Reconciling the rigor-relevance
dilemma in intellectual capital
research
Daniel Andriessen
INHOLLAND University of Professional Education, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Keywords Intellectual capital, Management research, Research methods
Abstract This paper raises the issue of research methodology for intellectual capital and other
types of management research by focusing on the dilemma of rigour versus relevance. The more
traditional explanatory approach to research often leads to rigorous results that are not of much
help to solve practical problems. This paper describes an alternative approach of practicing
intellectual capital research as a design science. This approach is equally scientific but is able to
develop management methods that helps to solve organisational problems. This paper shows
strengths and weaknesses of both the approaches and concludes that combining both within the
intellectual capital research community can help to reconcile the dilemma of rigour versus
relevance.
Introduction
Intellectual capital research has evolved primarily from the desires of practitioners
(Bontis, 2002). At the same time, it has the ambition to be an academic discipline. The
former requires relevance; the latter requires rigour. Many publications in the
intellectual capital field qualify as, what Van Aken (2001) calls, Heathrow literature –
lacking justification.
To improve rigour, some researchers promote the use of the empirical cycle
(Swanborn, 1981), - which Kaplan (1964) calls the “hypothetico-deductive method” – in
which hypotheses are tested quantitatively. The results can be useful in practice, but
often they are not. I met many PhD graduates who are forced by their supervisor to do
large-scale quantitative research that often has hardly any practical use. This is a
waste of time, money, and effort. The question is how to improve the justification of the
claims of intellectual capital research without losing relevance. In this paper, I will try
to reconcile the rigour-relevance dilemma by introducing an alternative methodology
for doing intellectual capital research. This methodology builds upon the
groundbreaking work of Prof Dr Joan van Aken. It is inspired by design sciences[1],
and is a form of action research. I make a distinction between the more traditional
approach of practicing intellectual capital research as an explanatory science, and the
new approach of practicing intellectual capital research as a design science. I will show
the strengths and weaknesses of both methodologies and conclude that combining
them in the field of intellectual capital research will help to reconcile the
rigour-relevance dilemma.
Testing of propositions
Scientific research is aimed at the justification of propositions. In scientific research, we
can create two rather distinct types of propositions (Van Aken, 2001). First, we can
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm
Rigor-relevance
dilemma
393
The Learning Organization
Vol. 11 No. 4/5, 2004
pp. 393-401
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-6474
DOI 10.1108/09696470410538288