beyond rigour n relevance_a cr approach to biz educatn_mingers

8/13/2019 Beyond Rigour n Relevance_a CR Approach to Biz Educatn_Mingers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beyond-rigour-n-relevancea-cr-approach-to-biz-educatnmingers 1/34

Working Paper Series

Beyond Rigour and Relevance: ACritical Realist Approach toBusiness Education

Jawad SyedKent Business School

John MingersKent Business School

Peter MurrayUniversity of the Sunshine Coast

Working Paper No.191February 2009

ISSN 1748-7595 (Online)



Beyond Rigour and Relevance 2

Beyond Rigour and Relevance: A Critical Realist Approach toBusiness Education

Dr. Jawad Syed and Professor John MingersKent Business School

University of KentCanterbury, Kent CT2 7PE, UK

Email: [email protected]: [email protected]

Associate Professor Peter A. MurrayFaculty of Business

University of the Sunshine CoastQueensland, Australia

Email: [email protected]




Beyond Rigour and Relevance: A Critical Realist Approach to

Business Education

"Can you do addition?" the White Queen asked. "What's one and one and one and one and one and oneand one and one and one and one?" "I don't know," said Alice. "I lost count."

(Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass)

Abstract This paper takes a critical realist perspective to understand the research-practice

gap in the field of business and management. To investigate issues surrounding the rigour versus

relevance debate, we examine how the divergent perspectives of scholars and practitioners can

be bridged by a critical realist approach in relation to: (1) the research paradigm: instead of

confining their research within methodological purism, scholars may need to deploy any

research paradigm to investigate a phenomenon in its context, (2) context and causality: critical

realism provides an ontological grounding for interpretivist research reaffirming the importance

of a focus on context, meaning and interpretation as causal influences, (3) methodological

rigidity: multiple research methods will be more important when addressing research-practice

gaps since they are more receptive to interdisciplinary functions and contexts in time and space

than traditional methodologies, and (4) ethical aspects of business research highlighting the

need to engage with the knowledge agenda of not only the university but also society overall.

The critical nature of management studies we contend also helps to explain why at least certain

research-practice gaps can be treated as natural because of divergent preferences of scholars

and practitioners.

Key Words: critical management studies; critical realism; management education




Introduction

In his recent piece in the Financial Times on the accessibility of business research, Michael

Skapinker (2008) argued that unlike their counterparts in law, medicine and engineering,

business school scholars predominantly focus on producing work that is too abstract, jargon-

filled, and theoretical to interest practitioners. Pointing towards the prevailing publish-or-perish

incentives at universities, 1 Skapinker alleges that business scholars “prefer to adorn their work

with scholarly tables, statistics and jargon because it makes them feel like real academics” (para.

12).

Although Skapinker might have overstated the close relationship between research and practice

in medicine and other professions 2, closing the research-practice gap in the field of business and

management is a challenge. Current research practices are equivocal for many scholars; see for

example Ghoshal's (2005) and Ghoshal and Moran's (1996) critique of bad management theories

and Transaction Cost Theory, and Gioia's (2002) critique of a narrow emphasis on shareholder

value. Scientific papers in organisational research contain far too much detail over the methods

and analytical procedures employed according to Gelade (2006). The practical, organisational

implications of research is a major issue for these scholars and business academics are not doing

a good job of educating managers.

1 Such as the need to publish in prestigious peer-reviewed journals to get tenure at a US university or to rank high inthe UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).

2 For example, Klein (2008) suggests us to try asking a family physician about an article we recently read in arenowned medical journal.




These issues have often been cast in terms of the rigour versus relevance debate (e.g., Bridgman,

2007; Pettigrew, 2001; Reed, 2000; Starkey and Madan, 2001), the presumption being that

management research may be sufficiently rigorous but lacking in relevance. The debate is

strongly related to the distinction between Mode 1 and Mode 2 research originating from the

hard sciences by Gibbons et al (1994). Mode 1 knowledge is the traditional, discipline-based

largely theoretical work aimed at understanding how the world works, while Mode 2 knowledge

is transdisciplinary and is concerned with getting things to work in practice.

To the extent that the research-practice gap has not been sufficiently explored, this paper

illustrates how a critical realist (CR) perspective can address many divergent research

approaches. It explores a CR approach in solving problems related to research design, causality

and context, and methodological rigidity. For research design, it is feasible that multiple research

approaches may work better, not just those located within traditional research paradigms.

Scholars accordingly may need to deploy any research approach as may be required to

investigate a phenomenon in its context. For causality, the need to reaffirm a focus on context,

meaning and interpretation is equally if not more important than one-dimensional studies of a

single phenomena. In relation to methodological rigidity, business problems are multi-

dimensional and cross-functional requiring greater breadth and depth in research. Accordingly,

although abstract, universalistic theories often hold sway, scholars may need to situate their

research within the realist context of time, space and culture.

With CR theory, this paper underscores the need to enhance the ontological component of

business research. Thus, the CR natural and social realism perspective as well as the concepts of




structures and generative mechanisms (Dobson, 2002; Mingers, 2004a), come sharply into focus.

Critical realism allows for the resolution of research-practice inconsistencies through a

reinterpretation of the activity of research. It offers a notion of causality that is consistent with

the quest for answering the underlying ‘why’ questions posed in business research (Bhaskar,

1978; 1998). It also provides interpretivists with a richer ontology by accepting their

epistemological insights concerning the crucial role of meaning, interpretation, whilst

maintaining the existence of both social and material phenomena (Smith, 2006). We consider CR

as epistemological pluralist (Lipscomb, 2008), useful in recognising the existence of logical

connections between the ontological, epistemological, and methodological premises of research.

