Narcissus Revisited: The Values of Management Academics and their RoleinBusiness School Strategies in the UK and Canada*

The myth of Narcissus provides an appropriate metaphor for the continuing debate over the relationship between academics, business and other stakeholders; most recently expressed in terms of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge and academic entrepreneurialism. Both myth and debate are based partly on conflicts over identity. However, surprisingly little empirical work has been conducted on the identity of management academics. A step towards this is made here by exploring the role of embedded and enduring values as a primary element of academic identity in business schools. Contextualized in the Mode/entrepreneuralism debate, a layered metaphor of academic organization is adopted, in which values are located among deep‐set constructs and a comparative and longitudinal perspective employed. A value‐ranking instrument is devised, applied and retested over five years in two business schools in Britain and Canada. This reveals values that are widely held by management academics and those that are more pervasive in each institution. Understanding such values helps provide insight into the strategic role of academic identity, grounded in ontological and epistemological frameworks.     

Enhancing the Practical Relevance of Research

This article seeks to encourage scholars to conduct research that is more relevant to the decisions faced by managers and policymakers, and addresses why research relevance matters, what relevance means in terms of a journal article, and how scholars can increase the relevance of their research. I define relevant research papers as those whose research questions address problems found (or potentially found) in practice and whose hypotheses connect independent variables within the control of practitioners to outcomes they care about using logic they view as feasible. I provide several suggestions for how scholars can enhance research relevance, including engaging practitioners in on‐campus encounters, at managerial conferences, and at crossover workshops; conducting site visits and practitioner interviews; working as a practitioner; and developing a practitioner advisory team. I describe several ways that scholars can convey relevant research insights into practitioners, including presenting at practitioner conferences, writing for practitioners in traditional crossover journals and in shorter pieces like op‐eds and blogs, and attracting the interest of those who write columns, blogs, and articles about research for practitioners. I conclude by describing a few ways that academic institutions can encourage more relevant research, focusing on journals, professional societies, and doctoral programs.     

Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach

Despite ambitious efforts in various fields of research over multiple decades, the goal of making academic research relevant to the practitioner remains elusive: theoretical and academic research interests do not seem to coincide with the interests of managerial practice. This challenge is more fundamental than knowledge transfer, it is one of diverging knowledge interests and means of knowledge production. In this article, we look at this fundamental challenge through the lens of design science, which is an approach aimed primarily at discovery and problem solving as opposed to accumulation of theoretical knowledge. We explore in particular the ways in which problem‐solving research and theory‐oriented academic research can complement one another. In operations management (OM) research, recognizing and building on this complementarity is especially crucial, because problem‐solving–oriented research produces the very artifacts (e.g., technologies) that empirical OM research subsequently evaluates in an attempt to build explanatory theory. It is indeed the practitioner—not the academic scientist—who engages in basic research in OM. This idiosyncrasy prompts the question: how can we enhance the cross‐fertilization between academic research and research practice to make novel theoretical insights and practical relevance complementary? This article proposes a design science approach to bridge practice to theory rather than theory to practice.     

Intermediaries in the relevance-gap debate: A systematic review of consulting roles

A highly contested issue in management science is its relevance to practice. Despite third parties’ potentially significant role in changing the interaction between divided parties, the long-standing literature on the relevance gap has paid third parties little systematic attention. Drawing on a boundary-spanning perspective, and the concept of brokerage in particular, we review how the consultant role is discussed as an intermediary third party between management science and management practice. Based on a systematic literature review of 133 articles, we identify different intermediary consultant roles linking management science to management practice. Our findings detail how the practices associated with intermediary consultant roles performed by academics or practitioners relate to several key relevance criteria, how management knowledge flows when including intermediaries and how intermediaries in different roles relate to different audiences. Based on the findings, we develop a third-party model of intermediary consultant roles and knowledge flows. The model indicates the theoretical significance of third parties in shaping the interaction and knowledge flows between management science and management practice and has theoretical implications for understanding the persistence of the relevance gap. Regarding practical implications, we suggest how management scientists could target third parties as new key practitioner audiences. Considering third parties, and thus moving away from a two-party view, opens up promising directions for further research on the roles and role shifts of various intermediary actors and on how different intermediary audiences may appreciate different types of academic knowledge.     

Overcoming barriers to knowledge co-production in academic–practitioner research collaboration

Knowledge co-production involving collaborating academics and practitioners is a recognized vehicle for stimulating innovation. However, co-production is hampered by a number of significant barriers, including structural differences between the partners, the mismanagement of conflict, and a traditional outlook on knowledge. We explore academic-practitioner research collaborations to document the specific practices allowing collaborators to address co-production barriers. The primary data for this study were collected from semi-structured interviews with academics and practitioners working on 24 Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage projects. The main contribution of this investigation is the identification of ‘academic cultivation’ in overcoming barriers to knowledge co-production. Academic cultivation denotes a situation where practitioner behavior designed to overcome one or other of the co-production barriers is prompted through prior actions by the academic.     

