English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Provide the basic argument based on problematic situation (P), area of concern (A), conceptual framing (F), research method (M), and C. Introduction Introduce A and the motivation for the study. Introduce P, F, and M as appropriate for addressing the RQ. State principal results by making clear how C contributes to P and A. Background Present a review of extant literature on A. Substantiate the motivation for the study by evaluating what we know and don’t know about A. Construct and articulate the opportunity to make a contribution and substantiate the choice of the RQ. Framing Introduce and argue for an existing, revised, or developed F (FA and FI) as a means for structuring and supporting data collection and analysis. Methods Describe and argue for M. Introduce P to provide context for analysis. Detail and argue for approach to data collection and analysis to respond to RQ. Results Present results of data analysis based on F, following M, and to help answer RQ. Focus on appropriate structuring of analysis and use tables and graphs. Establish empirical foundation to make contribution. Discussion Explain and argue for contribution to P (CP) and A (CA) as response to RQ, based on results and background literature. Don’t just repeat results. Discuss relationships to literature, explain conclusions with evidence for each conclusion, provide alternative explanations, and state theoretical and practical implications. Note: Adapted from (Mathiassen et al., 2012). 22 JUNE 2017, VOL 1, NO. 1 Engaged Management ReView with the engagement with P and the adoption of F and M as appropriate approaches for addressing RQ; and reveals the consequential contributions to the problem setting (CP) and the area of concern (CA), and possibly to the conceptual framing (CF) or research method (CM). To motivate the RQ, the background section provides a review of the literature about A, what already is known that is relevant to the study at hand, and what is not known or challenged. The section elaborates and substantiates what has already been mentioned briefly in the abstract and introduction. In the overall argument, it serves the very important role of identifying the opportunity to make a contribution to the literature, beyond the contributions the research makes to the specific problem setting. A key insight from the work of Golden-Biddle and Locke (1997, 2007) is that identifying gaps and problematic assumptions (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2011) in a particular stream of literature requires actively engaging in interpretation of the literature—not simply reading it. Researchers must consider what is relevant for their own study and what is special or unique about their engagement with P. Only then can they think about appropriate conceptual framings (F) and research methods (M) that allow for convincingly presenting what is known and constructing an opportunity to make a contribution to knowledge. Following the background section, the next two sections present the conceptual framing (F) and research method (M), together with the reasons for choosing them. The framing section introduces an existing, revised, or developed F and argues that it offers an appropriate means for structuring and supporting data collection and analysis in response to RQ. Although researchers typically incorporate and rely on some established concepts about A (FA), adding concepts or theories independent of A (FI) can often produce a line of inquiry that leads to new insights into A. In structuring the framing section, being aware of differences in style between qualitative research—which emphasizes the concepts and relationships used to make sense of data—and quantitative research—which focuses on models of related constructs with hypotheses about causal relationships—is important. The methods section then describes and supports the choice for the particular research methods used. It introduces the problem setting (P) to provide context for the analysis, and it details and argues for the selected approach to data collection and analysis in response to RQ. Important interdependences exist between the framing and the methods sections, in that concepts and relationships from the framing section provide the intellectual apparatus for executing the methods to establish a strong empirical foundation for making a contribution. The discussion section is probably the most important section because its purpose is to explain and argue for contributions to the problem setting and the area of concern and potentially to the conceptual framing or research method used. It also is the most difficult section to write. The section typically starts with a brief recap of the argument as laid out in the introduction. It then explains the contribution to A by reviewing the key empirical findings from the results section and discussing how they relate to extant literature about A from the background section: how the findings might corroborate, contradict, or challenge what we already know and how they add significant new insights about A. Such discussion might be restricted to highlighting important empirical insights, but it might also contribute new concepts and relationships about A (FA). Research publications that present new concepts or theory about A might do so in different ways: (1) in the framing section and subsequently in the results section; (2) in the discussion section, based on existing concepts and relations in the framing section and empirical insights from the results section; or (3) using a combination of both these styles. Often, a contribution to P is presented as implications for both practice and theory toward the end of the discussion section, as a required add-on. Instead, reporting on engaged scholarship should seriously attempt to bridge theory and practice by including evidence of contributions to P (as in the case of action research) and actionable principles for practice (as in the case of design and evaluation research). As such, researchers might choose to develop theory that goes beyond understanding, explanation, and prediction to include prescription for practice (Gregor, 2006). To illustrate adaptation of the generic publication structure, we return to Singh et al. (2010), which appeared in Health Services Research, a top academic journal in health management. The mission of Health Services Research is “to enhance knowledge and understanding of the financing, organization, delivery, and outcomes of health services through publication of thoughtful, timely, rigorously conducted, state-ofthe-art research and thinking.” Full-length research articles in this journal typically follow a particular structure, and they are limited to 4,800 words, excluding abstract, references, tables, and figures. Given these characteristics, we adapted the generic publication design as detailed in Table 4. The most important changes are: (1) ̨packaging the conceptual framing (F) and research method (M) into the research design and method sections; (2) presenting the theoretical contributions to the area of concern (CA) as part of results; and (3) strongly emphasizing the discussion of lessons for practice (CP) and the practical value of the research. As such, the adaptation was simple, and it helped us design a rich, but quite comprehensive, publication aligned with journal requirements. DEVELOPING THE PUBLICATION Keeping in mind that publishing engaged scholarship is a complex and uncertain endeavor, researchers must allow their research design document (Table 2) and their publication design document (Table 3) to iteratively shape each other until the research has converged toward a stable and consistent design (Figure 1). The initial 23 JUNE 2017, VOL 1, NO. 1 Engaged Management ReView designs necessarily change with problem setting (P) engagement, with reviewing the literature on the area of concern (A), and with the analysis of data. The writing of the publication is also a creative activity that can involve changes in both the publication design and the research design (Huff, 1999). For several reasons, early and intentional design of the research and the publication and continuous revision of these documents eases the development of a strong publication. First, carefully attending to the research and publication designs leads more quickly and with less iteration toward a consistent and coherent argument. Second, such designs serve as important sense-making devices that identify significant new insights and deviations from earlier decisions during the research process. Third, the two design documents allow for focused communication about the project, both to coordinate with possible co-authors and to obtain valuable feedback on the ideas being communicated from other researchers and stakeholders. In addition, being explicit about a research design and related publication structure can be especially useful to help establish and develop close collaboration between practitioners and researchers as a typical approach to engaged scholarship (Bartunek and Louis, 1996; Amabile et al., 2001). Finally, creating and keeping the two design documents updated requires relatively little effort and the potential gain from using them significantly outweighs the cost of developing and maintaining them. Figure 3 illustrates the iterative process of developing a research publication. The process follows the Simonian approach to design, in which the researcher constantly interacts with her or his environment (Simon, 1962, 1996), discussing the project with collaborators and colleagues, engaging with the problem setting (P), studying the literature on the area of concern (A), collecting and analyzing data, and writing drafts of the publication. Through these interactions, researchers collect and interpret knowledge and evidence, explore and test ideas, and discover and evaluate alternatives (Boland and Collopy, 2004; Boland et al., 2006; Frisk et al., 2014). At the core of this iterat

Designing Engaged Scholarship: From Real-World Problems to Research Publications