Rigour, Relevance and Reward: Introducing the Knowledge Translation Value‐Chain

This paper recognizes the substantive contributions made within the British Journal of Management to conducting research relevant to management at the level of individual studies. We aim to reorient the debate to take account of a researcher's contribution to practice over time and, by so doing, to indicate the range of ways knowledge can be translated and (through engagement with users and policymakers) modified, embedded and otherwise found useful. To achieve this, we conceptualize management scholarship as a knowledge translation value-chain. We propose that, to maximize relevance, knowledge must be reconfigured in multiple contexts, of which management research provides but one. The paper concludes with observations on the additional skills that researchers might need to make use of opportunities for engagement right across the knowledge translation value-chain.

[1]  Thomas B. Lawrence,et al.  Researching organizations using action research , 2006 .

[2]  A. Kieser,et al.  On the Social Construction of Relevance: A Rejoinder , 2011 .

[3]  A. Hughes.  Innovation Policy as Cargo Cult: Myth and Reality in Knowledge-Led Productivity Growth , 2010 .

[4]  Robert J. House.  The Quest for Relevance in Management Education: Some Second Thoughts and Undesired Consequences , 1975 .

[5]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  Management Research and the New Logics of Discovery and Engagement , 2009 .

[6]  Rakesh Khurana,et al.  Introduction to From Higher Aims to Hired Hands The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession , 2010 .

[7]  John Bessant,et al.  Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market, and Organizational Change, 2nd Edition , 2001 .

[8]  A. Huff,et al.  Re‐Focusing the Business School Agenda , 2001 .

[9]  R. Rothwell.  Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s , 1992 .

[10]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[11]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[12]  R CarlilePaul.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries , 2002 .

[13]  Pratima Bansal,et al.  The Conventions of Management Research and their Relevance to Management Practice , 2002 .

[14]  Alexander T. Nicolai,et al.  That’s Relevant! Different Forms of Practical Relevance in Management Science , 2010 .

[15]  A. Whitehead.  The function of reason , 1929 .

[16]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms , 2006 .

[17]  Krsto Pandza,et al.  Management as Design, But What Kind of Design? An Appraisal of the Design Science Analogy for Management , 2010 .

[18]  Andrew Pettigrew,et al.  The Double Hurdles for Management Research , 1997 .

[19]  M. Perkmann,et al.  University Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda , 2007 .

[20]  Robin Holt,et al.  The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research , 2007 .

[21]  A. Kieser,et al.  Why the Rigour-Relevance Gap in Management Research is Unbridgeable , 2009 .

[22]  A. Whitehead.  Process and reality : an essay in cosmology , 1978 .

[23]  Steve Brown,et al.  Strategic Operations Management , 2000, Strategic Operations Management.

[24]  R. Kaplinsky,et al.  A handbook for value chain research , 2002 .

[25]  D. Hambrick.  What if the Academy Actually Mattered , 1994 .

[26]  J. R. Tálamo.  Managing Innovation – Integrating Techonological, Market and Organizational Change. , 2001 .

[27]  Robin Wensley,et al.  Doors and boundaries: A recent history of the relationship between research and practice in UK organizational and management research , 2007 .

[28]  E. Hippel.  Horizontal Innovation Networks - By and For Users , 2007 .

[29]  D. Rousseau,et al.  Bridging the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research: It's Already Happening! , 2009 .

[30]  From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession , 2009 .

[31]  J. Aken.  Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules , 2004 .

[32]  H. Chesbrough.  The Era of Open Innovation , 2003 .

[33]  D. Tranfield,et al.  The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy , 1998 .

[34]  Robert MacIntosh,et al.  Dialogues between Academics and Practitioners: The Role of Generative Dialogic Encounters , 2010 .

[35]  Denise M. Rousseau,et al.  Evidence-Based Management: Concept Cleanup Time? , 2009 .

[36]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics , 1984 .

[37]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  Evidence-based management. , 2006, Harvard business review.

[38]  J. Kam.  Ring a Ring O' Roses: Quality Journals and Gamesmanship in Management Studies , 2007 .