Re‐aligning the Stakeholders in Management Research: Lessons from Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology

Abstract

The publication of the Starkey and Madan (2001) report represents a timely and valuable contribution to an ongoing debate across a range of applied disciplines, concerning the nature and purpose of social research. The call for stakeholder alignment, culminating in the production of new knowledge that is both theoretically and methodologically rigorous on the one hand, and socially relevant on the other, is, in our view, to be greatly welcomed. However, the Mode 2 approach advocated by Starkey and Madan will not satisfy these fundamental requirements. Drawing on recent analyses of the nature, causes and consequences of the academic‐practitioner divide in the subfield of industrial, work and organizational psychology, we offer an alternative, four‐fold taxonomy of the varieties of managerial knowledge. Within our alternative framework, research that is low on rigour but high on relevance (a likely consequence of the wholesale adoption of a Mode 2 approach) is characterized as ‘Popularist Science’. ‘Pedantic Science’, by contrast, is high on rigour but low on relevance, while ‘Puerile Science’ meets neither requirement. Only ‘Pragmatic Science’ will meet the twin imperatives of rigour and relevance. Whilst it is highly desirable that Pragmatic Science should dominate the management field, there are considerable barriers that impede its widespread adoption at the present time, not least the limited availability of researchers who possess the requisite sociopolitical and methodological competencies. The immediate imperative that has to be addressed, therefore, is the question of how best to close this competency gap, a fundamental precondition of stakeholder realignment.

Research Review and Scientific Evidence

“…Anderson, Herriot, e Hodgkinson (2001), no âmbito das ciências sociais, cruzam dois eixos: rigor da investigação; e relevância da investigação, identificando quatro áreas resultantes deste cruzamento: A ciência populista, que caracterizam como de baixo rigor e elevada relevância; A ciência pedante de elevado rigor e baixa relevância; A ciência pueril que não seria relevante nem rigorosa; Finalmente a ciência pragmática, que garantiria o equilíbrio entre rigor e relevância. Este último deverá ser o critério que orienta a revisão, assim como toda a investigação científica.…”

A Knowledge Review: Implications For Future Research and Practical Application

“…It is highly conceptual in nature and builds on very few previous works; (Lave and Wenger, 1991;Wenger, 1998;McDermott, 1999). Wenger (2000) has attempted to bridge the theory-practice gap from a conceptual perspective centred around what Hodgkinson, Herriot and Anderson (2001) refer to as 'relevance', Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) on the other hand are empirically grounded and are more practical, developing their research around the effective management of coordinating principles needed to improve the effectiveness of networks. However their objective analyses are centred at researchers and academic scholars rather than management.…”

“…The specific works of Wenger (2000), Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) and Anand et al (2007) have expanded by highlighting that the communities of practice field is weak in both rigour and relevance. Hodgkinson et al (2001) refer to this type of combination as 'puerile science'. These tensions contribute to a consistent divergence of research and are ultimately developing a 'fragmentation trap' (Knudsen, 2003).…”

Publishing at the interfaces of psychology and strategic management

“…The significance of scholarly management and organizational research for academia and wider publics (e.g. Anderson, Herriot, and Hodgkinson, 2001;Hodgkinson, Herriot, and Anderson, 2001;Hodgkinson, 2006;Hodgkinson and Rousseau, 2009;Hodgkinson and Starkey, 2011;Romme et al, 2015).…”