The paper is structured as follows. First, we offer an overview of CR (discussed next) and

discuss the importance of methodological plurality within a CR perspective of business research.

Second, we discuss the value of pursuing multiple research paradigms and CR research across

interdisciplinary functions. Third, we explore how CR is a useful approach for the study of a

phenomenon within its context since the focus of research is on interpreting different meanings

and their causal links. Fourth, while seeking to make a contribution to the research-practice gap,

the paper pays special attention to the ethical aspects of business research and how CR plays a

role. Therefore, while we highlight CR's potential to advance business theory and research, we

also argue for a stronger link between various stakeholder groups and a more systematic

approach to the use of cumulative empirical evidence. Overall, our contribution lies in how CR

can be applied to resolve research-practice inconsistencies by reinterpreting the activity of

research, by better connecting causal mechanisms to events in practice, and how the research-

practice gap can be closed.




Critical Realism

Critical realism was developed primarily by Bhaskar (1978; 1979; 1993) as a way of overcoming

the limitations of existing philosophical paradigms, e.g., empiricism, interpretivism and

postmodernism (also see Adler, Forbes, and Willmott, 2007; Archer et al ., 1998). In recent years

it has generated much interest in a range of disciplines (Ackroyd and Fleetwood, 2000;

Danermark et al., 2002; Fleetwood, 1999; Learmonth, 2007; Mingers, 2009; Mingers, 2004a;

Pawson and Tilley, 1997; Reed, 2005; Sayer, 2000); it seems to offer a way out of the sterile

philosophical debates and into research practice that recognises and tries to address the

complexities of the real world. The primary characteristics of CR are:

• A commitment to a realist ontology, i.e., to the existence of causal mechanisms whose

interactions generate the events and occurrences of the world. These mechanisms may be

unobservable directly (e.g., social structures or ideas and categories) yet we can accept

their existence because of their causal efficacy. This undermines the empiricist illusion of

the primacy of empirical data (the actualist fallacy);

• An epistemology that accepts, with interpretivism, that our knowledge is always socially

and historically relative, but maintains a distinction between the transitive, subject-

dependent aspects of knowledge, and the intransitive domain of the objects of our

knowledge. This undermines the interpretivist and post-modern claims that being itself

must always be limited to human knowledge of that being (the epistemic fallacy) 3;

3 Bhaskar uses this term (epistemic fallacy) to refer to the notion that (the intransitive) reality is exhausted by our(transitive) knowledge of it. In the glossary to his book Plato etc., Bhaskar (1994: 253) defines it as ‘The analysis ordefinition of statements about being in terms of statements about our knowledge (of being)’.




• A commitment to methodological pluralism based on its pluralist ontology. Since CR

accepts the existence of a variety of structures – material, social and conceptual – it also

accepts that we need a variety of research methods to access them;

• The claim that no social theory can be purely descriptive, it must always be to some

extent evaluative, and thus there can be no positivistic split between facts and values.

And, following from this, the view that social theory is inevitably transformative,

providing an explanatory critique that logically entails action (Mingers, 2009).

While space restricts here a comprehensive discussion of CR, we nonetheless explore CR

concepts which are fundamental to the purpose of this paper; in particular, its conception of

causality, its view of agency and structure; and its view of social science. First, CR draws a

distinction between the events that actually occur (or do not occur despite being expected) and

the underlying structures or mechanisms which generate or cause them. These ‘generative

mechanisms’ are relatively enduring and have causal properties or tendencies. They may be

observable or unobservable and it is their interactions that generate the actual events that occur

(or do not). Only a small subset of these events are observed and recorded empirically to become

relevant to scientific enquiry. The objective of science is then to take these empirical

observations and explain them in terms of underlying generative mechanisms and structures. Its

methodology is retroductive or abductive – it hypothesises mechanisms or structures that, if they

existed , would explain the observed results. In this, it goes beyond empiricism which reduces

science simply to the patterns of empirical events that actually occur (actualism); and beyond

interpretivism or constructivism which reduces the ontology of the world to our experiences of

that world. Moreover, CR maintains a stratified or hierarchical view of causality by observing




and explaining events within a local context generating causal mechanisms at work. These could

be at a variety of exogenous levels – types of organisations, geographical regions, and cultures,

or endogenous levels: relationships between individuals, groups, and organisations.

Second, CR has a sophisticated view of the interaction between agency and structure. As

developed originally by Bhaskar (1979) it was known as the transformational model of social

action (TMSA) and bore many similarities to Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory. CR argues

that there is an inextricable bond between agency and structure – structure conditions action and

action reproduces or transforms structure - but the two are distinct and yet equally real in an

ontological sense. However, CR recognises that social structures are intrinsically different to

physical structures. In particular, social structure:

• Does not exist independently of social activity;

• Cannot be empirically identified except through such activities;

• Is not independent of actors’ conceptions of their activities;

• Is relative to particular times and cultures.

