Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
S4
perceived need is for prescriptive statements
about best practices and actionable advice
rather than reflexive analysis;
user communities lack awareness of the results
of research. Management researchers also
lack systematic and effective methods of
disseminating their findings to many of these
communities.
The issues here are encapsulated in a dialogue
that took place at the American Academy of
Management Annual Conference in 1999 between
Stanfords James March and Citigroups John
Reed. March (2000) criticized what he called
the misguided search for relevance rather than
knowledge. He argued that the pursuit of academic research which contributed to knowledge
was more important. March has had as much
impact on our thinking about the nature of
organization and on the evolution of management
as a discipline as any scholar and he holds chairs
in international management, political science,
sociology and education at Stanford University!
The key role of the university, according to his
perspective, is not in trying to identify factors
affecting organizational performance, or in trying
to develop managerial technology. It is in raising
fundamental issues and advancing knowledge about
fundamental processes affecting management.
March continues:
What in management research is important for
management practice? If we look historically . . . it
is not the passing fads of management gimmicks.
It is not the numerous studies attempting to relate
performance to one thing or another. It is the basic
ideas that shape the discourse about management
ideas about conflict of interest, problems with
information and incentives, bounded rationality,
diffusion of legitimate forms, loose coupling,
liability of newness, dynamic traps of adaptation,
absorptive capacity and the like . . . the primary
usefulness of management research lies in the
development of fundamental ideas that might
shape managerial thinking, not in the solution of
immediate managerial problems.
S5
the very role of the university becomes problematic (Brown and Duguid, 2000).
in Mode 1 problems are set and solved in a context governed by the largely academic interests of
a specific community. By contrast, Mode 2 knowledge is carried out in a context of application.
Mode 1 is disciplinary while Mode 2 is transdisciplinary. Mode 1 is characterised by homogeneity,
mode 2 by heterogeneity. Organisationally, Mode
1 is hierarchical and tends to preserve its form,
while Mode 2 is more heterarchical and transient.
Each employs a different type of quality control.
In comparison with Mode 1, Mode 2 is more
socially accountable and reflexive. It includes a
wider, more temporary and heterogeneous set of
practitioners, collaborating on a problem defined
in a specific and localised context. (Gibbons et al.,
1994, p. 3)
S6
Evidence/
data
Knowledge
Effective
action
Decision
making
S7
S8
Critical reflection among academics. Whether
management knowledge can ever conform to a
natural science model is debatable (Cannella and
Paetzold, 1994). Management in action is complex, cause and effect relationships difficult to
establish and the predictive validity of theory low.
Skilful management practice involves intuition as
well as rational analysis and is as much of an art
as a science, perhaps more so. This suggests that
researchers need to engage more with the complexities of practice but this itself is problematic
because we do not have, as yet, a systematic
way of demonstrating or measuring the impact
research has on practice. Tranfield and Starkey
(1998), in a paper which reflects research policy
debates in the British Academy of Management,
examine the fragmented nature of the management community, spread across different disciplinary bases and embracing differing epistemological
positions. They argue that the key defining characteristic of management research should be its
applied nature and that its central concern should
be the general (engineering) problem of design.
They conclude by suggesting that a focus upon the
Mode 2 agenda for knowledge production will
provide the basis for the legitimization of UK
management research among broad groups of
stakeholders, while arguing that the problems
addressed by management researchers should
grow out of the interaction between the world of
practice and the world of theory, rather than out
of either one alone (Tranfield and Starkey, 1998,
p. 353). They thus endorse a research policy based
upon the double hurdle of academic rigour and
managerial relevance, embedded in both the
social science canons of best practice and the
worlds of policy and practice.
UK management research has been increasingly influenced by US research standards and
norms. For example, this is reflected in what
seems an almost irresistible trend to apply a US
yardstick to the assessment of research quality,
in the tendency to view publication in leading
US management journals as synonymous with
research excellence. But American academics
themselves are questioning their own research
norms. For example, Don Hambrick (1994) made
a now famous presidential address to the American
Academy of Management with the challenging
title of What if the Academy actually mattered?,
the sub-text for which was What if we were
relevant?.
Managers apply this learning in decisionmaking and action (or choose inaction).
S9
S10
research relationship and on firms who are convinced of the value of this kind of research.
How is such research to be disseminated? In the
Mode 2 model, access takes place as an integral
part of the joint involvement of researchers and
reflective practitioners in the research process.
However, this form of research will often/normally
tend to take place in closed networks. For example,
The Financial Services Research Forum at the
University of Nottingham has 16 member financialservices companies who negotiate a research
programme with the academics involved. Currently,
we are researching strategy, marketing and education issues in financial services. However, the
feedback of the research is to the companies and
the knowledge generated is the property of the
firms involved, although it is also used to inform
academic papers. Mode 2 research does not,
therefore, necessarily create knowledge as a
public good, if the companies involved see it only
as contributing to their competitive advantage.
