In the Spirit of Scholarship

Peng, Mike W.; Dess, Gregory G.

doi:10.5465/amle.9.2.zqr282

Cited by 29 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(92 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there is no relationship between the third indicator of rigor, accumulated empirical evidence and relevance. By finding a positive relationship between two of the three indicators of rigor, this study lends support to those who have argued that rigor and relevance are potentially augmenting (Hodgkinson & Rousseau, ; Peng & Dess, ; Walsh, ) and appears to challenge the view that rigor and relevance are opposing forces in academic research (Kieser, ; Kieser & Leiner, , , , ; Kieser & Nicolai, ). Also, our findings indicate that viewing the rigor–relevance relationship through an institutional logics lens can help advance our understanding of the way in which these twin directives interact to influence academic research practices.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Thus, this study draws upon institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, ; Meyer & Rowan, ; Scott, ; Zucker, ) to explain that rigor and relevance are coexisting institutional logics, or the organizing principles of a field (Reay & Hinings, ), which to varying degrees influence the legitimacy of academic research. As such, it is our assertion that the twin directives of rigor and relevance have a positive, augmenting impact (Hodgkinson & Rousseau, ; Peng & Dess, ; Walsh, ), rather than an opposing (Kieser, ; Kieser & Leiner, , , , ; Kieser & Nicolai, ) or orthogonal relationship (Ghoshal, ; Gulati, ; Palmer, ) as others have contended.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting the rigor–relevance relationship: An institutional logics perspective

Paterson

Harms

Tuggle

2018

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether academic research should emphasize scientific rigor, practical relevance, or both simultaneously has been hotly debated in HRM research and other related disciplines for much of the past century. That said, empirical investigations of whether these values are mutually exclusive or compatible are surprisingly rare. Moreover, the perspective of the end consumers of research-practitioners-as to what research is relevant has been almost completely ignored. In the present study, we adopt an institutional logics perspective to assess the perceived relevance of common management research findings with two samples of 298 and 143 practicing managers, respectively. Further, we examine whether objective indicators of rigor and manager-rated relevance impact academic legitimacy. The results indicate a positive relationship between rigor and relevance. Interestingly, practitioner ratings of relevance were stronger predictors of academic legitimacy than methodological rigor. Finally, research findings that deal with leadership topics are rated as most relevant to practitioners, whereas job characteristics, demographics, and human resource practices are seen as the least relevant to managers. The contributions of this study and implications for future research conclude the article. K E Y W O R D Sinstitutional logics, legitimacy, rigor, relevance

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Revisiting the rigor–relevance relationship: An institutional logics perspective

Paterson

Harms

Tuggle

2018

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We now turn to two mechanisms by which these incentives are exacerbated in academia overall: journal rankings and research assessments. Peng and (2010) argue that management scholarship is about creating and disseminating scholarly knowledge about management and organizations and that a key element of a business school's value proposition is evidence-based scholarship and teaching. They note however that scholarship is routinely and severely criticized around its alleged irrelevance and lack of impact on practice and the scholarly nonsense, amnesia, fetishism and gamesmanship generated by scholarly competition to publish research in the top-tier or 'A' journals.…”

Section: Intended Effect -Reward Quality Work That Influences Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Questionable research practices in academia: antecedents and consequences

Grant

Kovács

Spens

2018

EBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper is a viewpoint and its objective is to discuss questionable research practices in business research, particularly in the logistics and supply chain management discipline, in light of antecedents influenced by the current academic environment and the consequences for academic rigour and relevance in order to stimulate thinking and debate among the academic community. Design/methodology/approachA literature review and autoethnographic approach were used to examine these issues based on over sixty years' collective academic experience of the authors. Data was collected from discussions among the paper's authors as well as recounting open discussions with other academics and journal editors to collate their observations. FindingsEvidence is provided of issues the authors have seen first-hand where antecedents in the academic environment influences questionable research practices, which then detrimentally affect research rigour and relevance, integrity and proper contributions to ground-breaking research and knowledge advancement. Research limitations/implicationsThis paper is based on personal observations and experiences of the three authors as well as open-ended discussions with others in the academic community. Suggestions are provided for various academic stakeholders to address these issues. Practical implicationsPractical implications are only provided for academics in their roles as authors, journal editors and reviewers.2 Social implicationsEncouraging the academic community to eliminate questionable research practices to improve the rigour, relevance and quality of research will provide more credibility and integrity resulting in better impact and outcomes for society at large. Originality/valueThe value of this paper is in stimulating thinking and debate amongst academics to return to core issues and values in academia opposed to focussing on narrow university goals focussed on other antecedents of questionable research practices.3 researchers and authors, i.e. from either a business and marketing or industrial engineering perspective. We have adopted this approach and as we believe we can only comment on things we know and understand, however we have used the corollary disciplines to provide additional examples.Our paper is structured as follows. After discussing the method used we begin by reviewing the nature of 'incentives' towards publish or perish in this 21 st century academic landscape and discuss the role of authors, reviewers, journals and editors, and indeed business schools in driving these incentives at the role. We identify and discuss QRPs related thereto and their effect on research rigour, relevance and integrity. We then conclude the paper with suggestions for all academic stakeholders to address these issues in order to improve the state of academic research and its impact on rigour and relevance as well as on ethical behaviour and integrity. Figure 1 provides a 'conceptual model' to graphically show these issues and provide a roadmap for this paper's flow. Insert Figure...

show abstract

“…Theory has conceptual, instrumental, and symbolic value for practitioners Peng and Dess (2010) Relevance discussion is irrelevant! Reflects lack of understanding of scholarship We should be proud; scholarly competition is like Olympic Games, spirit of research; purpose is search of excellence Heracleous (2011) This article poses the problem and introduces a special issue…”

Section: (Ir-)relevance In Management Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lost in Translation? On Mind and Matter in Management Research

Fendt

2013

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Again and again scholars evoke a seriously dysfunctional relationship between management research and education on the one hand, and the practice of management on the other. We share this viewpoint, and with this appraisal intend to (re-)open the debate. We expose some views on the intellectual and sociological roots of the malaise, advocating a philosophical stance rooted in pragmatism and particularly in John Dewey’s pragmatic stance. We outline a number of essentially workable, albeit for debate’s sake provocative and unpolished proposals for the redesign of academic institutions and of their publishing process. We sketch out radical redesign of academia—with, inter alia, (a) permeable academic and practical careers, so that executives and scholars could move between and act within each others’ realities; (b) a focus of management education on post-experience graduate level; and (c) an academic publishing process worthy of the real-time era of the Internet.

show abstract

In the Spirit of Scholarship

Abstract: We thank Ben Arbaugh (Editor), Jonathan Doh (Exemplary Contributions editor), and our reviewer for editorial guidance and support. We also thank

Cited by 29 publications

References 63 publications

Revisiting the rigor–relevance relationship: An institutional logics perspective

Revisiting the rigor–relevance relationship: An institutional logics perspective

Questionable research practices in academia: antecedents and consequences

Lost in Translation? On Mind and Matter in Management Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About