The concept of social structure was further developed by Archer (1995) to emphasise more

strongly the dualism of action and structure as two equally real, interacting systems (Mingers,

2004b). Agents are causal mechanisms in themselves who act on the basis of their reasons and

motives. However, activity is always conditioned or moulded by a pre-existing social structure of

roles and expectations. In its turn, activity transforms or reproduces the social structure. The

clear distinction between the two can be seen in Archer’s morphogenetic model: at time T1 the




existing structure conditions actions that are about to take place; at time T2 activity occurs; then

at time T3, as a result of the activity, the social structure is either transformed or reproduced by

the activity.

The third aspect of CR to be considered, and partly why it is called ‘critical’ realism, is its view

that social science is inherently and unavoidably evaluative – value-full rather than value-free

(Bhaskar, 1993; Mingers, 2009). This is, of course, diametrically opposed to the Humean

opposition of facts and values. The first part of the argument is that the subject matter of social

science is itself always already expressed evaluatively and that social science should not try to

reduce or obscure this by redescribing the phenomena in neutral terms. For example, while a)

“John was murdered” and b) “John ceased breathing” may both be true descriptions of the same

event, ‘a’ is to be preferred because: i) it is more accurate and particular – ‘a’ implies ‘b’ but not

vice versa; ii) ‘b’ tends to carry the presumption that John died naturally, since that is more

common, when that is not in fact the case; and iii) ‘a’ maximises the explanatory power of the

theory required to explain it. In social science, ‘facts’ already come with ‘values’ attached. The

second part aims to show that social science is also committed to various kinds of societal

change – explanatory critique. Science seeks to discover the ‘truth’ about society and then to

disseminate that truth. Where it finds groups of people who hold clearly false beliefs about how

society works it must be committed to removing those false beliefs. Furthermore, if social

science identifies social structures or institutions that are maintaining the false beliefs then it is

equally committed to removing them too. If it is not, then it will be committing a ‘performative

contradiction’ that is espousing one view (truth) but acting differently.




Research Paradigms, Interdisciplinarity and Multimethodology

Business and management schools are in general structured along fairly rigid disciplinary lines

(Knights and Willmott, 1997). In part, this reflects a desire to emulate traditional disciplines such

as sociology and economics, and in part it mirrors the functional organisation imperative often

called the 'silo mentality'. Disciplines such as management science, marketing, HRM, accounting

and strategy have developed their own theories, research paradigms and hierarchy of journals.

In the same way that the complexity of real-world problems requires a degree of

interdisciplinarity, research equally requires different research methods – mixed-method research

(Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003) or multi-methodology (Mingers and Gill, 1997). While there is

growing acceptance of the value of multi-methodology (see for example a major business

research methods text such as Bryman and Bell (2003)), there is still a degree of resistance by

top journals (Mingers, 2003) and grant awarding bodies. This relates to the conservative and

disciplining nature of the disciplines and to the battles over paradigm incommensurability which

is still fought (Mingers, 2004c).

In his study of research methods in management accounting, Modell (2007) used CR to propose

a framework for validating mixed methods research. This approach is helpful in developing a

coherent philosophical foundation for producing knowledge. Modell notes that in contrast to

contemporary pragmatist thought, implicitly or explicitly guiding much mixed methods research,

CR provides a unified and consistent philosophical foundation for combining research methods

and theories. Similarly, Smith's (2006) study of the 'standard' accounts of research in information

sciences suggests that a predominant reliance on positivism or interpretivism may be a reason for




persistent research-practice inconsistencies. These inconsistencies are located between

researchers’ stated or implicit ontological assumptions and actual practices and outcomes, calling

for a (re)consideration of the underlying ontological premise of research and practice.

There is also some evidence that CR ethnography can facilitate an expansion of epistemological

boundaries. In their study of research-practice gaps in the nursing profession, Porter and Ryan

(1996) suggest that it is possible for researchers to give due attention to social structures without

losing focus on individuals. They argue that CR ethnography works under the assumption that

the relationship between social structures and individual actors involves a bilateral process.

While the enabling and constraining structural conditions influence individual actions, those

actions in turn either maintain or transform social structures. Porter and Ryan conclude that the

theory-practice gap in nursing is neither the result of clinicians' ignorance of nor antipathy to

theory, but is largely generated by the lack of resources available to nurses, which in turn is a

reflection of the social structure of capitalism within which nurses operate. Similarly, in their

exploration of the notion of CR in the nursing profession, McEvoy and Richards (2003) argued

that CR provides a coherent framework for evaluation research that is based on the

understanding of causal mechanisms.

In his book on CR and education research, Scott (2000) offers a 'transcendental realist'

alternative to the false dichotomy of empiricism/hermeneutics and, by so doing argues in

'defence of educational research’ (p. 7). Transcendental realism has its roots in Kantian

philosophy implying that individuals have a perfect understanding of the limitations of their own

minds. Scott adopts this approach in two main stages. First he argues for a transcendental realist




framework for analysing academic research. He then utilises this framework in engagements

with the areas of dispute, foci and approaches in research, before setting out the way forward.

Scott compares empiricism and radical relativism with transcendental realism. He addresses the

ontological question of how educational activities are structured and the methodological

consequences for researching these activities. Ontologically, Scott defines the object of study of

educational research as comprising the relationship between structure and agency;

epistemologically, he highlights the value-embeddedness of research practice; and

methodologically he suggests that social research must incorporate an ethnographic or qualitative

element.

