Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Reviewing the “Valley of Death” between management research and management practice

Reviewing the “Valley of Death” between management research and management practice 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.Design/methodology/approachThis paper reviews the main approaches that have analysed this topic, drawing a number of conclusions.FindingsThe 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.Originality/valueIn 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Management Research Review Emerald Publishing

Reviewing the “Valley of Death” between management research and management practice

Download PDF
28 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/reviewing-the-valley-of-death-between-management-research-and-g0kjlRCfhf

References (112)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
2040-8269
DOI
10.1108/mrr-02-2018-0096
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.Design/methodology/approachThis paper reviews the main approaches that have analysed this topic, drawing a number of conclusions.FindingsThe 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.Originality/valueIn 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.

Journal

Management Research Review – Emerald Publishing

Published: Aug 16, 2019

Keywords: Management research; Other management-related topics; Relational approach; Management research–practice divide; Relevant knowledge generation; Rigour–relevance gap; Valley of Death; M0; M10

There are no references for this article.