Abstract

In this paper we seek to show how aspects of the thinking underpinning the relevance debate can be self-defeating. We consider the relationship between academics and practitioners from a dialogic perspective and perform a textual analysis of the ways in which ‘pro-relevance’ academics write about research. We use role analysis techniques to highlight the potential for mismatched expectations between academics and practitioners, and then consider an illustrative dialogue between practitioners and academics to develop our view that relevance has its roots in generative dialogic encounters. We conceptualize a modified view of dialogue in the context of organizational research relationships, which we believe offers a useful starting point for co-production of knowledge and understanding.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.