Although the hermeneutic approach has arguably become dominant within large swathes of the

sociology of education, quantitative research remains the firm favourite of educational managers

seeking definite answers to practical problems and legitimation of their policy decisions (Maton,

2001). Scott (2000) confronts beliefs in this approach with four main problems: the ways in

which systematic unpredictability undermines predictive claims; its misunderstanding of the

nature of open and closed systems 4; its conflation of association with causation; and its

wholesale neglect of the intentionality of social life. He outlines various views of the relationship

between theory and practice, which either identify knowledge with theory or with practice, or

argues for their difference. Scott builds upon such realist ideas as the epistemic fallacy and

morphogenesis 5 to argue that one needs to analyse educational knowledge in terms of power

4 In closed systems, the external conditions of causal mechanism remain constant to allow them to operateconsistently. In open systems, an object has powers and capabilities that are causally efficacious (Archer, 1995;Bhaskar, 1993).

5 The literal meaning of morphogenesis is the physical process that gives rise to the shape of an organism. In CR, itis a conceptualisation of the dynamic nature of relations between structure and agency.




relations, relational structures, differential allocation of resources, the operation of sanctions and

rewards, re-contextualisation, and many other factors. In sum, there is significant value in

researchers connecting the epistemological, methodological, and ontological nature of research

in practice.

Context and Causality

In resolving rigour versus relevance inconsistencies, CR can provide a different notion of

causality that allows for the capturing of the underlying ‘why’ questions posed in research.

Furthermore, it may give a solid ontological grounding for interpretivist research reaffirming the

importance for a focus on context, meanings, and interpretation as causal influences without

unnecessarily denying their existence (Smith, 2006).

Pettigrew (1997a) argues that “the challenges for management research are best captured in a

series of concurrent double hurdles which together raise a wide spectrum of cognitive, social and

political demands on our skills and knowledge as researchers” (p. 291). This argument is

consistent with Morgan's (1983) who refers to a narrower landscape of knowledge, highlighting

the need of 'conscious pluralism'. Pettigrew (1997b) suggests that it is important to elevate user

engagement and embeddedness to a principal of research method contextualising of knowledge

as a generic ambition of scientific endeavour (Nowotny et al., 2001). Indeed, variation in

organisational, institutional, and national context can shape patterns of managerial behaviour and

organisational outcomes (Pettigrew, 2001).




Yet another contextual factor is the ethical considerations of institutions and individual

researchers (e.g., their commitment to issues related to diversity or social responsibility). There

is thus a multitude of factors, all of which may have divergent, possibly conflicting implications

for management education and research. In sum, we argue that the contextual nature of

management research and education and the causality of various structural forces must be taken

into account in understanding the critical nature of management scholarship. Thus, while it is

possible to find some common expectations from management scholars (e.g., in terms of the

quality of their teaching and research), in depth stratifications of such expectations (or

requirements) may generate different critical realities of management scholarship which remain

shaped by the forces of socio-political and economic context, culture, space and time. In other

words, any universalistic or simplistic approach to management learning and research may not be

a feasible option.

Methodological Rigidity: Rigour and Relevance

Along with the disciplinary boundaries that confine research practice, methodological rigidity

exists. Historically, management research was founded on a positivist or empiricist approach and

largely remained so until Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) enunciation of organisational paradigms.

Although this established the validity of alternative research methodologies, much business

academic research remains founded on issues of experimental design derived from the hard

sciences, which become the driving force in selecting research questions rather than the needs of

practitioners. It is hardly surprising then that academic research often does not address the

questions and problems that trouble practitioners.




For an example of charges and explanations of methodological purism, refer to debates

surrounding a series of mainly qualitative studies of the education of ethnic minority children in

England, which reported teacher racism at both organisational and classroom levels (Foster,

1990; Gillborn and Gipps, 1996; Hammersley, 1993; Troyna, 1994). Another example is the

rejection of what is termed as the preoccupation of quantitative researchers with technique, and

specifically their dismissal of any research that does not match the rigorous standards of the

quantitative method. The complaints of Mills about the fetishism of method (Mills, 1959: 224),

for instance, may fall into this category (Hammersley, 2000). What is needed, instead, Troyna

(1994: 5) argues, is a perspective in which research is not construed as something pristine but as

something "carried out by flesh and blood figures who are engaged in real life activities".

Critical realism, in particular through its novel ontological position, has the potential to advance

business theory and research. The major benefits of CR flow from the reinterpretation of the

activity of science (Ron, 2002: 140) which can then better explain previous research (see Befani,

2005; Pratschke, 2003; Ron, 2002). Indeed, a reinterpretation of the current practice of business

research arguably may resolve some long-standing research-practice inconsistencies. Based on

CR insights, we contest the notion of contradiction - what we term false dichotomy - of rigour

versus relevance in the field of business education. The separation of rigour from relevance may

be tantamount to adopting the presumption that rigour in research lacks relevance to real-world

management practices. Indeed, we consider it natural to expect gaps between research and

practice in any complex, diversified and specialised field. For example, in the field of work

psychology, Anderson (2007) identifies six prominent but not mutually exclusive types of

research: pure, fundamental, applied, action research, consultancy generated research and critical




theory. Anderson argues that the existence of research-practice gaps are not the problem, but

rather the lack of integrating processes, bridges for information exchange and policy formulation

in both research and practice (p. 176). In other words, it is not actually the width of the gap that

schools and policy makers should pay attention to, but rather, the lack of sufficient bridging

mechanisms to span research and practice (Anderson, 2005).

Several scholars have used CR to support interdisciplinary research. For example, Danermark

(2002) discusses the useful manner in which CR may lay the foundations for interdisciplinary

research. A similar approach was taken by Bhaskar and Danermark (2006) in their study of

interdisciplinarity and disability research.

