Bridging the Manager–Organizational Scientist Collaboration Gap

Ivancevich, John M.; Duening, Thomas N.; Lidwell, William

doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.03.004

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are convinced that the shift towards exactly the kind of research recommended in the reports caused the gap. They and others (Beer, 2001;Ivancevich, Duening, & Lidwell, 2005;Pfeffer & Fong, 2002;Schibrowsky, Peltier, & Boyt, 2002;Trank & Rynes, 2003) claim that business shares more characteristics with professions like medicine and law than it does with natural sciences, and that research in the field of management studies should therefore adopt the alternative model of applied research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bullinger

Kieser

Schiller-Merkens

2015

Scandinavian Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bullinger

Kieser

Schiller-Merkens

2015

Scandinavian Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Based on the overwhelming, sustained calls for academics to increase collaboration with industry (Ferdows, 2018; Foltean, 2019; Ivancevich et al, 2005; Martin, 2012; Mentzer, 2008; Storbacka, 2014; van Hoek et al, 2020; Waller et al, 2012) and the lack of research on such engagement (Foltean, 2019), we inquired how often academics communicated directly with a logistics or supply chain practitioner regarding research. Most reported a frequency of interaction of one time per month or more (55%), while 45% interacted only three times per year or less.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the impact of logistics and supply chain management scholarship: Why pursue practical relevance and are we successful?

Hawkins

Gravier²,

Farris

et al. 2022

J of Business Logistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the level of relevance of logistics and supply chain management research and probes underlying motives prompting scholars to value and pursue managerial (vs. purely academic) contributions. At its core, the concerns over rigor and relevance of higher education comprise a crisis of trust and credibility that appeared decades ago and continues to provoke concern from the field's thought leaders. While exploratory in nature, the results suggest both practitioners and academics agree at differing levels that logistics and supply chain management research is relevant, but pressure to chase indices and rankings has influenced behavior of academics. Consequently, the academic peer-reviewed process no longer seems to focus on managerial implications. The article begins with theories pertinent to human motivation, namely, self-determination theory (SDT), and employs qualitative interviews of academics to help develop surveys of both academics and logistics and supply chain management practitioners. It then presents the methodologies of quantitative data collection and analysis-combined with interviews of deans and editors-to explore the research questions to offer discussion, implications, future research directions, and conclusions.

show abstract