Business Research

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 178–196 | Cite as

How Individual Scholars Can Reduce the Rigor-Relevance Gap in Management Research

Open Access
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses a number of avenues management scholars could follow to reduce the existing gap between scientific rigor and practical relevance without relativizing the importance of the first goal dimension. Such changes are necessary because many management studies do not fully exploit the possibilities to increase their practical relevance while maintaining scientific rigor. We argue that this rigor-relevance gap is not only the consequence of the currently prevailing institutional context in the scientific system, but that individual scholars can reduce the gap between rigorous and practically relevant research by modifying their research work. Thus, most of our suggestions refer to individual scholars’ research activities and relate to specific steps in the (empirical) research process. Our discussion does not imply that all management studies should be practically oriented; basic research will remain a very important part of management research. However, we believe that not enough management research studies are significantly influenced by practical relevance.

JEL-classification

M10 

Key words

management practical relevance rigor empirical research 

References

  1. Abrahamson, Eric (1991): Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations, Academy of Management Review, 16 (3): 586–612.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, Nancy J. and Anne-Wil Harzing (2009): When Knowledge Wins: Transcending the Sense and Nonsense of Academic Rankings, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8 (1): 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amabile, Teresa M., Chelley Patterson, Jennifer Mueller, Tom Wojcik, Steven J. Kramer, Paul W. Odomirok, and Mel Marsh (2001): Academic-Practitioner Collaboration in Management Research: A Case of Cross-Profession Collaboration, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2): 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, Neil, Peter Herriot, and Gerald P. Hodgkinson (2001): The Practitioner-Researcher Divide in Industrial, Work, and Organisational (IWO) Psychology: Where Are We Now, and Where Do We Do From Here?, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74 (4): 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Astley, W. Graham and Raymond F. Zammuto (1992): Organization Science, Managers, and Language Games, Organization Science, 3 (4): 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avenier, Marie-José (2010): Shaping a Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science, Organization Studies, 31 (09/10): 1229–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldridge, David C., Steven W. Floyd, and Lívia Markóczy (2004): Are Managers From Mars and Academicians From Venus? Toward an Understanding of the Relationship Between Academic Quality and Practical Relevance, Strategic Management Journal, 25 (11): 1063–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartlett, Christopher A. and Sumantra Ghoshal (1989): Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Bartunek, Jean M., Sara L. Rynes, and R. Duane Ireland (2006): What Makes Management Research Interesting, and Why Does It Matter?, Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1): 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Belfiore, Eleonora and Oliver Bennett (2008): The Social Impact of the Arts: An Intellectual History, Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benbasat, Izak and Robert W. Zmud (1999): Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance, MIS Quarterly, 23 (1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berry, William L., Jay E. Klompmaker, Curtis P. McLaughlin, and Terry Hill (1991): Linking Strategy Formulation in Marketing and Operations: Empirical Research, Journal of Operations Management, 10 (3): 294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bettis, Richard A. (1991): Strategic Management and the Straight-jacket: An Editorial Essay, Organization Science, 2 (3): 315–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beyer, Janice M. and Harrison M. Trice (1982): The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (4): 591–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burgelman, Robert A. (1983): A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (2): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burke, Lisa A. and Barbara Rau (2010): The Research-Teaching Gap in Management, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9 (1): 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chang, Yi-Ying, Yaping Gong, and Mike W. Peng (2012): Expatriate Knowledge Transfer, Absorptive Capacity, and Subsidiary Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4): 927–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheng, Joseph L.C. and William McKinley (1983): Toward an Integration of Organization Research and Practice: A Contingency Study of Bureaucratic Control and Performance in Scientific Settings, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (1): 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colquitt, Jason A. and Cindy P. Zapata-Phelan (2007): Trends in Theory Building and Theory Testing: A Five-Decade Study of the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6): 1281–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper, Harris M. (1982): Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews, Review of Educational Research, 52 (2): 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corley, Kevin G. and Dennis A. Gioia (2011): Building Theory About Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?, Academy of Management Review, 36 (1): 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Creswell, John W. (2009): Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed., Sage: Los Angeles, CA et al.Google Scholar