Towards better understanding and narrowing of the science–practice gap: A practitioner-centered approach to management knowledge creation

The lack of mutual communication and collaboration between academic research and management practice, and the limited implementation of the research findings in strategic and tactical decision-making in practice settings, known as the science-practice ‘gap’, remains an essential issue in management research. We challenge the primary focus on academics for the possibilities of bridging the gap by arguing that the picture remains incomplete without a closer look at the positions, perceptions, and attitudes of practicing managers toward the joint production of relevant management knowledge. Based on the inductive, grounded theory approach, we conducted a qualitative study of 47 practicing managers with different organizational and functional responsibilities across various industry sectors. Although practitioners perceived practice-engaged research design and execution, relevant management research, and benefits from complementary knowledge as enablers of fruitful science-practice collaboration, our emerging findings revealed limited trust, limited cognition, coping strategies, and heuristic information processing to be important barriers for practitioners that hamper the collaboration process. Relying on the cognitive and information processing framework and theory of the conservation of resources, we aimed to explain the antecedent of (un)successful collaboration on the practitioners' side, thus extending our understanding of the scholarship of integration.     

Relationships among the academic business disciplines: a multi-method citation analysis

A great number of papers have been published that compare the quality or impact of academic journals. This article seeks to broaden the debate on journal evaluation by showing how top journals in various academic business disciplines, as defined by the Financial Times list of top research outlets, relate to one other. Using large-scale sociometric analyses on about 140,000 citations we found that the integration of the citation network has increased over time. Moreover, the information flow from Finance and Economics to Management has become stronger and, within Management, a polarization between information generators and users has taken place. We also found that most business academics published in distinct and mostly non-overlapping disciplines. The only exceptions were Finance and Economics as well as Strategic Management and OB/HR. Surprisingly, we also found that the general business journals, which could be assumed to be cited by most other journals across the management disciplines, are not central to the entire field. For instance, they are not complementary at all to Finance and Economics. Instead, Operations Research (OR) and Management Information Systems journals occupy the central space on the perceptual map. This indicates that these disciplines (and OR in particular) are complementary with Management and with Finance and Economics.     

Management and Business Ethics: A Critique and Integration of Ethical Decision-making Models

This paper critically reviews the literature relating to the management of ethics within organizations and identifies, in line with other authors, a gap between theory and practice in the area. It highlights the role of management (both as an academic discipline and from a practitioner perspective) in bridging this gap and views managers, with their sense of individual ethical agency, as a key locus of ethics within organizations. The paper aims to address the theory–practice gap by surveying the business ethics literature in order to identify, draw together and integrate existing theory and research, with a particular emphasis upon models of ethical decision-making and their relationship to work values. Such an endeavour is necessary, not only because of the relative neglect of management practice by business ethics researchers, but also because of the current lack of integration in the field of business ethics itself. The paper outlines some of the main methodological challenges in the area and suggests how some of these may be overcome. Finally, it concludes with a number of suggestions as to how the theory–practice gap can be addressed through the development of a research agenda, based upon the previous work reviewed.     

论管理学界的研究方法迷失——实践迷失、客户迷失、价值迷失的继续研究

管理学研究方法迷失的问题有:①一流期刊论文虽然比三流期刊论文所用方法严谨得多,但外部效度都不高,或者说两者都迷失了外部效度;②实证研究狭隘化,量化建模法占统治地位,其他实证研究方法受排挤;③生搬硬套美国构念,僵硬翻译英文概念。方法迷失是由价值迷失导致的,方法迷失又加剧了客户迷失和实践迷失。要走出"四大迷失",需要确立管理学研究"八荣八耻"价值观、改革学术评价体系、纠正实证研究的狭隘化、扶持非主流研究方法、避免量化与质化研究方法失衡。如果学术环境短期内难以改变,只能靠管理学研究者自我救赎。     

管理学研究者客户迷失的判定、原因及出路

管理学研究者应认清自己的客户是谁,为客户创造价值。管理学研究者的客户有同行客户和实践客户2类,对管理学研究成果评价的优先次序依次是：实践客户、同行客户、专业机构。典型的客户迷失有抛弃客户型、客户倒置型、两头踏空型3种。管理学界3种迷失都相当严重,这加剧了管理学脱离实践和学术不端两大问题。解决客户迷失问题的出路是,认清研究成果的价值排序,改革学术评价体系,不再片面强调刊物等级指标,而是以“使用者、读者、引用者”为核心,按照研究者的自我定位分类进行评价。     