And, of course, a primary motivation for getting
involved in such research networks in the first
place is to commission research that might
contribute to competitive advantage.
Double challenge of relevance
In its strategy collaborate to compete, the UK
Government recognizes the need to create a
world-class research base that is able to translate
its knowledge production into commercial success for the UK. It suggests that the establishment
of networks which link universities with the users
of research, including business and industry,
charities, government and the general public, will
lead to its practical application, encouraging a
broader input to the establishment of the research
agenda and to the development of a genuine
knowledge community.
The IndustryAcademic Links report (HEFCE,
1998) highlights some of the government measures to promote higher education institutions
(HEIs)firms linkages: for example, the concept
of ring-fencing industryacademic links in areas
of research deemed to be of particular relevance
to industry. Manifestations of this can be seen
through participation by UK HEIs and industry
in the European Unions (EU) Framework Programmes. A broader effort to drive academic
research towards support for competitiveness can
be observed through the Department of Trade
S11
S12
result, research projects full costs are borne by
the providers of the research service (The Higher,
19 May 2000).
This notion that managers cannot derive
practical benefit from the knowledge generated
by academic research has been a topic of
continued interest, often appearing under the
title of rigour versus relevance (e.g. Benbasat
and Zmud, 1999; Davenport and Markus, 1999;
Mowday, 1997). There is, however, a considerable
amount of research which has found that practising managers intuitively draw upon complex
theoretical ideas in their day-to-day lives, even
though these may not be formal management theories
(Watson, 1994). As Watson argues, managers are
essentially practical theorists.
In the new, more broadly social production of
knowledge there is constant pressure to balance
involvement and distance with user interests and
to face the challenges for management research
of the double hurdles of scholarly quality and
relevance (Pettigrew, 1997). Management research is thus facing a double challenge: it must be
of high academic quality and of high relevance to
users. Relevant research will need to provide
analyses, insight and advice on problems or issues
of concern to user communities; balance the inherent longevity of the research process with the
need for rapid change in business and society and
build on close liaison with users, with its results
being communicated to users through accessible
media and in a language that they can understand.
Authors who strive to craft relevant articles for
practitioners need to focus on the concerns of practice, provide real value to professionals and apply
a pragmatic rather than academic tone. Ideally,
they should also describe how the ideas discussed
or actions suggested would be implemented in
practice, allowing for contextual differences that
are important to different readership communities.
Academics need to consider carefully the
accessibility of their work and their style of
writing (Van Maanen, 1995). This is not a problem
peculiar to management. Accounting researchers,
too, have considered how to make their work
more relevant to practice and have concluded that
they need to make it more accessible. Accounting
practitioners do not understand contemporary
academic accounting research;
Because they do not understand the mathematics
and statistics that characterise most contemporary
S13
S14
to examine emerging developments in electronic
commerce. The work offers insights for industry
participants and helps keep researchers focused
on critical industry issues:
MSI (Marketing Science Institute) forum of
partnership interaction delivers relevance with
rigor by drawing together researchers in the
field and senior executives. As Prof. Philip Kotler
describes it, the MSI is a mutual education
society. The MSI joins 2,000 executives in 60
global companies with 2,000 academic researchers
in marketing, organizational behaviour, information systems and other fields. It establishes a
research agenda and then provides funding for
research projects related to that agenda. Every
two years, research priorities are identified through
a series of discussions around the world, culminating in a ballot of members. These urgent needs
of business are then communicated to researchers
along with offers of funding to pursue them.
Research results are published and disseminated
quickly to members through print publications
and a web site. (Wind and Nueno, 1998)
Research training
The academic landscape
Commentators are currently predicting seismic
changes in the business world, even a new economic era (Hitt, 1998). Although they argue
about the detail, analysts do seem to agree that we
are entering a new competitive landscape, driven
by the forces of globalization and technological
revolution and that, to survive in this new landscape, firms must strive to develop their core
competencies (Hamel and Prahalad, 1995) while
S15
S16
GEMBA students spend 30 hours a week on-line,
attending CD-ROM video lectures and downloading supplemental programmes and interactive
study aids. Distance learning is also widely available for MBAs, across a range of more industryspecific subjects. The University of Ulster, for
example, provides a postgraduate Certificate in
Management for Shorts, the Aircraft Company.
The course consists of one and two-day workshops
and half-day meetings over 12 to 18 months,
with work-based learning focused on company
requirements. Multimedia-based and distance
learning training is thus capturing the attention of
many corporate managers, for its speed and longterm savings. And new forms of distance technology media facilitate access to a global network
of research sites, although we lack any clear idea
as yet of how to map this environment and best
profit from it.
