMgt collaboration. They offer a process model of EBMgt incorporating a collaboration that ensures the fusion of rigor, relevance, and actionability of management knowledge toward the production of strong evidence that is of value to a decision maker. They suggest that the collaboration generate evidence in the form of a systematic review (SR) using a standard template and make it available online to management decision makers around the world in real time. They outline the parameters of the SR and offer details on the design of the Template.

The theory of collaboration brings together various competing ideas and recommendations made over the past few decades to close the research-practice gap in management. The theory can be used as a guideline to establish and maintain the operation of an EBMgt collaboration.

The authors offer details on the format and content of a standardized SR along with a template to execute it. They believe it would appeal to a practicing manager to know the state-of-the-art knowledge that applies to a decision that he or she is about to make in real time.

The work provides a theoretical platform for the idea of EBMgt collaboration that was not available before. The authors add value to the research-practice gap literature by addressing critical concerns including the identification of relevant research questions, evaluating and grading evidence, fostering communication between researchers and practitioners, and translating research to practicing managers. The integration of research and organizational knowledge in the form of an SR that provides decision support to a practicing manager is of significant value to the profession. The conceptualization of the collaboration, not as a research method but as a separate social system that links key management knowledge stakeholders together adds originality to collaboration research.

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.

This paper aims to categorize and organize dynamic capabilities that have been inductively identified in empirical research into a comprehensive taxonomy. Thus, it addresses calls in the literature for a better understanding of dynamic capabilities and integration of scattered empirical findings into theory.

A systematic literature review approach was adopted, with a total of 34 articles published between August 2007 and April 2020, from which 240 idiosyncratic dynamic capabilities were identified. The taxonomy was constructed using the Gioia-method.

The main finding is a three-level taxonomy of dynamic capabilities (DC). Level DC-1 is based on the existing triad of sensing, seizing and transforming. Level DC-2 is newly introduced to the literature by this study, consisting of 19 dynamic sub-capabilities that categorize and organize all 240 idiosyncratic dynamic capabilities in the sample (level DC-3). The taxonomy supports the existing claim that dynamic capabilities are common in key features and idiosyncratic in details. Moreover, theoretical connections to business model innovation and ambidexterity are indicated.

This study integrates scattered empirical findings of specific dynamic capabilities and translates them to a practitioner audience. The taxonomy allows the strategic manager to understand what they specifically are and, thus, assess the dynamic capability endowment of the firm which allows deploying, developing and fostering them.

The taxonomy provides a comprehensive and tangible picture of what dynamic capabilities look like in practice. It improves existing knowledge and understanding by bridging the rigor-relevance gap between rather rigorous conceptual literature and rather relevant empirical research as it integrates them. As such, it can serve as a “map” of dynamic capabilities for scholars and practitioners.

The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast perceptions about the research-practice “gap” as it may apply within management accounting, from the perspective of professional accounting bodies in Australia and Germany.

The findings reported in this paper is based on the collection and analysis of data from interviews with 19 senior representatives from four Australian Professional bodies and 14 representatives of German Professional accounting bodies.

In Australia and Germany, there exist common as well as unique barriers preventing a more effective engagement of academic research with practice. Common to both countries is the perception that the communication of research represents a major barrier. In Australia, practitioner access to academic research is seen to be a principal obstacle; in Germany, the relevance of topics researched by academics is perceived to represent a significant barrier to academic research informing practice.

This paper directly engages with, and extends recent empirically based research into the extent to which academic research may “speak” to management accounting practice. It extricates both common and specific barriers contributing to the oft-quoted “research-practice gap” in management accounting, and points to the pivotal nature of an intermediary to act as a conduit between academics and practice.

By investigating this issue in two quite different cultural, educational, academic and practice contexts, this paper provides much-needed empirical evidence about the nature, extent and pervasiveness of the perceived research-practice gap in management accounting, and provides a basis for further investigation of this important topic.

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.

The pressure on the academic community to demonstrate impact, bridge theory to practice and solve practical problems is persistent. Action research has the potential for bridging the rigour–relevance gap, but has struggled for legitimacy. The purpose of this paper is to better understand the impediments to action research legitimacy.

An analytic autoethnography of a PhD candidature, utilising legitimacy theory.

The study finds that a self-perpetuating cycle is hampering the quality of action research and provides a comprehensive list of impediments to action research legitimacy. It predicts that legitimacy can be improved through differentiating and improving guidance to theoretical contribution and considering a broader range of stakeholders for research funding and execution.

Provides a more comprehensive understanding of the type and form of legitimacy issues for action research, which informs the actions likely to improve legitimacy. Provides clarity into limitations and variants in legitimacy theory. As the perspective of one PhD candidate, the study has the potential for bias and limitations to generalisability.

Improving the legitimacy of action research helps practice-based disciplines. The findings assist practitioners contemplating an academic pursuit to solve intractable business problems.

Research that is both rigorous and relevant contributes to one’s ability to solve complex societal problems. This study provides insights into how research rigour and relevance could be improved.

This research provides unique perspective and insight into the reasons action research continues to struggle for legitimacy