Rigor-relevance Gap Research Articles

Start-Ups as Adaptable Stable Systems Based on Synchronous Business Models

Business models have been a popular topic in research and practice for more than twenty years. During this time, frameworks for formulating business models have been developed, such as the business model canvas. Moreover, different business model frameworks have been proposed for different sectors. Yet, these frameworks have the fundamental shortcoming of not addressing directly and persistently the primary objective of start-ups: to survive in changing environments. The aim of the action research reported in this paper is to overcome that fundamental shortcoming. This is an important topic because the majority of start-ups do not survive. In this paper, first principles for survival in changing environments are related to business models. In particular, action research to reframe start-ups as adaptable stable systems based on synchronous business models is reported. The paper provides three principal contributions. The contribution to business model theory building is to relate survival first principles revealed through natural science research to business models. Reference to first principles highlight that survival depends on maintaining both external adaptability and internal stability through synchronization with changing environments. The second contribution is to business model practice through describing a simple business modeling method that is based on the scientific first principles. The third contribution is to provide an example that bridges the rigor–relevance gap between scientific research and business practice.

Tackling grand challenges with projects: Five insights and a research agenda for project management theory and practice

The project management field has two blind spots: a focus on “run-of-the-mill” projects at the expense of pioneering “push-the-envelope” projects and a rigor-relevance gap in the research. There are simply too few scholarly works devoted to project management and grand challenges, those wicked, complex, uncertain, messy, boundary-crossing problems that confront the world. Drawing on the grand challenges of sustainable development and COVID-19 and the projects they provoke, this essay highlights five insights for theory and practice and suggests that selectionism and instructionism are worthwhile approaches, while collaborative rationality may trump linear rationality. We argue that project management for grand challenges is a promising land of “push-the-envelope” portfolios that can help overcome these two blind spots, regain relevance, avoid anomia, and revitalize theory and practice. To this end, we show that there is a concomitant need for a theory of grand challenge project behavior and offer an agenda for future research.

Toward a taxonomy of dynamic capabilities – a systematic literature review

PurposeThis paper aims to categorize and organize dynamic capabilities that have been inductively identified in empirical research into a comprehensive taxonomy. Thus, it addresses calls in the literature for a better understanding of dynamic capabilities and integration of scattered empirical findings into theory.Design/methodology/approachA systematic literature review approach was adopted, with a total of 34 articles published between August 2007 and April 2020, from which 240 idiosyncratic dynamic capabilities were identified. The taxonomy was constructed using the Gioia-method.FindingsThe main finding is a three-level taxonomy of dynamic capabilities (DC). Level DC-1 is based on the existing triad of sensing, seizing and transforming. Level DC-2 is newly introduced to the literature by this study, consisting of 19 dynamic sub-capabilities that categorize and organize all 240 idiosyncratic dynamic capabilities in the sample (level DC-3). The taxonomy supports the existing claim that dynamic capabilities are common in key features and idiosyncratic in details. Moreover, theoretical connections to business model innovation and ambidexterity are indicated.Practical implicationsThis study integrates scattered empirical findings of specific dynamic capabilities and translates them to a practitioner audience. The taxonomy allows the strategic manager to understand what they specifically are and, thus, assess the dynamic capability endowment of the firm which allows deploying, developing and fostering them.Originality/valueThe taxonomy provides a comprehensive and tangible picture of what dynamic capabilities look like in practice. It improves existing knowledge and understanding by bridging the rigor-relevance gap between rather rigorous conceptual literature and rather relevant empirical research as it integrates them. As such, it can serve as a “map” of dynamic capabilities for scholars and practitioners.

Business Process Management and Digital Innovations: A Systematic Literature Review

Emerging technologies have capabilities to reshape business process management (BPM) from its traditional version to a more explorative variant. However, to exploit the full benefits of new IT, it is essential to reveal BPM’s research potential and to detect recent trends in practice. Therefore, this work presents a systematic literature review (SLR) with 231 recent academic articles (from 2014 until May 2019) that integrate BPM with digital innovations (DI). We position those articles against seven future BPM-DI trends that were inductively derived from an expert panel. By complementing the expected trends in practice with a state-of-the-art literature review, we are able to derive covered and uncovered themes in order to help bridge a rigor-relevance gap. The major technological impacts within the BPM field seem to focus on value creation, customer engagement and managing human-centric and knowledge-intensive business processes. Finally, our findings are categorized into specific calls for research and for action to let scholars and organizations better prepare for future digital needs.

