Rigour-relevance Gap Research Articles

How Cultural Heritage Studies Based on Dendrochronology Can Be Improved through Two-Way Communication

A significant part of our cultural heritage consists of wood. Research on historical wooden structures and artefacts thereby provides knowledge of people’s daily lives and the society in which they lived. Dendrochronology is a well-established dating method of wood that can also provide valuable knowledge about climate dynamics, environmental changes, silviculture, and cultural transformations. However, dendrochronology comes with some limitations that end users in cultural heritage sciences must be aware of, otherwise their surveys may not be ultimately performed. We have drawn attention to studies in which dendrochronological results have been misinterpreted, over-interpreted, or not fully utilized. On the other hand, a rigorous dendrochronological survey may not respond to the request of information in practice. To bridge this rigour-relevance gap, this article has considered and reviewed both the dendrochronology’s science-perspective and the practitioner’s and end user’s call for context appropriate studies. The material for this study consists of (i) interviews with researchers in dendrochronology and end users represented by cultural heritage researchers with focus on building conservation and building history in Sweden, and (ii) a review of dendrochronological reports and the literature where results from the reports have been interpreted. From these sources we can conclude that a continuous two-way communication between the dendrochronologists and end users often would have resulted in improved cultural heritage studies. The communication can take place in several steps. Firstly, the design of a sampling plan, which according to the current standard for sampling of cultural materials often is required, is an excellent common starting point for communication. Secondly, the survey reports could be developed with a more extensive general outline of the method and guidance in how to interpret the results. Thirdly, the potential contribution from dendrochronology is often underused, foreseeing historical information on local climate, silviculture, and choice of quality of the wooden resource, as the focus most often is the chronological dating. Finally, the interpretation of the results should consider all the available sources where dendrochronology is one stake for a conciliant conclusion.

Emerging from the swamp: an autoethnography on the legitimacy of action research

PurposeThe pressure on the academic community to demonstrate impact, bridge theory to practice and solve practical problems is persistent. Action research has the potential for bridging the rigour–relevance gap, but has struggled for legitimacy. The purpose of this paper is to better understand the impediments to action research legitimacy.Design/methodology/approachAn analytic autoethnography of a PhD candidature, utilising legitimacy theory.FindingsThe study finds that a self-perpetuating cycle is hampering the quality of action research and provides a comprehensive list of impediments to action research legitimacy. It predicts that legitimacy can be improved through differentiating and improving guidance to theoretical contribution and considering a broader range of stakeholders for research funding and execution.Research limitations/implicationsProvides a more comprehensive understanding of the type and form of legitimacy issues for action research, which informs the actions likely to improve legitimacy. Provides clarity into limitations and variants in legitimacy theory. As the perspective of one PhD candidate, the study has the potential for bias and limitations to generalisability.Practical implicationsImproving the legitimacy of action research helps practice-based disciplines. The findings assist practitioners contemplating an academic pursuit to solve intractable business problems.Social implicationsResearch that is both rigorous and relevant contributes to one’s ability to solve complex societal problems. This study provides insights into how research rigour and relevance could be improved.Originality/valueThis research provides unique perspective and insight into the reasons action research continues to struggle for legitimacy

The rigour–relevance gap in professional programmes

The tension between the rigour and the relevance of higher education research remains an important and hotly contested topic among scholars, administrators, practitioners and policymakers. This debate is most evident in professional programmes in which scholars are challenged to pursue new knowledge independent of its immediate relevance to practice while simultaneously contributing actionable knowledge to their profession. This two-part study explores whether the resulting pressure has an impact on the scholarly output and recruitment practices of different professional programmes. The results show that the context of the profession has a significant influence on the level of integration between academia and industry.

Bridging the rigour-relevance gap in management research through collaboration: an empirical investigation and implications

The academic research relevance to industry is an ongoing debate, and it is considered of little relevance to practitioners. The wider gap between academic research and practitioner disciplines leads to irrelevant theory formulation and invalid practice. This paper reassesses the rigour-relevance gap in the context of management research in India and suggests that collaboration between academicians and researchers can bridge the gap. The collaborative research state is empirically examined among top 5% management researchers in India, and the growth of collaborative research is modelled. The model shows that the collaborative research among top Indian management researchers has reached its peak at around the year 2014 and has entered declining phase. While many of the researches are carried out in the light of the rigour-relevance debate in examining the problem and providing solutions, the present study focuses on the empirical analysis of the present state of collaborative research in India and models its growth.

Bridging the rigour-relevance gap in management research through collaboration: an empirical investigation and implications

The academic research relevance to industry is an ongoing debate, and it is considered of little relevance to practitioners. The wider gap between academic research and practitioner disciplines leads to irrelevant theory formulation and invalid practice. This paper reassesses the rigour-relevance gap in the context of management research in India and suggests that collaboration between academicians and researchers can bridge the gap. The collaborative research state is empirically examined among top 5% management researchers in India, and the growth of collaborative research is modelled. The model shows that the collaborative research among top Indian management researchers has reached its peak at around the year 2014 and has entered declining phase. While many of the researches are carried out in the light of the rigour-relevance debate in examining the problem and providing solutions, the present study focuses on the empirical analysis of the present state of collaborative research in India and models its growth.

