Search results

Purpose – The author introduces the Eastern philosophy of wisdom, especially its epistemology of Yin-Yang Balancing as the Eastern cognitive frame, to shed light on the debates over the distinction and integration between research and practice as well as between qualitative and quantitative methods so as to solve the problems of relevance-rigor gap as well as complexity-simplicity gap. The author also applies the frame of Yin-Yang Balancing to the development of a novel method of case study.

Methodology/Approach – This is a conceptual article.

Central theme – The Eastern philosophy of wisdom is better at an open-minded exploration of open-ended issues by emphasizing relevance and complexity, while the Western philosophy of science is better at a closed-minded exploitation of close-ended issues by emphasizing rigor and simplicity. A geocentric integration of both Eastern and Western philosophies is needed.

Research and practical implications – Management research is far behind the need for theoretical insights into practical solutions largely due to the increasing gaps between relevance and rigor as well as between complex problems and simple solutions. The root cause of the two gaps lies in the overreliance on the Western philosophy of science, so a new light can be found in the Eastern philosophy of wisdom, and the ultimate solution is a geocentric integration of Eastern and Western philosophies. A novel method of case study can be built by applying the Eastern philosophy.

Originality/Value – The author highlights the urgent needs for the Eastern philosophy of wisdom and its integration with the Western philosophy of science toward a geocentric meta-paradigm. As a specific application of the geocentric meta-paradigm, the author proposes a novel method of case study called Yin-Yang Method.

The purpose of this paper is to underscore the fundamental importance of relevance to an applied field such as supply chain management (SCM). It is argued that simultaneity of research rigor and relevance is necessary to assert claims of impact.

This paper acts as a reflective essay, inductive reasoning and prescriptive framework.

Impact needs to be evaluated based on both rigor and relevance, and not exclusively based on whether a paper is published in a “top-tier” journal. Without relevance, academic research in SCM will cease to be of practical importance.

The primary limitation is that this is a conceptual paper relying on logical arguments.

The paper exhorts academics in SCM to recognize and insure practical relevance in their research. It develops strong arguments for why such a combined focus is needed and should be encouraged by journals.

Thought provoking paper intended to change how the field evaluates research for its impact. General strategies for increasing relevance in academic research are offered.

The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss, among alternative European currents, a “foundationalist perspective for management research” (FPM) which redefines the identity, rigor and relevance of management research.

The management literature has documented a wide range of criticisms about standard management research which are most often summarized as “the relevance gap” or the “translation problem”. The paper presents the historical development, in the French context, of an epistemological debate about management as an academic field which led to FPM as an alternative to standard approaches and as a solution to such criticisms. In this approach, the identity of management science, its principles of relevance and its definition of rigor, cannot be defined separately.

FPM offers a consistent approach of management research as a science that studies “models of collective action”. Rigor is redefined as the appropriate combination of different types of interactions between the researcher and its object. From the point of view of management research, rigor supports relevance and relevance is a condition of rigor.

The paper focuses on the French context of management research. Yet, the new epistemology of management research that it presents may contribute to the international conversation on the future of the field. In more specialized areas of research, the paper discusses two implications of this new epistemology: a theory of managerial techniques as a critical view of classic organization theory; and a model of collective innovative design as a critical view of standard R&D and project management.

The paper presents a new approach of management research which is built on a new epistemology of collective action. It offers an original way to build management science as a basic science; to avoid the weaknesses of mainstream statistical research; to depart from the “applied social science” model.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how traditional ethnography as an established methodology can promote and strengthen both rigor and relevance in qualitative service research.

This paper is based on ethnographic methodology literature and experience of ethnographic studies in the field.

In particular, the three ethnographic aspects of fieldwork, prolonged time in the field and sensitivity to language and cultural codes can increase rigor in service research, while the central ethnographic premises of flexibility and reflexivity can contribute to its relevance.

Service researchers are encouraged to consider engaging in ethnographic research and to realize its potential to increase both rigor and relevance in service research endeavors.

Rigor and relevance are central and important research quality criteria, and these are often referred to as being mutually exclusive. This paper suggests how traditional ethnography can promote and strengthen both rigor and relevance in qualitative service research and thereby further advance this research area.

The discussion of rigor vs relevance is an ongoing debate in academic environment. Ambitions to fulfill one of these two objectives might not exclude the other. Instead, they could and should be achieved simultaneously. However, what seems to be missing in supply chain management (SCM) research is the unfolding of symmetrical balance between the two dimensions of relevance – theoretical vs practical relevance. The purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of this symmetrical balance and to change the conversation to also include the practical relevance dimension.