Social systems theory and engaged scholarship: co-designing a semantic reservoir in a polycentric network

PurposeThe purpose is to investigate a position for engaged scholarship bridging the gulf between theorizing and practice in a social system perspective using Design Thinking for assisting the emergence of a semantic reservoir in a polycentric network “in spe”.Design/methodology/approachThe paper combines social systems theory with the concept of engaged scholarship based on Design Thinking, and illustrates how such a research position might be applied to problems of polycentric networks as a theoretical/methodological case.FindingsThe paper concludes on a possible role for an engaged scholarship as a midwife assisting the emergence of a shared semantic reservoir that is needed to make commitments and couplings possible to become a polycentric network. Design Thinking is explained as a structured way to irritate (disturb) other systems, and the role of a shared semantic reservoir for a polycentric network “in spe” is accounted for.Originality/valueBridging the gulf between theorizing and practice in management theory is under-explored, and social systems theory underlines the immanent rigor-relevance gap, which this paper suggests a way not to overcome, but to bridge. The discussion of the rigor-relevance gap is revisited. Also, the critical process for a shared semantic reservoir to emerge in the formation of poly-centric networks is underexplored and so are its role for coupling of networks. The conceptual understanding thereof is also contributed to.

Green BPM as a Business-Oriented Discipline: A Systematic Mapping Study and Research Agenda

Green Business Process Management (BPM) focuses on the ecological impact of business processes. This article provides a systematic mapping study of Green BPM literature to evaluate five attributes of the Green BPM research area: (1) scope, (2) disciplines, (3) accountability, (4) researchers and (5) quality control. The results allow developing a research agenda to enhance Green BPM as an approach for environmentally sustainable organizations. We rely on a dichotomy of knowledge production to present research directives relevant for both academics and practitioners in order to help close a rigor-relevance gap. The involvement of both communities is crucial for Green BPM to advance as an applied, business-oriented discipline.

Notas Sobre o <i>Rigor-Relevance Gap</i> no Contexto do Mestrado Profissional

A falta de sintonia entre a pesquisa acadêmica e as necessidades dos práticos na área de contabilidade e gestão (rigor-relevance gap) é fato conhecido e que vem sendo discutido na academia. O presente ensaio tem por objetivo contribuir para a discussão do papel dos mestrados profissionais na mitigação deste problema (rigor-relevance gap), ao discutir as principais razões para a falta de alinhamento entre a pesquisa acadêmica e a prática profissional, ou seja, a resistência na incorporação da técnica pela cultura e resistência da academia na aceitação de paradigmas de pesquisas alternativos. Propõe a utilização da pesquisa intervencionista como uma metodologia de pesquisa alternativa a ser utilizada pelos mestrados profissionais na solução de problemas práticos e criação de conhecimento, sugerindo que, para que diminuição do rigor-relevance gap, alguns passos precisam ser dados, o que inclui aperfeiçoamento dos critérios de avaliação da CAPES, além da aceitação, por parte da academia, de paradigmas de pesquisas alternativos e ampliação do espaço para a divulgação da produção dos mestrados profissionais.

An Attempt to Close the Rigor-Relevance Gap During Case Studies

An Attempt to Close the Rigor-Relevance Gap During Case Studies

Coping with institutional complexity: Responses of management scholars to competing logics in the field of management studies

In contrast to existing studies on the issue of the rigor–relevance gap, we do not discuss in this article how to bridge it but analyze the responses of management scholars to it. Referring to institutional theory, we argue that the gap is related to different logics of research aimed at scientific progress (basic research) or at relevant knowledge (applied research). Analyzing publications in leading scholarly and practitioner-oriented management journals between 1961 and 2010, we identify a variety of responses. Management scholars address the demand for relevance by providing implications-for-practice sections and the development of approaches for the production of relevant knowledge. Most of them believe that the dominant logic of basic research integrates the demand for both rigor and relevance. However, we find evidence for the existence of competing logics: researchers do not base applied research on their basic research, and they tend to publish applied research in later periods of their careers. We conclude that compartmentalization is the dominant response strategy of management researchers.

The 3 Rs in Management Research: Do Rigor and Relevance Result in References?

The rigor-relevance gap in management research has been hotly debated and contested for more than half a century. Despite the hundreds of scholarly articles dedicated to the topic, however, empiric...

Collaborate With Practitioners

As a research paradigm, collaborative research brings together practitioners and researchers for the purpose of creating knowledge that is relevant to practice and added value to theoretical development. The collaborative effort tends to bridge the rigor–relevance gap. In Kieser and Leiner’s article “Collaborate With Practitioners: But Beware of Collaborative Research,” in the Journal of Management Inquiry, the authors challenge the added value of collaborative research to both practice and the scientific outcomes. This rejoinder takes issue with Kieser and Leiner’s key arguments, basic assumptions, narrow and limited points of departure, the view of the essence of social and management science, misunderstanding of managerial work, collaborative research, and action research.

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

AbstractThis 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.