Apart from having industrial membership
on their course advisory boards, the main trend
among those offering masters courses aimed at
industry has been towards modularization and
part-time registration. The Executive MBA, wherein courses are designed around the core MBA
syllabus, with some tailoring to the needs of
corporate clients, is something of a growth market.
Warwick Business School, for example, has a very
successful MBA collaboration with Andersen
Consulting. A successful example of tailoring a
course to the needs of more than one company
is a consortium MBA offered at Heriot-Watt
University to employees of the Bank of Scotland,
Hewlett Packard, ScottishPower and the NHS.
The MBA takes two to three years part-time,
offered in five-day modules with 20 people each
year. There have been a number of such developments. As intellectual capital becomes more
important to corporate (and political) agendas,
we may well find that corporations are more
willing to get involved in academia.
Business executives may thus become more of
a driving force for educational reform in business
schools. They have advanced notice of the knowledge, skills and abilities that marketable students
must offer to employees. The educational priorities
of the business community can thus accelerate
advancements in universities, allowing executives
to become instigators of innovation in education.
However, for changes to happen, the process
must evolve as a cooperative activity, geared to
the needs of both partners.
S17
S18
question, What do Business Schools need to look
like in the Future?, Porras (2000), suggests that
The critical difference will occur in executive
education and that the explosion in numbers
of those graduating with an MBA will create
a thirst for continuing education as part of a
lifelong learning process. The impact of this
dramatic increase in business-educated managers
will be felt mainly, as Porras suggests, in the need
for business schools to respond effectively to the
new demands of an increasingly sophisticated
user-group. As a result, business school faculties
will need to develop new research and teaching
approaches. The emphasis on lifelong learning
activities will mean that a different type of
research is required to drive the teaching needed
by executives involved in lifelong learning at business schools. Also a different kind of academic
will need to be developed, whose research and
teaching interests differ from those of current
faculty, and who will be able to conduct pure
research with a problem solving focus as well as
applied research with an analytical focus call it
bridging research, research that equally combines
the pure and applied approaches.
Porrass views of a future shift in educational
demands, combined with the need to change
research and teaching practices, reflect a growing
sense of concern among executives and some
scholars who sense that, in todays age of increasingly rapid change, modes of education and
training, and the research that informs these, will
need to find new ways of genuinely augmenting
individual and organizational knowledge.
As corporate education aims to become an integral part of the companys everyday functioning
in providing the groundwork for more effective
knowledge management (both generation and
dissemination), corporations will need to provide
ample opportunities for individuals to share what
they have learned, and faculties will need to move
away from the traditional education model that
privileges knowledge creation as the preserve of
academic experts and assumes a one-way flow of
knowledge from such experts to students. Organizations are experimenting with a new paradigm
of the learning organization, an organization that
is continually expanding its capacity to create its
future through its learning (Senge, 1990, p. 14).
Future education programmes in management, be
they for MBAs, executive MBAs, graduate training, post-experience training and development
S19
S20
to the limits required by particular problem definition. From this perspective, it is the problem
that defines requisite knowledge not the discipline.
And in this way management research can legitimately aspire to the status of a discipline in its
own right.
Gibbons et al. (1994, p. 27) discuss this issue in
terms of transdisciplinarity:
Interdisciplinarity is always a site where expressions of resistance are latent. Many academics are
locked within the specificity of their field; that is a
fact. Even if they demonstrate or manifest a desire
to work with other disciplines, more often than
not it turns out that, in fact, the work undertaken
fails to break new ground. Thus, the first obstacle
is often linked to individual competencies coupled
with a tendency to jealously protect ones own
domain. Specialists are often too protective of
their own prerogatives, do not actually work
with other colleagues, and therefore do not teach
their students to construct a diagonal axis in their
methodology. As for dangerous aspects, you will
find that some people think their specialisation is
interdisciplinarity itself, which is tantamount to
saying that they have a limited amount of knowledge of various domains, and only fragmentary
competencies! This gives interdisciplinarity a very
caricatural image, and altogether reduces its scope
as a project.
Conclusion
Enhancing knowledge production capacity
We suggest seven primary areas of change for
consideration and debate.
1. Restructuring of academic institutions to
improve knowledge exchange and dissemination.
An important element in knowledge exchange is
the ability of users to absorb the knowledge being
transferred. This depends on their educational
background and experience and the nature of the
networks and institutions and media with which
they have regular contact. If management scholars
are to be enabled to influence and even to shape
the world of management they need to understand how they can influence the creation of a
better management knowledge industry and how
they can play a more important role in it than
they do currently.