The paper is based on literature studies as well as the results of a questionnaire survey distributed to the Danish Supply Chain Panel consisting of 113 supply chain executives (as per the beginning of 2017). A short interview about the questionnaire results was also carried out with three panel members.

With an increased focus on journal rankings, there is a risk of pursuing more theoretically relevant SCM research at the expense of practically relevant SCM research. Both types of relevance are important for growing the discipline. But the current development seems to favor theoretical relevance, further widening the gap with respect to practical applications. Practical relevance is important both in the knowledge production and in the knowledge transfer stages.

There is a need to further explore different resources to close the gap between theoretical and practical relevance in SCM research. Researchers ought to follow an ambidextrous research strategy. This paper advises to bring back the core of the profession – the research process. This paper encourages researchers to be more creative and intensify the focus, equally, on both the theoretical and practical relevance in their research.

This research showcases a variety of different approaches for researchers to engage with practice so as to reduce any prejudices from both sides and enhance SCM decision-making processes. This paper recommends adding a new type of paper “practical paper” and including practitioners in the review board to evaluate the practical content of the research paper. This initiative would strengthen the interaction between researchers and practitioners.

This paper provides new insights on the need for symmetrical balance between theoretical and practical relevance being important for both academia and practice.

The concept of interestingness has been investigated in several management disciplines but studies mobilizing such concept in supply chain management (SCM) to develop strategies for the field's advancement are relatively scarce. This research paper aims to investigate how SCM scholars rank attributes of interestingness and the strategies to harness interestingness in the field of SCM.

The authors adopt a mixed methods research design in which a survey on SCM researchers' ranking of interestingness' attributes and qualitative interviews with selected academics are conducted.

The findings highlight the importance given by SCM scholars to attributes such as rigor, relevance, novelty and communication and how they are interrelated. Also, other interestingness attributes are underlined by scholars during the qualitative interviews including inquisitiveness, engaging the reader, imaginativeness and entertainment. Furthermore, a research agenda to synthesize the propositions to develop interesting research is also proposed.

Interestingness attributes such as rigor, relevance and novelty are discussed. Recommendations for interesting research are suggested which can be useful to scholars and journal editors. The findings of this research are also relevant for practitioners for a better understanding of academic/practice relationships to develop high impact collaboration.

This paper is among the few studies that focus on interestingness in SCM research from the perspective of scholars. In doing so, the authors seek to contribute to the classic debate in SCM field about “relevance-rigour” duality by providing a broader outlook based on interestingness and proposing a research agenda for prospective studies in the field.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss questionable research practices (QRPs) in business research, particularly in the logistics and supply chain management discipline, in light of antecedents influenced by the current academic environment and the consequences for academic rigour and relevance to stimulate thinking and debate among the academic community.

A literature review and autoethnographic approach were used to examine these issues based on over 60 years’ collective academic experience of the authors. Data were collected from discussions among the paper’s authors as well as recounting open discussions with other academics and journal editors to collate their observations.

Evidence is provided of issues the authors have seen first-hand where antecedents in the academic environment influences QRPs, which then detrimentally affect research rigour and relevance, integrity and proper contributions to ground-breaking research and knowledge advancement.

This paper is based on personal observations and experiences of the three authors as well as open-ended discussions with others in the academic community. Suggestions are provided for various academic stakeholders to address these issues.

Practical implications are only provided for academics in their roles as authors, journal editors and reviewers.

Encouraging the academic community to eliminate QRPs to improve the rigour, relevance and quality of research will provide more credibility and integrity resulting in better impact and outcomes for society at large.

The value of this paper is in stimulating thinking and debate among academics to return to core issues and values in academia opposed to focusing on narrow university goals focussed on other antecedents of QRPs.

Rigor and practical relevance are the foundations for logistics and supply chain management (LSCM) as an applied discipline. Whereas there are well-founded criteria for establishing methodological rigor, researchers must provide their own credible logic as to why their papers can influence practice. Accordingly, this paper aims to develop guidelines for establishing practical relevance in research papers.

A literature review of LSCM, marketing, operations management and management journals forms the foundation for these guidelines.

Relevance criteria are identified; research should be problem-driven, timely and important, and findings should be implementable, nonobvious, novel and not too costly. Measures for researchers demonstrating the fulfillment of these criteria are identified as practitioner input, gray literature, funding, practitioner involvement and feedback. Researchers should also clearly articulate both problem relevance and the relevance of their findings.

A lack of practical relevance is among the reasons for the rejection of papers by LSCM journals, but researchers can overcome this obstacle using these guidelines.

At a metalevel, this paper contributes to research with greater practical relevance.

Practical relevance is emphasized in the editorials of LSCM journals but has not yet been fully conceptualized from the authors' perspective.

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.