In the field of business education, scholars have highlighted the need to reinvent business

schools “geared to developing skills in reflective, collaborative and analytical thinking as well as

action mindsets that enable managers to negotiate the complex tensions that exist between the

conceptual and the concrete” (Starkey et al ., 2004: 1523). Eldridge (1986) suggests the need for

sound empirically based social science that is also seen as relevant, but there is a sting in the tail:

“In so far as this kind of approach attempts to understand organisations in order that managers

may more effectively control uncertainty, it may be regarded as highly relevant to management.

Yet the analysis takes place on the assumptions that the existing distribution of power remains

unchanged.” (p. 174). Similarly, Weick argues that:

The much lamented ‘relevance gap’ is as much a product of practitioners wedded togurus and fads as it is of academics wedded to abstractions and fundamentals. The gap

persists because practitioners forget that ‘the’ real world is actually ‘a’ world that isidiosyncratic, egocentric and unique to each person…[and]… fads and egocentric

perception suggests the existence of more fundamental barriers to effectiveness, e.g.,




ceilings on improvement, weak situations, ambiguous signals, non-obvious adaptiveforms and preoccupation with vision. Joint practitioner-academic effort devoted toquestions of how events come to be seen as ‘real’ could re-bridge a gap whose nature has

been misidentified (Weick, 2001: S71).

This view is consistent with Eldridge's (1986) who distinguished between what he calls convivial

and critical relevance when he reviewed the development of some significant contributions to

management research. While recognising the practical usefulness of the research (on the impact

of technology on organisations), Eldridge recognises the extent to which research failed to treat

various aspects of managerial control as problematic:

It is perhaps the questions that are not asked… [and]… if we neglect to ask what a particular form of technology is designed to do, in whose interests and with whatconsequences, it does save a good deal of unpleasantness. If we do not inquire into thestructure of domination within which typologies of technology and control systems areembedded, then the critical relevance of the theory is diminished (Eldridge, 1986: 175).

From this perspective, the notion of relevance in management research can be seen as flawed.

Borrowing Eldridge's terminology, it is used or defined solely in the sense of 'congenially'

relevant to a partial group, community or their representatives, rather than 'critically' relevant

(Wensley, 2007).

Ethical Aspects of Management Research

The prevailing view within business schools is the utilitarian one (such as the one highlighted by

Skapinker (2008) in his critique of business research) that business education should be primarily

concerned with enhancing business and managerial effectiveness. This can be seen in the debate

about Mode 1 and Mode 2 research which takes this viewpoint for granted. However, there are

alternatives which see a role for management studies as one which holds current management




practices at arms length in order to be able to subject them to appropriate scrutiny from the wider

perspective of the common social good. Grey and French (1996) and Grey (2001) contrast the

managerialist view with a critical view that business education must be dissociated from

managerial activities so that the claims and practices of management can be called into question.

Huff and Huff, in a response to Starkey and Madan’s paper, have advocated Mode 3 research:

“The purpose of Mode 3 knowledge production, generally stated, is to assure survival and

promote the common good, at various levels of social aggregation” (Huff and Huff, 2001: s53).

This seems particularly necessary at this point in time when there are major concerns about the

behaviour of corporations and its effects on society and the environment (Mingers, 2009):

• There have been significant breaches of legitimacy and trust (e.g., Enron, WorldCom);

human rights violations; and collaboration with repressive regimes (Palazzo and Scherer,

2006; Sethi, 2002);

• Globalisation means that some corporations are both economically and indeed politically

more powerful than many nation states (Beck, 2000); and

• Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the rather reluctant acceptance of the reality and

consequences of global warming has led even hardened executives to accept that they are

part of a problem that goes beyond short term stock valuation or even long term

shareholder wealth.

In the preceding sections, we have argued that a CR perspective would enable a pluralistic and

contextualised scholarship. To do so, however, would warrant a qualitatively different research




orientation and a different model of research evaluation than the one offered by the Research

Assessment Exercise or the new metrics-based Research Excellence Framework in the UK.

Previous research has highlighted the need to establish a more democratically accountable form

of management research that is evaluated by those whose lives and professions in organisations

are directly affected in so many ways by management education (Alvesson and Wilmott, 1996).

This would involve focussing attention on managing as an activity that we all do in our personal

and occupational lives and how the knowledge produced in business schools is consumed in the

world of work. From this perspective, business research could aim to synthesise the often

competing demands of pragmatics, ethics and morality (Habermas, 1992, 1993).

However, the notion of democratic accountability of business education and research to public

and organisational well-being is a role which remains largely marginalised in the prevailing

conceptions of an increasingly commercialised business school. The demonstration of

‘relevance’ does not mean the pursuit of a narrow commercialisation agenda where business

institutes promote a strictly managerialist view of the world (Bridgman, 2007: 425). Encouraging

critical reflection in business schools and among business academics, Ali (2005: iii) argues, is

not only a scholarly responsibility but also a moral imperative. For example, one must also take

into account the institutional and contextual pressures which may be influencing the direction

and the outcomes of academic research. Academic scholars' mission and the essence of their very

existence are not merely to validate existing models and to mould their ideas into sanctioned

frameworks. Rather, the essence of scholarship is to be creative, ethical, and critically contest

boundaries that put a ceiling on ideas and possibilities.




