Premium
Why the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research Is Unbridgeable
Author(s) -
Kieser Alfred,
Leiner Lars
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of management studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 4.398
H-Index - 184
eISSN - 1467-6486
pISSN - 0022-2380
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831.x
Subject(s) - rigour , relevance (law) , perspective (graphical) , autopoiesis , engineering ethics , action research , action (physics) , management science , systems theory , social system , knowledge management , sociology , computer science , epistemology , social science , engineering , political science , pedagogy , philosophy , physics , quantum mechanics , artificial intelligence , law
In this paper we discuss, on the basis of system theory, the rigour–relevance gap in management research and the proposal to overcome it. From a system theory perspective, social systems are self‐referential or autopoietic, which means that communication elements of one system, such as science, cannot be authentically integrated into communication of other systems, such as the system of a business organization. Social systems can only irritate – provoke – each other, i.e. alter conditions in such a way that other systems are forced to respond. Because of the differences between management science and practice it is impossible to assess relevance of research output within the system of science. On the basis of our analysis we show that neither action research nor Mode 2 research nor recent approaches to collaborative research can succeed in producing research that is rigorous as well as relevant. Researchers and practitioners cannot collaboratively produce research, they can only irritate each other. However, sometimes irritations or provocations turn out inspiring.