On the dynamic use of project performance and schedule risk information during projecttracking

Project scheduling, risk analysis and project tracking are key parameters to a project's success or failure. Research on the relative sensitivity of project activities during the project scheduling phase as well as research on project performance measurement during project progress have been published throughout the academic literature and the popular press. Obviously, the interest in activity sensitivity information and project performance measurement from both the academics and the practitioners lies in the need to focus a project manager's attention on those activities that influence the performance of the project. When management has knowledge about the current project performance and has a certain feeling of the relative sensitivity of the various project activities on the project objective, a better management focus and a more accurate response during project tracking should positively contribute to the overall performance of the project.     

Managerial Perceptions and the Essence of the Managerial World: What is an Interloper Business Executive to Make of the Academic‐Researcher Perceptions of Managers?

I argue that the Mezias and Starbuck (2003) research programme misses being managerially relevant by investigating the extent of perceptual inaccuracies among managers rather than the more valuable question of from where these inaccuracies arise and what their consequences are in practice. As a sometime business executive, it seems to me that the closer one gets to an actual managerial position, the less significant some of the explanations and recommendations in the academic research literature appear as regards managerial concerns. To ensure relevance in the managerial research enterprise, I suggest that academics should make concrete efforts to become reasonably conversant with the managerial world before undertaking any empirical research. I also make the point that the discussion of the Mode 2 approach to knowledge production in the management field needs to move away from the current focus on straightforwardly 'bridging the relevance gap' and toward finding ways to improve the competence of Mode 2 researchers by insisting on a minimum understanding of the managerial world before embarking on management research.     

基于元分析的国际知识管理研究特征分析

利用元分析方法,对1990～2007年间发表在20种国际管理学科核心期刊上的知识管理论文进行分析,从研究主题、参考学科、研究方法和分析层次4个维度分别揭示了国际知识管理的研究特征,明确了知识管理的研究现状和存在的问题,为完善知识管理学科结构提供实证研究数据,为知识管理的研究和发展提供参考依据.     

Knowledge dissemination in operations management: Published perceptions versus academic reality

The channels for knowledge generation and dissemination in the business disciplines are many: presenting research at conferences, writing books, distributing working papers, offering insights in society newsletters, giving invited talks, publishing studies in academic journals, and many other venues, including even blogs and perhaps Facebook^®. But the most important venue is probably published research in “top-level” academic journals. In the discipline of Operations Management, many studies and lists have been published that attempt to determine which of these journals are supposedly the “top” according to either citation analyses, the opinion of recognized experts, author affiliations, bibliometric studies, and other approaches. These lists may then, in turn, be used in different degrees to evaluate research. However, what really counts is what the academic institutions actually use for guidance in evaluating faculty research. Based on a new source of ranking data from AACSB-accredited schools, we compare published journal-ranking studies against that of academe to determine the degree to which the studies reflect academic “reality”. We present rankings of OM journals based on this new source of data and on an aggregate of the stream of published studies, and evaluate their consistency.     

Knowledge management systems: surveying the landscape

Knowledge management systems (KMS) are the tools and techniques that support knowledge-management practices in organizations. The study of these systems consists of a small but growing body of literature. In the last two years alone, at least four books, two special editions of journals and a number of academic and practitioner articles have been published related to this area. However, much of the work that has been published has been in the form of isolated survey studies, or anecdotal case studies into particular aspects of KMSs. This has made it difficult to build a cumulative body of knowledge into the development, use and management of these systems. The purpose of this paper is to 'survey the current landscape' of KMSs, and provide a framework for research into the development and use of these systems in organizations. The intent is to highlight areas where 'gaps' exist in what we know about KMSs and suggest ways to close those gaps.     

The Consolations of Organization Theory

The call for greater relevance in management research leads us to examine the remedies offered by organization theory to organizational problems. In contrast to Starkey and Madan (2001), we argue that research engagement with other academic disciplines helps produce broadly useful knowledge. Installing practitioners in central places in the research process may focus research on short-run rather than deep-seated processes. We illustrate the relevance of organization theory through two examples of how apparently esoteric knowledge (produced through cross-disciplinary collaboration) can have surprising application. First we show how the social network perspective proved useful in rescuing a manager from the perils of unpopularity. Second, we show how deconstruction can uncover the institutionalized routines that disempower managers and workers. Neither the management training centers nor the web-based learning initiatives admired by Starkey and Madan are likely to deliver insights that address deep-seated processes of change within society. Collaboration with academics across the university can further our goals of research relevant to practitioners.