Research in epistemology as well as philosophy of science has shown why the classical

distinction between observation and theory, and between fact and value, cannot be maintained –

expressed in the two doctrines of modern philosophy of science, the theory-dependence of

observation and the under-determination of data by evidence. The ontological orientation of

personal knowing, while realised and enacted within a community, was understood long ago by

Polanyi to have precedence over the community: “The discipline required to regulate the

activities of scientists cannot be maintained by mere conformity to the actual demands of

scientific opinion, but requires the support of moral conviction, stemming from devotion to

science and prepared to operate independently of scientific opinion” (Polanyi, 1946: 54). It is

however a fact that even in formulating the problem of the affect, scholars are likely to pre-judge

it through a set of socio-cultural assumptions that indiscriminately lumps together all value

categories. Lewin (1991) argues that the positivists made this prejudice a virtue by seeking the

complete separation between fact and value, and though this demarcation has proved to be

untenable, the denigration of value categories continues to haunt scientific research.

In other words, one major challenge facing CR scholars is the identification and elucidation of

ethical aspects of their research: What triggers their research and what inhibits it? What are

short-term and long-term implications for organisations as well as for overall society? Is their

research socially and ethically legitimate? Are its effects publicly known and have they been

debated at adequate forums? If not, how could this situation be reformed?

Wilson and Greenhill (2004) take a non-Habermasian critical realist approach to develop a

radical critical stance. Their approach entails a commitment to emancipation, a focus on issues of




Discussion and Conclusion

We have argued in this paper that with its simultaneous critical attention to scholars' and

practitioners' preferences and constraints, CR may contribute to an improved understanding of

tensions between research and practice, a four pronged bridge between rigour and relevance

(Figure 1). Also, by implementing this perspective, several research-practice inconsistencies can

be addressed. Among other things, they may be treated as natural, such as those arising from

varied ethical or economic preferences of scholars and practitioners (Bhaskar, 2002). Despite

various tensions pertaining to the rigour versus relevance debate, business research remains

generally focused on and also constrained by the reality that research is trying to explain. As

some scholars suggest, we are all realists (Bhaskar, 1978; Latour, 1999). What CR can offer is a

richer social ontology that also takes into account the material/objective dimension of social

reality and a different epistemology (an alternative perspective on the nature/purpose of social

science).

In the context of business education, Starkey and colleagues (2004) argue that while business

schools in their current form stand criticised in terms of their research and teaching, let alone

their ethical standards, there are ways in which such schools can be reconfigured. In particular

they espouse a growing and influential role in developing knowledge. Alongside this, Starkey

and colleagues see it as essential that the business schools recognise its complicity in the new

forms of practice that are seen to have dysfunctional consequences in the wider society. Wensley

suggests that complicity, rather than espousal, may well be a fair charge, and that Starkey and

colleagues' analysis suggests a different but important role for business schools to engage with

the knowledge agenda of not only the university but also society overall (Wensley, 2007: 12).




Figure 1. A critical realist bridge between rigour and relevance

Critical Realist Pers ective

B u s i n e s s

E d u c a t i o n a n

d R e s e a r c

h

( R i g o u r )

B

u s i n e s s

P r a c t i c e

( R e

l e v a n c e

)

Interdisciplinarity and Multimethodology

Contextuality and Causality

Methodological Rigidity

Ethical Aspects of Management Research

Do businesses ignore business schools? The issue Skapinker (2008) raised seems to be a

persistent challenge within the field of business research and education. Those in business

academe who are concerned with work on esoteric micro-concerns which are largely inaccessible

to business managers may consider the fact that there is much that can be done academically to

develop the knowledge of practice rather than mere knowledge itself. Sartof (2008) suggests that

businesses merely ignore what does not appear useful to them in practice. The development of an

understanding of epistemic practice requires, however, such 'backward-looking' analysis as

Harvard’s case study method. The challenge is therefore not for academe to struggle to forecast

what innovators will do next, and neither should business require that of academe. The challenge

is, rather, for academe to also develop knowledge about how others can arrive at their own new




knowledge through practice. Managers also need to proceed from a body of knowledge and to

learn to build on it.

Indeed, efficient research and teaching is recognised worldwide as an important means of

spreading new knowledge and improving public good. As the quality of that public good

develops managers are forced to invent organisational practices which are more efficient than the

public good. In that way, research and teaching has the same function as a knowledge market.

Organisations can survive if they are better than what is readily available on the market. At the

same time, it will be ill-advised for academics to be entirely comfortable with the status quo. In

their attempt to bridge the false dichotomy of rigour versus relevance, scholars may like to

ensure that their research features problems that are of interest to managers, and that their

research has an explicit dependent variable that matters to managers, and independent variables

that are managerially actionable. Scholarly journals may also consider expanding their editorial

board memberships to also include practicing managers. With a relatively small shift in

incentives (e.g., tracking impact, rewarding the development of practice-oriented tools and

resources), and including relevance in promotion decisions, business schools may be able to

bridge the much publicised rigour-relevance gap.

References

Ackroyd, S. and Fleetwood, S. (2000) Realist Perspectives on Management and Organisations.

London: Routledge.

Adler, P., Forbes, L. and Willmott, H. (2007) 'Critical Management Studies', Academy of

Management Annals 1: 119-179.




Ali, A. (2005) 'Bad Management Theories: Mistaken Conclusion', Advances in Competitive

Research 13(1): i-iii.

Alvesson, M., and Wilmott, H. (1996) Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction.

