On the Social Construction of Relevance: A Rejoinder

Abstract

abstract This rejoinder ties in with a Point–Counterpoint debate on the rigour–relevance gap which was published in the May 2009 issue of JMS . Responding to our critics we advance four arguments: (1) Only practitioners, not management scholars, can ultimately assess relevance of research by applying solutions derived from research results. (2) Collaborative management research whose output, in the publishing process, has to pass reviews in which criteria of rigour dominate does not necessarily generate research of higher relevance. (3) The ‘body of scientific evidence’ which our critics refer to contains an abundance of contradicting findings and recommendations and is therefore not of much help for practitioners. (4) Since the academic management journals and the ranking systems are controlling management research, a change towards epistemologies that foster relevance of research, as envisaged by our critics, is not very likely.

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 — 39 citations exist upstream.

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