  23. Czinkota, Michael R. and Ilkka A. Ronkainen (2009): Trends and Indications in International Business: Topics for Future Research, Management International Review, 49 (2): 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Daft, Richard L. and Arie Y. Lewin (1990): Can Organization Studies Begin to Break out of the Normal Science Straithjacket? An Editorial Essay, Organization Science, 1 (1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Daft, Richard L. and Arie Y. Lewin (2008): Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies: Idea Migration and Academic Journal Evolution, Organization Science, 19 (1): 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Donaldson, Lex (1985): In Defence of Organization Theory: A Reply to the Critics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  27. Donaldson, Lex (1995): American Anti-Management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  28. Dovidio, John F., Anja Eller, and Miles Hewstone (2011): Improving Intergroup Relations Through Direct, Extended and Other Forms of Indirect Contact, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14 (2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edström, Anders and Jay R. Galbraith (1977): Transfer of Managers as a Coordination and Control Strategy in Multinational Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 22 (2): 248–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989): Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 532–550.Google Scholar
  31. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and Melissa E. Graebner (2007): Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ford, Eric W., W. Jack Duncan, Arthur G. Bedeian, Peter M. Ginter, Matthew D. Rousculp, and Alice M. Adams (2005): Mitigating Risks, Visible Hands, Inevitable Disasters, and Soft Variables: Management Research That Matters to Managers, Academy of Management Executive, 19 (4): 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Frey, Bruno S. (2007): Evaluierungen, Evaluierungen … Evaluitis, Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 8 (3): 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1975): Truth and Method, Seabury Press: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  35. Gardner, Heidi K., Francesca Gino, and Bradley R. Staats (2012): Dynamically Integrating Knowledge in Teams: Transforming Resources into Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4): 998–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow (1994): The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage: London et al.Google Scholar
  37. Gopinath, C. and Richard C. Hoffman (1995): A Comment on the Relevance of Strategy Research, in: Paul Shrivastava and Charles Stubbart (eds.): Challenges From Within the Mainstream, Greenwich, 93–110.Google Scholar
  38. Gordon, Michael E., Lawrence S. Kleiman, and Charles A. Hanie (1978): Industrial-Organizational Psychology: “Open the Ears, o House of Israel”, American Psychologist, 33 (10): 893–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grey, Christopher (2001): Re-imagining Relevance: A Response to Starkey and Madan, British Journal of Management, 12 (Special Issue): 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gulati, Ranjay (2007): Tent Poles, Tribalism, and Boundary Spanning: The Rigor-Relevance Debate in Management Research, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4): 775–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hambrick, Donald C. (1994): 1993 Presidential Address: What if the Academy Actually Mattered?, Academy of Management Review, 19 (1): 11–16.Google Scholar
  42. Hambrick, Donald C. (2007): The Field of Management’s Devotion to Theory: Too Much of a Good Thing?, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6): 1346–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hennart, Jean-François (2007): The Theoretical Rationale for a Multinationality-Performance Relationship, Management International Review, 47 (3): 423–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hodgkinson, Gerard P. and Denise M. Rousseau (2009): Bridging the Rigour-Relevance Gap in Management Research: It’s Already Happening!, Journal of Management Studies, 46 (3): 534–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hughes, Tim, David Bence, Louise Grisoni, Nicholas O’Regan, and David Wornham (2011): Scholarship That Matters: Academic Practitioner Engagement in Business and Management, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10 (1): 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jarzabkowski, Paula, Susan Albers Mohrman, and Andreas Georg Scherer (2010): Organization Studies as Applied Science: The Generation and Use of Academic Knowledge About Organizations — Introduction to the Special Issue, Organization Studies, 31 (9/10): 1189–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kelemen, Mihaela and Pratima Bansal (2002): The Conventions of Management Research and Their Relevance to Management Practice, British Journal of Management, 13 (2): 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Keller, Robert T. (2001): Cross-Functional Project Groups in Research and New Product Development: Diversity, Communications, Job Stress, and Outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (3): 547–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kieser, Alfred (2010): Unternehmen Wissenschaft?, Leviathan, 38 (3): 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kieser, Alfred and Lars Leiner (2009): Why the Rigour-Relevance Gap in Management Research is Unbridgeable, Journal of Management Studies, 46 (3): 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kilduff, Martin and Mihaela Kelemen (2001): The Consolations of Organization Theory, British Journal of Management, 12 (Special Issue): 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lewin, Arie Y., Carmen B. Weigelt, and James B. Emery (2004): Adaptation and Selection in Strategy and Change: Perspectives on Strategic Change in Organizations, in: Marshall S. Poole and Andrew H. Van de Ven (eds.): Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 108–160.Google Scholar
  53. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich (2009): Absorptive Capacity, Environmental Turbulence, and the Complementarity of Organizational Learning Processes, Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4): 822–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Luhmann, Niklas (1982): The Differentiation of Society, Columbia University Press: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  55. Luhmann, Niklas (1995): Social Systems, Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  56. Lyles, Marjorie A. (1990): A Research Agenda for Strategic Management in the 1990s, Journal of Management Studies, 27 (4): 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Manly, Bryan F. J. (1992): The Design and Analysis of Research Studies, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. March, James G., Lee S. Sproull, and Michal Tamuz (1991): Learning from Samples of One and Fewer, Organization Science, 2 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. March, James G. and Robert I. Sutton (1997): Organization Performance as a Dependent Variable, Organization Science, 8 (6): 698–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marcus, Alfred A., Robert S. Goodman, and David N. Grazman (1995): The Diffusion of Strategic Management Frameworks, in: Paul Shrivastava and Charles Stubbart (eds.): Challenges From Within the Mainstream, Greenwich, 115–145.Google Scholar
