This commentary agrees with Starkey and Madan (2001) that business schools must incorporate Mode 2 production methods if they are to be significant knowledge producers in the future. We reinforce their specific suggestions about how that might be accomplished by focusing on learning from early Mode 2 attempts, promoting practitioner research, seeking business co-sponsorship and sheltering some Mode 1 practices and values, including longitudinal reflective research and information storage. We also argue, however, that business schools must go beyond such tasks, difficult and expensive though they are. The way business and business schools currently operate, and are being encouraged to operate, does not address the broader issues of human relevance that concern James March (1998) and others. The gap here is a risk for business and society, and appears to require new, Mode 3, methods of knowledge production.
[1]
A. Kellerman,et al.
The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration
,
2015
.
[2]
Andrew Pettigrew,et al.
The Double Hurdles for Management Research
,
1997
.
[3]
D. Tranfield,et al.
The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy
,
1998
.
[4]
Anne Sigismund Huff,et al.
Citigroup's John Reed and Stanford's James March on management research and practice
,
2000
.
[5]
Ken Starkey,et al.
Bridging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management Research
,
2001
.
[6]
A. Huff,et al.
When Firms Change Direction
,
2001
.
[7]
J. Hailey,et al.
Managing for Change: Leadership, Strategy and Management in Asian NGOs
,
2001
.