Text
Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: the rigor-relevance debate in management research
A long-standing debate among management scholars concerns the rigor, or methodological soundness, of their research versus its relevance to managers. This issue has evolved into an "either/or" argument in which specific studies, researchers, journals, and even institutions or programs are quickly categorized into "silos." This debate is largely socially constructed by forces both internal and external to business schools. Further, it is perpetuated by tribes that form around rigor and relevance, sequestering themselves into closed loops of scholarship and dismissing the work of outsiders on the basis of their inclusion - or exclusion - of theory or of practical applications. Exclusionary behavior even occurs within the two tribes, especially in the rigor camp. Along with the prevention of productive cross-tribe dialogues, consequences of the conflict include the exclusion of boundary spanners. This paper offers a normative model of managerial research with recommendations for bridging the artificial rigor-relevance divide through problem-oriented research grounded theory. .Printed Journal
Ketersediaan
| Call Number | Location | Available |
|---|---|---|
| PSB lt.dasar - Pascasarjana | 1 |
| Penerbit | : Academy of Management |
|---|---|
| Edisi | - |
| Subjek | Management science Business education University research |
| ISBN/ISSN | 14273 |
| Klasifikasi | - |
| Deskripsi Fisik | - |
| Info Detail Spesifik | - |
| Other Version/Related | Tidak tersedia versi lain |
| Lampiran Berkas | Tidak Ada Data |