  61. Maurer, Indre and Mark Ebers (2006): Dynamics of Social Capital and Their Performance Implications: Lessons From Biotechnology Start-Ups, Administrative Science Quarterly, 51 (2), 262–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McKelvey, Bill (2006): Van de Ven and Johnson’s “Engaged Scholarship”: Nice Try, But …, Academy of Management Review, 31 (4): 822–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Miller, Delbert C. (1991): Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 5th ed., Sage: Newbury Park, CA et al.Google Scholar
  64. Mintzberg, Henry (1973): The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  65. Mitchell, Mark and Janina Jolley (2001): Research Design Explained, 4th ed., Harcourt College Publishers: Fort Worth, TX et al.Google Scholar
  66. Mohrman, Susan Albers, Cristina B. Gibson, and Allan M. Mohrman Jr. (2001): Doing Research That Is Useful to Practice: A Model and Empirical Exploration, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2): 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nicolai, Alexander T. (2004): Der “trade-off” zwischen “rigour” und “relevance” und seine Konsequenzen für die Management-Wissenschaften, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 74 (2): 99–118.Google Scholar
  68. Nicolai, Alexander T. and Alfred Kieser (2002): Trotz eklatanter Erfolglosigkeit: Die Erfolgsfaktorenforschung weiter auf Erfolgskurs, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 62 (6): 579–596.Google Scholar
  69. Nicolai, Alexander T. and David Seidl (2010): That’s Relevant! Different Forms of Practical Relevance in Management Science, Organization Studies, 31 (09/10): 1257–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons (2001): Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press: Cambridge, UK et al.Google Scholar
  71. Oesterle, Michael-Jörg (2006): Wahrnehmung betriebswirt-schaftlicher Fachzeitschriften durch Praktiker, Die Betriebswirt-schaft, 66 (3): 307–325.Google Scholar
  72. Pettigrew, Andrew M. (2001): Management Research After Modernism, British Journal of Management, 12 (Special Issue): 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pinto, Mary Beth, Jeffrey K. Pinto, and John E. Prescott (1993): Antecedents and Consequences of Project Team Cross-Functional Cooperation, Management Science, 39 (10): 1281–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Polzer, Jeffrey T., Ranjay Gulati, Rakesh Khurana, and Michael L. Tushman (2009): Crossing Boundaries to Increase Relevance in Organizational Research, Journal of Management Inquiry, 18 (4): 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rasche, Andreas and Michael Behnam (2009): As If It Were Relevant: A Systems Theoretical Perspective on the Relation Between Science and Practice, Journal of Management Inquiry, 18 (3): 243–255.Google Scholar
  76. Rynes, Sara L., Jean M. Bartunek, and Richard L. Daft (2001): Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer Between Practitioners and Academics, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2): 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shapiro, Debra L., Bradley L. Kirkman, and Hugh G. Courtney (2007): Perceived Causes and Solutions of the Translation Problem in Management Research, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2): 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shepherd, Dean A., Holger Patzelt, and Marcus Wolfe (2011): Moving Forward From Project Failure: Negative Emotions, Affective Commitment, and Learning From the Experience, Academy of Management Journal, 54 (6): 1229–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shin, Shung J., Tae-Yeol Kim, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Lin Bian (2012): Cognitive Team Diversity and Individual Team Member Creativity: A Cross-Level Interaction, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (1): 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shrivastava, Paul (1987): Rigor and Practical Usefulness of Research in Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, 8 (1): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Siggelkow, Nicolaj (2007): Persuasion With Case Studies, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Singh, Kulwant, Siah Hwee Ang, and Siew Meng Leong (2003): Increasing Replication for Knowledge Accumulation in Strategy Research, Journal of Management, 29 (4): 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sørensen, Jesper B. (2002): The Strength of Corporate Culture and the Reliability of Firm Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (1): 70–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Starkey, Ken and Paula Madan (2001): Bridging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management Research, British Journal of Management, 12 (Special Issue): S3–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thomas, Kenneth W. and Walter G. Tymon Jr. (1982): Necessary Properties of Relevant Research: Lessons From Recent Criticisms of the Organizational Sciences, Academy of Management Review, 7 (3): 345–352.Google Scholar
  86. Van de Vall, Mark, Cheryl Bolas, and Tai S. Kang (1976): Applied Social Research in Industrial Organizations: An Evaluation of Functions, Theory, and Methods, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12 (2): 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Van de Ven, Andrew H. and Paul E. Johnson (2006): Knowledge for Theory and Practice, Academy of Management Review, 31 (4): 802–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Varadarajan, P. Rajan (2003): Musings on Relevance and Rigor of Scholarly Research in Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (4): 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vermeulen, Freek (2005): On Rigor and Relevance: Fostering Dialectic Progress in Management Research, Academy of Management Journal, 48 (6): 978–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yin, Robert K. (2003): Case Study Research, 3rd ed. Sage: New-bury Park, CA et al.Google Scholar
  91. Zahra, Shaker A. and John A. Pearce (1992): Priorities of CEOs and Strategic Management Professors for Future Academic Research, Journal of Management Issues, 14 (2): 171–189.Google Scholar
  92. Zmud, Robert W. (1996): Editor’s Comments: On Rigor and Relevancy, Management Information Systems Quarterly, 20 (3): 37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Organization Theory and DesignUniversity of KielGermany

Personalised recommendations