Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies

Many organization studies (OS) scholars are motivated by the desire to generate theory and research that is relevant to practicing managers. But concerns about the irrelevance of OS theory and research surfaced early in the field's development and have intensified recently. Many believe that a growing preoccupation with theoretical and methodological rigor underpin the increasing generation of theory and research that is irrelevant to managers. But there is little empirical research on: 1) historical trends in theoretical and methodological rigor, 2) historical trends in relevance, and 3) the relationship between the two. This is partly because the measurement of theoretical and methodological rigor, as well as of relevance, is fraught with conceptual problems. This article describes a study that attempts to address these gaps in our knowledge, partly by tackling the conceptual problems responsible for them. We then present preliminary findings from that study. We conclude by pondering the value of research aimed at assessing the level and determinants of the relevance of OS scholarship.

[1]  J. Pfeffer.  Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable , 1993 .

[2]  Donald C. Hambrick,et al.  1993 presidential address: What if the academy actually mattered? , 1994 .

[3]  Yoann Bazin,et al.  From Higher Aims to Hired Hands , 2010 .

[4]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Perceived Causes and Solutions of the Translation Problem in Management Research , 2007 .

[5]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Perspective - Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies: Idea Migration and Academic Journal Evolution , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[6]  M. Tushman,et al.  Research and Relevance: Implications of Pasteur'S Quadrant for Doctoral Programs and Faculty Development , 2007 .

[7]  James D. Thompson.  On Building an Administrative Science , 1956 .

[8]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Knowledge for Theory and Practice , 2006 .

[9]  John E. Brandl,et al.  Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation , 1998 .

[10]  Edward H. Litchfield,et al.  Notes on a General Theory of Administration , 1956 .

[11]  R. Daft,et al.  Can Organization Studies Begin to Break Out of the Normal Science Straitjacket? An Editorial Essay , 1990 .

[12]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory , 1995 .

[13]  D. Hambrick.  THE FIELD OF MANAGEMENT'S DEVOTION TO THEORY: TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING? , 2007 .

[14]  J. V. Maanen,et al.  Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies , 1995 .

[15]  John Van Maanen,et al.  Style As Theory , 2006 .

[16]  David F. Channell.  Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1999 .

[17]  F. Vermeulen.  “I Shall Not Remain Insignificant”: Adding a Second Loop to Matter More , 2007 .

[18]  W. Bennis,et al.  How business schools lost their way. , 2005, Harvard business review.

[19]  Royston Greenwood,et al.  ASQ Forum , 2002 .

[20]  J. Bartunek.  2002 Presidential Address: A Dream for the Academy , 2003 .

[21]  Kenneth G. Brown,et al.  The Very Separate Worlds Of Academic And Practitioner Periodicals In Human Resource Management: Implications For Evidence-Based Management , 2007 .

[22]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[23]  J. Bartunek.  A Dream for the Academy , 2003 .

[24]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  American Anti-Management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation , 1996 .

[25]  R. Daft,et al.  Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer Between Practitioners and Academics , 2001 .

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

[27]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  The Evolution of Organization Analysis in ASQ, 1959-1979. , 1980 .

[28]  J. V. Maanen,et al.  Crossroads Style as Theory , 1995 .

[29]  Mie Augier,et al.  Notes on the Evolution of a Research Community: Organization Studies in Anglophone North America, 1945-2000 , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[30]  Ranjay Gulati,et al.  Tent Poles, Tribalism, and Boundary Spanning: The Rigor-Relevance Debate in Management Research , 2007 .

[31]  S. Clegg.  “Lives in the Balance”: A Comment on Hinings and Greenwood's “Disconnects and Consequences in Organization Theory?”• , 2002 .

[32]  Karen Locke.  Grounded Theory in Management Research , 2000 .

[33]  Sten Jönsson.  Institutions and Organizations , 1997 .