Reconsidering the rigour-relevance gap: the need for contextualised research in risk societies

Abstract This paper addresses the debate on rigour and relevance in management research to identify barriers to progress and identify the challenges and opportunities in moving forward. We identify strong calls from both North American and European literatures for a move to close this gap. It has, however, been 20 years since Hambrick asked scholars ‘What if the academy actually mattered?’ during his Presidential address to the Academy of Management. Despite both the time and the consistency of calls, there has been only modest progress in closing this rigour-relevance gap. We argue that this is not because of any lack of willingness or capacity but is shaped by systemic issues. We find the narrative of the business school framed as either professional or social sciences a core issue. Each brings with them a tradition of different ontological perspectives and epistemological processes, protected by gatekeepers, which supports, even if unintentionally, the maintenance of the gap. We go on to discuss the challenge of management education and research in a postmodern context, the need to examine our conception of rigour, and to challenge the definition of management as a profession given its strategic win-lose orientation. We conclude with a discussion on the relationship between society and business and lay out the challenges ahead for richly contextualised scholarly work that may be defined as both rigorous and relevant.

What makes entrepreneurship research interesting? Reflections on strategies to overcome the rigour–relevance gap

As entrepreneurship researchers compete to have their work published and universities strive to attract the best entrepreneurship scholars, it is appropriate to examine what makes entrepreneurship research interesting. Interesting studies are usually defined as well-crafted and well-written studies that challenge established knowledge, and produce new theories and findings. This paper examines entrepreneurship scholars’ views on the characteristics of interesting entrepreneurship research by means of a qualitative approach. Eight focus group interviews comprising junior and senior entrepreneurship scholars were conducted. A core finding is that interesting studies must be relevant to practice. However, the institutionalization of entrepreneurship as an academic field has favoured rigour at the cost of relevance, leading to scholars’ frustration with the rigour–relevance gap. In this paper, we analyse various dimensions of interestingness and reflect on strategies for overcoming the rigour–relevance gap, with particular focus on the creation of applicative knowledge.

Mind the gap: rigour and relevance in collaborative heritage science research

Background: This paper examines if there is a ‘rigour-relevance gap’ in collaborative heritage science research and what enables and impedes effective collaboration between academic researchers and users of research evidence in practice. A quantitative attitudes questionnaire was distributed amongst the heritage science community: 210 responses were received. Respondents answered in relation to one project they had worked on in the UK in the previous five years. They were asked about their personal goals in relation to the project and whether these were achieved, satisfaction levels in relation to project outcomes and impact, level of agreement with a series of attitude statements to ascertain what helped and hindered projects, personal characteristics and project characteristics. The questionnaire was analysed using a factor analytic, segmentation and profiling approach. Results: Most respondents sought both rigour and relevance in collaborative research, were generally satisfied with the outcomes of projects and reported positive experiences of collaboration. However, respondents were less satisfied that the impact of projects would be realised. Practice-focussed goals were associated with lower levels of self-rated achievement than academic goals and a sizeable minority reported challenges in collaborative research. Furthermore, researchers and users differed in terms of their goals, experiences and level of satisfaction. Users had high expectations that research would translate into practice, but did not always feel this was realised. Conclusion: Results from this project will inform how to improve heritage science research collaborations.

On the Social Construction of Relevance: A Rejoinder

abstractThis rejoinder ties in with a Point–Counterpoint debate on the rigour–relevance gap which was published in the May 2009 issue of JMS. Responding to our critics we advance four arguments: (1) Only practitioners, not management scholars, can ultimately assess relevance of research by applying solutions derived from research results. (2) Collaborative management research whose output, in the publishing process, has to pass reviews in which criteria of rigour dominate does not necessarily generate research of higher relevance. (3) The ‘body of scientific evidence’ which our critics refer to contains an abundance of contradicting findings and recommendations and is therefore not of much help for practitioners. (4) Since the academic management journals and the ranking systems are controlling management research, a change towards epistemologies that foster relevance of research, as envisaged by our critics, is not very likely.

Business simulation exercises in small business management education: using principles and ideas from action learning

Recent calls to close the rigour-relevance gap in business school education have suggested incorporating principles and ideas from action learning in small business management education. In this paper we discuss how business simulation exercises can be used as a platform to trigger students’ learning by providing them with a platform where they can merge theory with practice. We provide theoretical arguments accompanied by illustrations to show how such initiatives can create a more student-centred teaching structure than what is usually practised in contemporary business school education. This may in turn work as a potential bridge between the safe harbour of traditional classroom teaching and the more chaotic and complex world of managerial practice.

Why the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research Is Unbridgeable

abstractIn this paper we discuss, on the basis of system theory, the rigour–relevance gap in management research and the proposal to overcome it. From a system theory perspective, social systems are self‐referential or autopoietic, which means that communication elements of one system, such as science, cannot be authentically integrated into communication of other systems, such as the system of a business organization. Social systems can only irritate – provoke – each other, i.e. alter conditions in such a way that other systems are forced to respond. Because of the differences between management science and practice it is impossible to assess relevance of research output within the system of science. On the basis of our analysis we show that neither action research nor Mode 2 research nor recent approaches to collaborative research can succeed in producing research that is rigorous as well as relevant. Researchers and practitioners cannot collaboratively produce research, they can only irritate each other. However, sometimes irritations or provocations turn out inspiring.

Bridging the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research: It's Already Happening!

abstractKieser and Leiner (2009) maintain that the rigour–relevance gap in management research is fundamentally unbridgeable because researchers and the researched inhabit separate social systems. They argue that it is impossible to assess the relevance of research outputs within the system of science and that neither action research nor related approaches to collaborative research can succeed in producing research that is rigorous as well as relevant. In reply, we show how their analysis is inconsistent with available evidence. Drawing on a diversity of management research domains, we provide counter‐illustrations of work where researchers, in a number of cases in collaboration with practitioners, have generated knowledge that is both socially useful and academically rigorous.

Introduction: Can We Bridge the Rigour–Relevance Gap?

Introduction: Can We Bridge the Rigour–Relevance Gap?

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