London: Sage.

Anderson, N. (2005) 'Relationships between Practice and Research in Personnel Selection: Does

the Left Hand Know What the Right is Doing?', in A. Evers, N. Anderson, and O.

Voskuijl (eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection (pp. 1–24). Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing.

Anderson, N. (2007) 'Rejoinder: The Practitioner–Researcher Divide Revisited: Strategic-level

Bridges and the Roles of IWO Psychologists', Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology 80: 175–183.

Anderson, N., Herriot, P. and Hodgkinson, G. (2001) 'The Practitioner-Researcher Divide in

Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology: Where Are We Now, and Where

Do We Go from Here?', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74:

391-411.

Archer, M. (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T. and Norrie, A. (eds) (1998) Critical Realism:

Essential Readings. London: Routledge.

Beck, U. (2000) What is Globalization ? Cambridge: Polity Press.

Befani, B. (2005) 'The Mechanisms of Suicide: A Realist Approach', International Review of

Sociology 15 (1): 51-75.

Bhaskar, R. (1978) A Realist Theory of Science. Sussex: The Harvester Press.




Bhaskar, R. (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism . Sussex: Harvester Press.

Bhaskar, R. (1993) Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom . London: Verso.

Bhaskar, R. (1994) Plato, etc: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution . London:

Verso.

Bhaskar, R. (1998) 'Philosophy and Scientific Realism', in M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T.

Lawson and A. Norrie (eds), Critical Realism: Essential Readings (pp. 16-47). London:

Routledge.

Bhaskar, R. (2002) From Science to Emancipation: Alienation and the Actuality of

Enlightenment . Delhi: Sage.

Bhaskar, R. and Danermark, B. (2006) Metatheory, Interdisciplinarity and Disability research: A

Critical Realist Perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 8(4): 287-297.

Bridgman, T. (2007) 'Reconstituting Relevance: Exploring Possibilities for Management

Educators’ Critical Engagement with the Public', Management Learning 38(4): 425–439.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003) Business Research Methods. Oxford: OUP.

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis .

London: Heinemann.

Danermark, B. (2002) 'Interdisciplinary Research and Critical Realism: The Example of

Disability Research', Journal of Critical Realism 5(1): 56-64.

Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L. and Karlsson, J. (2002) Explaining Society: Critical

Realism in the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.

Dobson, P. J. (2002) 'Critical Realism and Information Systems Research: Why Bother with

Philosophy', Information Research 7 (2).




Eldridge, J. (1986) 'Facets of ‘Relevance’ in Sociological Research', in F.A. Heller (ed.) The use

and Abuse of Social Science . London: Sage.

Fleetwood, S. (ed.) (1999) Critical Realism in Economics: Development and Debate . Routledge:

London.

Foster, P. (1990) Policy and Practice in Multicultural and Anti-racist Education . London:

Routledge

Gelade, G. A. (2006) 'But What Does It Mean in Practice? The Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology from a Practitioner Perspective', Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology 79: 153–160.

Ghoshal, S. (2005) 'Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices',

Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(1): 75-91.

Ghoshal, S. and Moran, P. (1996) 'Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory',

Academy of Management Review 21(1): 13-47.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, L., Nowotny, H., Schwartman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The

New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary

Societies . London: Sage.

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gillborn, D. and Gipps, C. (1996) Recent Research on the Achievements of Ethnic Minority

Pupils. London: HMSO.

Gioia, D. A. (2002) 'Business Education's Role in the Crisis of Confidence in Corporations',

Academy of Management Executive 16(3): 142-144.

Grey, C. (2001) 'Re-imagining Relevance: A Response to Starkey and Madan', British Journal of

Management 12: s27-s32.




Grey, C. and French, R. (1996) 'Rethinking Management Education: An Introduction', in R.

French and C. Grey (eds) Rethinking Management Education . London: Sage.

Habermas, J. (1992) 'Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Programme of Philosophical Justification', in

J. Habermas (ed.) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action , pp.43-115.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1993) 'On the Pragmatic, the Ethical, and the Moral Employments of Practical

Reason', in J. Habermas (ed.) Justification and Application , pp.1-17. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Hammersley, M. (1993) 'On Methodological Purism: A Response to Barry Troyna', British

Educational Research Journal 19 (4): 339-341.

Hammersley, M. (2000) 'Methodological Purism: Anatomy of a Critique', in Hammersley, M.

(ed.) Taking sides in social research: Essays on Partisanship and Bias , 124-150. New

York: Routledge.

Huff, A. S. and Huff, J. (2001) 'Re-focusing the Business School Agenda', British Journal of

Management 12: S49-S54.

Joseph, J. (2002) Hegemony: A Realist Analysis . New York: Routledge

Klein, P. (2008) 'Why Business Ignores the Business Schools', Organizations and Markets .

Available at: http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/01/10/why-business-ignores-the-

business-schools/, Accessed 25 February 2008.

Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1997) 'The Hype and Hope of Interdisciplinary Management

Studies', British Journal of Management 8: 9-22 .

Latour, B. (1999) Pandora's Hope . Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.




Learmonth, M. (2007) 'Critical Management Education in Action: Personal Tales of

Management Unlearning', Academy of Management Learning and Education 6(1): 109-

113.

Lewin, P. (1991) 'The Problem of Objectivity in Post-critical Philosophy', Tradition and

Discovery 17(1): 18-26.

