Between rigour and relevance: Co-existing institutional logics in the field of management science

Abstract

The paper builds on recent approaches in institutional theory on the co-existence of logics to analyse how field actors handle competing institutional demands in their practices. Business schools’ reactions to the critique that their research is not sufficiently relevant is analysed empirically. The logic of research in professional schools has been suggested as an alternative logic which is supposed to produce more relevant research than is possible under the logic that nowadays dominates management science in business schools: the logic of basic research. A contribution is made to institutional theory by showing how these two logics, even though competing, co-exist on the field level. The results of this exploratory study indicate that management scholars contribute to the co-existence of competing logics by separating the social spheres associated with a particular logic from each other, and by symbolically referring to a conflicting demand. The analysis of publication practices suggests decoupling as an underlying mechanism enabling the co-existence of two competing logics in the field of management science.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.