Not Simply Returning to the Same Answer Over and Over Again: Reframing Relevance

From its earliest days, the field of business and management studies has wrestled with fundamental questions concerning its nature and purpose: for whom and to what ends is scholarly research ultimately directed? However, amid unprecedented changes to the world of work, over the past two and a half...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of management Jg. 22; H. 3; S. 355 - 369
Hauptverfasser: Hodgkinson, Gerard P., Starkey, Ken
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2011
Blackwell Publ
Schlagworte:
Associations
Betriebswirtschaftslehre
British Academy of Management
British Journal of Management
Business studies
Critical realism
Critical theory
Design
Evaluation
Großbritannien
Lineage
Management
Management research
Management theory
Methodenkritik
Policy making
Realism
Relevance
Rigour
Scholarly publishing
Studies
USA
Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten
United Kingdom > UK
ISSN:1045-3172, 1467-8551
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:From its earliest days, the field of business and management studies has wrestled with fundamental questions concerning its nature and purpose: for whom and to what ends is scholarly research ultimately directed? However, amid unprecedented changes to the world of work, over the past two and a half decades these questions have become of central importance to academicians, practitioners and policy‐makers. The British Academy of Management (BAM), through the work of its Research Policy Committee and the British Journal of Management, has played a central role in these developments. This paper traces the lineage of BAM's contribution and offers a critical assessment of the current state of play with regard to the so‐called relevance problem, arguing that design science and critical realism have the potential to take the field forward by transcending the ‘either/or’ game into which the rigour versus relevance debate has a tendency to develop.
Bibliographie:istex:976ACA84E21F4735AA400706E1F35A49300A9357
ArticleID:BJOM757
ark:/67375/WNG-HP4RWT88-B
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:1045-3172
1467-8551
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00757.x