Collaborate With Practitioners

Collaborative research is seen as a promising approach for bridging the rigor-relevance gap. In this essay, the authors criticize that the proponents of this approach tend to downplay communication difficulties between practitioners and researchers. The authors apply psycholinguistic concepts of layperson–expert communication and system theory to demonstrate that it is extremely difficult to integrate knowledge that has been generated in the different contexts of science and practice. The authors argue that collaborative approaches like action research, consulting, or executive training are more effective than collaborative research in ridging the rigor-relevance gap. A critical review of reports on collaborative research projects discloses some evidence in support of their assumptions. We conclude by encouraging researchers and practitioners to inspire each other through different forms of collaboration. However, we argue that attempts to turn managers into coresearchers with the special responsibility for making sure that rigor is complemented by relevance are overvalued in the academic discourse.

Between Sweet Harmony and a Clash of Cultures: Does a Joint Academic–Practitioner Review Reconcile Rigor and Relevance?

A substantial body of literature discusses the so-called rigor—relevance gap in management science and possible ways of overcoming it. A frequently advocated approach, in line with Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartz, and Trow’s “Mode 2” idea of creating “hybrid fora,” is the introduction of joint academic—practitioner review processes in management journals. In an empirical case study of one of the oldest management journals in the world, the authors show that the demands of academic and practitioner reviewers are hardly compatible, and, to some extent, inversely correlated. In contrast to other studies, here the authors show that the reason for the tension between academics and practitioners with regard to this issue does not lie in differences in the evaluation criteria of each group. Rather, the different worldviews of academics and practitioners lead to different interpretations of these criteria and a striking incongruence between the two groups’ ideas of practical relevance.

Shaping a Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science

The so-called rigor—relevance gap appears unbridgeable in the classical view of organization science, which is based on the physical sciences’ model. Constructivist scholars have also pointed out a certain inadequacy of this model of science for organization research, but they have not offered an explicit, alternative model of science. Responding to this lack, this paper brings together the two separate paradigmatic perspectives of constructivist epistemologies and of organizational design science, and shows how they could jointly constitute the ingredients of a constructivism-founded scientific paradigm for organization research. Further, the paper highlights that, in this constructivist view of organizational design science, knowledge can be generated and used in ways that are mutually enriching for academia and practice.

DOES A JOINT ACADEMIC-PRACTITIONER REVIEW PROCESS RECONCILE RIGOR AND RELEVANCE?

The article discusses whether the introduction of joint academic-practitioner review processes in management journals is a way to bridge the rigor-relevance gap in management science. The issue is examined with relation to the

The Construction and Contributions of “Implications for Practice”: What's in Them and What Might They Offer?

“Most reviewers’ checklists of leading management journals list the criterion, “relevance for practice.” Authors comply with this criterion by pointing out what implications their results might have for practice. Evidence in the form of successful implementations of the results in practice is not required. Essentially, the authors are only supposed to point out what implications practitioners, as they socially construct them, can possibly draw from their results. If the reviewers’ construction of relevance is in accordance with the author’s, the criterion of relevance has been met . . .” (Kieser & Leiner, 2009: 522–523; italics in original).

Can Organization Studies Begin to Break Out of the Normal Science Straitjacket? An Editorial Essay

The popular and professional press is filled with discussions of major changes on the organizational landscape, including organizational design experiments at entrepreneurial firms as well as at major corporations, the slashing of corporate staffs, the downsizing, delayering and revitalization of firms, the emerging electronic organization, mergers and acquisitions, failures of high reliability organizations, and time-based competition. Each of these issues has been associated with the redesign of organizations, yet these redesigns seem far removed from academic research, and they do not typically utilize the academic body of knowledge. Although the field has progressed enormously in new methods and insights during a century of research, it seems to us that organization studies have been a source of recurrent disappointment for practitioners and academics alike (Bedian 1989; Cummings 1983; Luthans 1986; Slocum 1984). For example, Miner (1984) analyzed 32 established organizational science theories and concluded that with the exception of theories of motivation there is no relationship between usefulness and validity. Is the field of organization studies irrelevant? Organizations have become the dominant institution on the social landscape. Yet the body of knowledge published in academic journals has practically no audience in business or government. Unlike a field such as economics, research on organizations has not typically focused on problems relevant to business and government organizations, and the real world of organizations has not drawn on the work undertaken by organizational scientists. From colleagues within our field and in allied disciplines, we hear complaints that manuscripts espousing radical ideas, or topics outside the mainstream, are difficult to publish. Reviewers for established journals seem to value papers whose theses are anchored in established theories or that use "legitimate" methods, thus implicitly creating a publication barrier for research that falls outside mainstream topics or methods. Moreover, we observe that scholars with interests in organizations span many disciplines and fields of inquiry such as anthropology, economics, history, information science, communication theory, artificial intelligence, systems theory, psychology, sociology, political science, policy sciences, as well as organization behavior, strategic management and organization theory. We sense that a new discipline of organization science is evolving and we envision that a new journal can become a forum for a discipline defined more broadly. The purpose of this essay is to discuss these issues and the need for reorienting research away from incremental, footnote-on-footnote research as the norm for the field. Although current research approches have made solid contributions, they do not