Lipscomb, M. (2008) 'Mixed Method Nursing Studies: A Critical Realist Critique', Nursing

Philosophy 9(1): 32-45.

Maton, K. (2001) 'The Real and Critical Need of Educational Research for Critical Realism', The

Journal of Critical Realism May: 56-59.

McEvoy, P. and Richards, D. (2003) 'Critical Realism: A Way Forward for Evaluation Research

in Nursing?', Journal of Advanced Nursing 43(4): 411-420.

Mills, C. W. (1959) The Sociological Imagination . New York: Oxford University Press.

Mingers, J. (2000) 'What is it to be Critical? Teaching a Critical Approach to Management

Undergraduates', Management Learning 31: 219-237.

Mingers, J. (2003) 'The Paucity of Multimethod Research: A Survey of the IS Literature',

Information Systems Journal 13: 233-249.

Mingers, J. (2004a) 'Re-establishing the Real: Critical Realism and Information Systems', in J.

Mingers and L. P. Willcocks (eds), Social Theory and Philosophy for Information

Systems (pp. 372-406). Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Mingers, J. (2004b) 'Can Social Systems be Autopoietic? Bhaskar's and Giddens' Social

Theories', Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34(4): 403-426.

Mingers, J. (2004c) 'Paradigm Wars: Ceasefire Announced, Who Will Set Up the New

Administration?', Journal of Information Technology 19: 165-171.




Mingers, J. (2009) 'Discourse Ethics and Critical Realist Ethics: An Evaluation in the Context of

Business Ethics', Journal of Critical Realism, forthcoming.

Mingers, J. and Gill, A. (eds) (1997) Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining

Management Science Methodologies . Wiley: Chichester.

Modell, S. (2007) 'Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Management

Accounting Research: A Critical Realist Approach', 29 June 2007. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=997194, Accessed 2 March 2008.

Morgan, G. (ed.) (1983). Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research . Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public

in an Age of Uncertainty . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Palazzo, G. and Scherer, A. (2006) 'Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative

Framework', Journal of Business Ethics 66: 71-88.

Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation . London: Sage.

Pettigrew A. M. (1997a) 'The Double Hurdles for Management Research', in T. Clarke (ed.)

Advancement in Organizational Behaviour: Essays in Honour of D. S. Pugh , pp.277-296.

London: Dartmouth Press.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1997b) 'What is a Processual Analysis?', Scandinavian Journal of

Management 13(4): 337-348.

Pettigrew, A. (2001) 'The Double Hurdles for Management Research', in Clarke, T. (ed.)

Advancement in Organizational Behaviour: Essays in Honour of D. S. Pugh . London:

Dartmouth Press, pp. 277-296.

Polanyi, M. (1946) Science, Faith and Society . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.




Porter, S. and Ryan, S. (1996) 'Breaking the Boundaries between Nursing and Sociology: A

Critical Realist Ethnography of the Research-Practice Gap', Journal of Advanced Nursing

24(2): 413-420.

Pratschke, J. (2003) 'Realistic Models? Critical Realism and Statistical Models in the Social

Sciences', Philosophica 71: 13-38.

Reed, J. (2000) 'Citigroup's John Reed and Stanford's James March on Management Research

and Practice', Academy of Management Executive 14: 52-64.

Reed, M. (2005) 'Reflections on the "Realist Turn" in Organization and Management Studies',

Journal of Management Studies 42(8): 1621-1644.

Ron, A. (2002) 'Regression Analysis and the Philosophy of Social Science', Journal of Critical

Realism 1(1): 119-142.

Sartof, D. (2008) 'Does Business Ignore the Business Schools?', Available at:

http://davidsartof.blogspot.com/2008/01/does-business-ignore-business-schools.html,

Accessed 20 February 2008.

Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and Social Science . London: Sage.

Scott, D. (2000) Realism and Educational Research: New Perspectives and Possibilities .

London: Routledge.

Sethi, S. (2002) 'Standards for Corporate Conduct in the International Arena: Challenges and

Opportunities for Multinational Corporations', Business and Society Review 107(1): 20-

40 .

Skapinker, M. (2008) 'Why Business Ignores the Business Schools', Financial Times 8 January.

Smith, M. L. (2006) 'Overcoming Research-Practice Inconsistencies: Critical Realism and

Information Systems Research', Information and Organization 16(3): 191-211.




Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001) 'Bridging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the

Future of Management Research', British Journal of Management 12: S3-26.

Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A. and Tempest, S. (2004) 'Rethinking the Business School', Journal of

Management Studies 41(8): 1521-1531.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in social and Behavioural

Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Troyna, B. (1994) 'Reforms, Research and Being Reflexive about Being Reflective', in D. Halpin

and B. Troyna (eds) Researching Education Policy: Ethical and Methodological Issues .

London: Falmer.

Weick, K. E. (2001) 'Gapping the Relevance Bridge: Fashions Meet Fundamentals in

Management Research', British Journal of Management 12: S71-S75.

Wensley, R. (2007) 'Beyond Rigour and Relevance: The Underlying Nature of Both Business

Schools and Management Research', AIM Research Working Paper Series : 051-January-

2007.

Wilson, M. and Greenhill, A. G. (2004) 'Theory and Action for Emancipation: Elements of a

Critical Realist Approach', in B. Kaplan, D. Truex, D. Wastell and T. Woodharper (eds),

Relevant Theory and Informed Practice , pp. 667-674. Boston: Kluwer.

beyond rigour n relevance_a cr approach to biz educatn_mingers

Documents