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
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

References

  • A Faustian bargain? The growth of management and its relationship with related disciplines
    Agarwal, R.; Hoetker, G.
  • Management’s science–practice gap: a grand challenge for all stakeholders
    Banks, G.; Pollack, J.; Bochantin, J.; Kirkman, B.; Whelpley, C.; O’Boyle, E.
  • Bridging the research–practice gap
    Bansal, P.; Bertels, S.; Ewart, T.; MacConnachie, P.; O’Brien, J.
  • Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems
    Bartol, K.M.; Srivastava, A.
  • Academic–practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: toward a relational scholarship of integration
    Bartunek, J.M.
  • What has happened to mode 2?
    Bartunek, J.M.
  • Commentary on ‘research utilization: bridging a culture gap between communities’ reflecting on research utilization with Janice Beyer
    Bartunek, J.M.
  • On the receiving end: sensemaking, emotion, and assessments
    Bartunek, J.M.; Rousseau, D.M.; Rudolph, J.W.; DePalma, J.A.
  • The construction and contributions of ‘implications for practice’: what’s in them and what might they offer?
    Bartunek, J.M.; Rynes, S.L.
  • Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: the paradoxes of academic–practitioner relationships
    Bartunek, J.M.; Rynes, S.L.
  • The skewed few: does ‘skew’ signal quality among journals, articles, and academics?
    Baum, J.A.
  • How business schools lost their way
    Bennis, W.G.; O’Toole, J.
  • Research utilization: bridging
    Beyer, J.M.
  • The utilization process: a conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings
    Beyer, J.M.; Trice, H.M.
  • Debating the future of management research
    Birkinshaw, J.; Healey, M.P.; Suddaby, R.; Weber, K.
  • Participatory (action) research in social theory: origins and challenges
    Borda, O.F.
  • Evidence-based management: concept cleanup time?
    Briner, R.B.; Denyer, D.; Rousseau, D.M.
  • The disconnect between the science and practice of management
    Buckley, M.R.; Ferris, G.R.; Bernardin, H.J.; Harvey, M.G.
  • Coping with institutional complexity: responses of management scholars to competing logics in the field of management studies
    Bullinger, B.; Kieser, A.; Schiller-Merkens, S.
  • The research–teaching gap in management
    Burke, L.A.; Rau, B.
  • Crossing the valley of death
    Butler, D.
  • Action research: explaining the diversity
    Cassell, C.; Johnson, P.
  • Humanities–industry partnerships and the ‘knowledge society’: the Australian experience
    Cassity, E.; Ang, I.
  • Action research: exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing
    Coghlan, D.
  • The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap
    Cohen, D.J.
  • Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution?
    Corley, K.G.; Gioia, D.A.
  • Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach
    Cronin, P.; Ryan, F.; Coughlan, M.
  • Rigor and relevance in organization studies: idea migration and academic journal evolution
    Daft, R.L.; Lewin, A.Y.
  • Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems
    Daft, R.L.; Weick, K.E.
  • Editorial essay: What is organizational research for?
    Davis, G.F.
  • Research and practice in HRM: a historical perspective
    DeNisi, A.S.; Wilson, M.S.; Biteman, J.
  • Developing design propositions through research synthesis
    Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D.; van Aken, J.E.
  • Learning to design organizations and learning from designing them
    Dunbar, R.L.; Starbuck, W.H.
  • Action research for management research
    Eden, C.; Huxham, C.
  • Strategic decision making
    Eisenhardt, K.M.; Zbaracki, M.J.
  • Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives
    Fochler, M.; Felt, U.; Müller, R.
  • Don’t know, don’t care: an exploration of evidence based knowledge and practice in human resource management
    Gill, C.
  • Higher education for business
    Gordon, R.A.; Howell, J.E.
  • Participatory action research as a process and as a goal
    Greenwood, D.J.; Whyte, W.F.; Harkavy, I.
  • Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: the rigor–relevance debate in management research
    Gulati, R.
  • The field of management’s devotion to theory: too much of a good thing?
    Hambrick, D.C.
  • Why do you publish? on the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure
    Hangel, N.; Schmidt-Pfister, D.
  • Learning and organization in the knowledge‐based information economy: initial findings from a participatory action research case study
    Harrison, R.T.; Leitch, C.M.
  • Management minus invention (D2)
    Hayes, R.H.; Abernathy, W.J.
  • The shift in academic quality control
    Hemlin, S.; Rasmussen, S.B.
  • Performance-based university research funding systems
    Hicks, D.
  • The Leiden manifesto for research metrics
    Hicks, D.; Wouters, P.; Waltman, L.; De Rijcke, S.; Rafols, I.
  • Bridging the rigour–relevance gap in management research: it’s already happening!
    Hodgkinson, G.P.; Rousseau, D.M.
  • Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again: reframing relevance
    Hodgkinson, G.P.; Starkey, K.
  • Changes in organizational knowledge production
    Huff, A.S.
  • Re-focusing the business school agenda
    Huff, A.S.; Huff, J.O.
  • The motivational basis of organizational behavior
    Katz, D.
  • The conventions of management research and their relevance to management practice
    Kelemen, M.; Bansal, P.
  • Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable
    Kieser, A.; Leiner, L.
  • Collaborate with practitioners: but beware of collaborative research
    Kieser, A.; Leiner, L.
  • The practical relevance of management research: turning the debate on relevance into a rigorous scientific research program
    Kieser, A.; Nicolai, A.; Seidl, D.
  • The critique of empirical social science: new policies at management and organization review
    Lewin, A.Y.; Chiu, C.Y.; Fey, C.F.; Levine, S.S.; McDermott, G.; Murmann, J.P.; Tsang, E.
  • Crossing the sea from they to we? The unfolding of knowing and practising in collaborative research
    Marcos, J.; Denyer, D.
  • Strategy-making in three modes
    Mintzberg, H.
  • Assessing the non-academic impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: results from a pilot study
    Molas-Gallart, J.; Tang, P.; Morrow, S.
  • That’s relevant! Different forms of practical relevance in management science
    Nicolai, A.; Seidl, D.
  • Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus?’: challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value
    Olmos-Penuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martinez, E.
  • The decreasing value of our research to management education
    Pearce, J.L.; Huang, L.
  • Strategic discourses of ‘competitive advantage’: comparing social representation of causation in academia and practice
    Perren, L.
  • Management research after modernism
    Pettigrew, A.M.
  • As if it were relevant: a systems theoretical perspective on the relation between science and practice
    Rasche, A.; Behnam, M.
  • Choice and quality in action research practice
    Reason, P.
  • Making a difference: organization as design
    Romme, A.G.L.
  • Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective
    Rousseau, D.M.; McCarthy, S.
  • Is there such a thing as ‘evidence-based management’?
    Rousseau, D.M.
  • Sticky findings: research evidence practitioners find useful
    Rousseau, D.M.; Boudreau, J.W.; Mohrman, S.A.; Lawler, E.E.
  • Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses
    Rousseau, D.M.; Manning, J.; Denyer, D.
  • HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: correspondence between research and practice
    Rynes, S.L.; Colbert, A.E.; Brown, K.G.
  • The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: implications for evidence-based management
    Rynes, S.L.; Giluk, T.L.; Brown, K.G.
  • The gap between research and practice: a replication study on the HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices
    Sanders, K.; van Riemsdijk, M.; Groen, B.
  • Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions
    Seeber, M.; Cattaneo, M.; Meoli, M.; Malighetti, P.
  • General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: a systemic-discursive perspective
    Seidl, D.
  • Organizations as distinction generating and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to organization studies
    Seidl, D.; Becker, K.H.
  • Collaborate with practitioners: an alternative perspective a rejoinder to Kieser and Leiner (2012)
    Shani, A.B.; Coghlan, D.
  • Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research
    Shapiro, D.L.; Kirkman, B.L.; Courtney, H.G.
  • Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: the case of life sciences in Japan
    Shibayama, S.; Baba, Y.
  • Empirically derived models of strategic decision‐making processes
    Shrivastava, P.; Grant, J.H.
  • Management research and the new logics of discovery and engagement
    Starkey, K.; Hatchuel, A.; Tempest, S.
  • The research‐practice gap in human resource management: a cross‐cultural study
    Tenhiälä, A.; Giluk, T.L.; Kepes, S.; Simón, C.; Oh, I.S.; Kim, S.
  • The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: towards policy
    Tranfield, D.; Starkey, K.
  • Reflections on the so-called value-free ideal: a call for responsible science in the business schools
    Tsui, A.
  • Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules
    Van Aken, J.E.
  • Management research as a design science: articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management
    Van Aken, J.E.
  • Conducting and publishing design science research: inaugural essay of the design science department of the journal of operations management
    Van Aken, J.; Chandrasekaran, A.; Halman, J.
  • Reflections on research for theory and practice: from an engaged scholarship perspective
    Van de Ven, A.H.; Mohrman, S.A.; Lawler, E.E.
  • Knowledge for theory and practice
    Van de Ven, A.H.; Johnson, P.E.
  • Global issues: make social sciences relevant
    Van Langenhove, L.
  • Closing the academic-practitioner gap: research must answer the ‘so WHAT’ question
    Vosburgh, R.M.
  • Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation
    Wang, C.; Rodan, S.; Fruin, M.; Xu, X.
  • Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities
    Zollo, M.; Winter, S.G.
  • In search of rigor, relevance and legitimacy: What drives the impact of publications?
    Flickinger, M.; Tuschke, A.; Gruber-Muecke, T.; Fiedler, M.