Better-educated knowledge consumers demand
better management knowledge. Researchers can
S21
S22
that are cross-disciplinary and reflect the major
concerns of practitioners.
6. Increase knowledge pace and flow. There is
also a need to increase the pace of academic
research and its dissemination. By the time most
academic research flows through the review and
publication process the phenomenon it examines
may no longer exist. It is not uncommon for top
journals to require a two-year editorial process
between submission and publication. Academia
must find ways of tightening its own product
development cycles, without sacrificing rigour, to
ensure it offers perspectives relevant to the realtime challenges of business.
7. Creation of an independent Management
Research Forum/Council? The aim of such a body
would be to generate debate about priorities
in management research and methodologies for
user strategy proposals and to encourage new
centres of excellence and sustain current ones. We
remain uncertain about the viability of a standalone management research council but do feel
there is a need to address, at the very least, the
ring-fencing of research funding dedicated to
management research, given what many perceive as
its current under-funding. To develop more flexible
and versatile forms of relevant knowledge the
following issues would need to be addressed:
the interdisciplinary dynamics shaping the
boundaries and development of the management field;
the optimal method for interfacing theoretical
and practical concerns how theoretical and
operational needs are to be aligned;
the best strategies for the communication and
distribution of knowledge according to contexts
organized according to different institutional
logics of action;
new ways of evaluating knowledge applicable
to the short-term needs of practice and the
longer-term needs of theory development.
Expanding priorities in the mainstream funding
of research. The potential ability of research
to meet the needs of society on a long-term basis
has not been a major specific objective within
the RAE. As the SHEFCE Knowledge Age
consultation paper highlights, there may in future
be a need to prioritize the mainstream funding of
research to make it both more timely and more
long-reaching. It is important to ensure that there
is appropriate balance of funding between high
S23
FENIX thus intends to contribute in a fundamental way, both practically and philosophically,
in pioneering a new innovative approach to
executive education, to a renewal of research
education programmes by producing executive
doctorates that satisfy the needs of industry.
The demands of the programme are comparable
to the demands imposed by traditional research
programmes. However, it is a key focus of the
programme that knowledge creation is both
relevant and timely. Executive doctorates should
continuously bring into and use their knowledge
in their own company [and] the base organisation
should not need to wait years for a return on its
investment.
S24
Parting thoughts
The goals of the FENIX Executive PhD programme can be summarized as follows:
On completion of the programme, participants
will be able to function as leaders for complex
and innovative businesses.
Executive doctoral candidates will function
as a link between the academic world and
industrial life. They will be able to transform
and understand the logic of both systems.
The results achieved through research in the
programme will influence renewal processes
in partner companies and in participating academic environments.
These seem to us exemplary aspirations for management researchers and for managers themselves. We are entering a period during which it
would be dangerous to assume that the market for
management knowledge will not change markedly.
It is vital for scholars to reflect upon these changes,
because their very role in this market is at stake.
Managers also need to reflect critically upon their
own knowledge base, its origins and how it is best
updated.
In a knowledge economy, management knowledge becomes an increasingly sought-after and
lucrative commodity, commanding a premium price
for those who can collect or create and deliver
knowledge in innovative and effective ways. Consequently, this is an increasingly attractive market
to enter and barriers to entry are not as strong as
incumbents, primarily the universities, think. One
convincing scenario for the future is of a broad
variety of management knowledge suppliers flooding the management knowledge market. These
new suppliers will include:
both a broader variety of consultants, practitioners, in-company universities, business media
organisations, consultant journals, business schools,
as well as new and as yet unknown knowledge
entrepreneurs . . . competing increasingly effectively to create and disseminate knowledge to an
ever-growing number of management knowledge
consumers . . . [disseminating] knowledge through
a growing and broader array of channels and
modalities, many of which are being opened up by
the unprecedented opportunities for knowledge
transfer created by the current incarnation of the
World Wide Web and what it might evolve into.
(Abrahamson and Eisenman, 2001)
References
Abrahamson, E. and M. Eisenman (2001). Why Management Scholars Must Intervene Strategically in the
S25
S26
SHEFC [Scottish Higher Education Funding Council]
(2000). Research and the Knowledge Age. A Consultation
Document, February.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. Doubleday, New York.
Sennett, R. (1998). The Corrosion of Character. W. W. Norton
& Co, New York.
Starkey, K., C. Barnatt and S. Tempest (2000). Latent Organization, Organization Science, 11, pp. 299305.
Tichy, N. M. and S. Sherman (1993). Control Your Destiny or
Someone Else Will. HarperCollins, London.
Tomorrow Project (2000). Tomorrow. Using the future to
understand the present. (M. Moynah and R. Worsley, eds).
Lexicon Editorial Services, London.