There is current concern that the researcher, or academic, and the practitioner wings of our discipline are moving further apart. This divergence is likely to result in irrelevant theory and in untheorized and invalid practice. Such outcomes will damage our reputation and ultimately result in our fragmentation. We present a simple 2 × 2 model along the dimensions of relevance and rigour, with the four cells occupied by Popularist, Pragmatic, Pedantic, and Puerile Science, respectively. We argue that there has been a drift away from Pragmatic Science, high in both relevance and rigour, towards Pedantic and Popularist Science, and through them to Puerile Science. We support this argument by longitudinal analyses of the authorship of academic journal articles and then explain this drift in terms of our stakeholders. Powerful academics are the most immediate stakeholders for researchers, and they exercise their power in such a way as to increase the drift towards Pedantic Science. Organizational clients are the most powerful stakeholders for practitioners, and in their effort to address their urgent issues, they push practitioners towards Popularist Science. In the light of this analysis, we argue that we need to engage in political activity in order to reduce or redirect the influence of the key stakeholders. This can be done either directly, through our relationship with them, or indirectly, through others who influence them. Only by political action can the centrifugal forces away from Pragmatic Science be countered and a centripetal direction be established. Finally, we explore the implications of our analysis for the future development of members of our own profession.

In recent years, there has been a move to identify the behavioral foundations underpinning the evolutionary and economic fitness of the enterprise. Indeed, the dynamic capabilities project now occupies center stage in the field of strategic management. Yet the accounts developed thus far-like much of the field's theory and research more generally-are predicated upon a cold cognition logic that downplays the significance of emotional/affective and nonconscious cognitive processes for strategic adaptation. In this article, we rectify this imbalance by drawing upon contemporary advances in social cognitive neuroscience and neuroeconomics to develop a series of countervailing insights and new prescriptions for the development of dynamic capabilities. Using Teece's (2007) influential framework to organize and illustrate our arguments, we demonstrate how the fundamental capabilities of sensing, seizing, and transforming each require firms to harness the cognitive and emotional capacities of individuals and groups to blend effortful forms of analysis with the skilled utilization of less deliberative, intuitive processes.'The decision-making paradigm, as it has developed, is the product of a marriage between cognitive psychology and economics. From economics, decision theory inherited, or was socialized into, the language of preferences and beliefs and the religion of utility maximization that provides a unitary perspective for understanding all behavior. From cognitive psychology, decision theory inherited its descriptive focus, concern with process, and many specific theoretical insights. Decision theory is thus the brilliant child of equally brilliant parents. With all its cleverness, however, decision theory

This article reviews major developments from 2000 to early 2007 in the psychological analysis of cognition in organizations. Our review, the first in this series to survey cognitive theory and research spanning the entire field of industrial and organizational psychology, considers theoretical, empirical, and methodological advances across 10 substantive domains of application. Two major traditions, the human factors and organizational traditions, have dominated cognitively oriented research in this field. Our central message is that the technological and human systems underpinning contemporary organizational forms are evolving in ways that demand greater cooperation among researchers across both traditions. Such cooperation is necessary in order to gain theoretical insights of sufficient depth and complexity to refine the explanation and prediction of behavior in organizations and derive psychologically sound solutions to the unprecedented information-processing burdens confronting the twenty-first century workforce.

Kieser 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.

Recent advances in social cognitive neuroscience and related fields have rejuvenated scholarly research into intuition. This article considers the implications of these developments for understanding managerial and organizational decision making. Over the past two decades, researchers have made considerable progress in distinguishing intuition from closely-related constructs such as instinct and insight and the interplay between these non-conscious forms of cognition and explicit reasoning processes is now better understood. In the wake of significant theoretical and methodological convergence centred on dual-process theories of reasoning, judgment and social cognition, supported by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies, several of the foundational assumptions underpinning classic theories and frameworks in strategic management and entrepreneurship research are being called into question. Old models based on a simplistic left brain/right brain dichotomy are giving way to more sophisticated conceptions, in which intuitive and analytical approaches to decision making are underpinned by complex neuropsychological systems. In the light of these advances, the authors offer their reflections on what this all means for the assessment, development and management of intuition in the workplace.