The Multifarious Sources of Management Knowledge

I appreciate Teppo Felin’s previous contribution in this blog (and I would also like to reply to a post on his own blog) since constructive debate is a truly academic exercise and one of the best avenues to improve our practices. I agree with his statement that business schools should develop cutting-edge research -who wouldn’t agree? The question here, though, is how “cutting-edge research” is defined. At the same time, I do also favor the idea about business schools investing in basic research but, again, the risk is to fall in a semantic trap when defining “basic research”. For some time, some academics have taken for granted the meaning of the mentioned concepts and the debate has been metatheoretical or semantic. My intention is to try to throw some light and rationality on the debate. Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote that “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” but, I would add, we should not let language bewitch our intelligence.

Some years ago I was commissioned by EQUIS, the European accreditation system, to develop a set of standards that could be applied when evaluating business schools as regards their research activity. One of the first things I realised at the beginning of this task was that research is a contested concept, i.e., a concept with different conceptions or meaning with some even conflicting. In order to avoid the semantic trap the working team decided to give up the controversial concept research and stipulate a new one: RDI, which stands for research, development and innovation, a more ample concept that would leave room for many different forms of production and diffusion of knowledge.

True, “research” is a contested concept in a similar way to other abstract concepts such as justice, liberty and merit. They can be interpreted in different ways and we may even hold contested or opposite conceptions when applying them to some particular case. The concept “research” shares the same contested nature. We may define a core meaning of research but the controversy comes when different adjectives are added: academic (vs. applied?), theoretical (vs. empirical?), original or basic (vs. developmental?), client oriented (vs. “ars artis”?), pure (vs. impure?). A rule commonly employed to classify the different sorts of research is the pedigree of the channel used in its diffusion. According to this taxonomy, basic or original research is published in refereed academic journals whereas developmental or applied knowledge is distributed through professional publications. However, is this always the case? In fact, evidence shows that a good number of valuable and original management ideas and models have been generated outside academic publications.

Academia is not the only reservoir of management knowledge, a fact that reinforces the detached view of business schools, discussed in my previous post, a view defending that business schools should act as bridges between academia and the real business world. Consulting companies, investment banks and publishing houses are sometimes the source of valuable, original knowledge and business schools could promote an active dialogue with this and other institutions to further develop these ideas to higher grounds. Adjunct and clinical professors can play a vital role in this process and this is why I favour their intense participation at business schools

Comments

[Peter Jones]

You mention what RDI stands for but you do not explain how this is used in practice?

[teppof]

The below is also posted at - http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2006/07/06/knowledge-knowledge-and-veriphobia/

The epistemological and philosophy of science-related matters underlying this discussion are critical, though to delve into them would require a book-length expose. A few, quick, more casual lines nonetheless in response.

Undoubtedly there are different types of knowledge as suggested by Santiago’s post. But, inherently choices need to be made as to which type of knowledge should be priviledged, particularly in a b-school and university environment. Do we value scholarship (and teaching) that is theory-driven, or teaching (scholarship?) by executives that is experience-driven? The AACSB proposal (see this post) which gave this discussion its impetus emphasizes (though granted, out of necessity) a certain type of knowledge. I simply believe that we need to be cognisant of unintended consequences. I think there is something quite unique about research done by academics and thus I disagree with Santiago’s statement that “those practitioners that undergo the necessary preparation for teaching are at least as good potential docents as academics.” In that case, why not simply have consulting firms or inhouse executives fill the the b-school space if what an executive teaches can be equated with academic scholarship? Why get a Ph.D.?

In all, knowledge is much more than a Wittgensteinian language game, with its associated presumption of the social construction of knowledge. Knowledge-building and research is about a systematic effort to explain, understand, and predict - driven by careful theory-building and data collection. Perhaps executives build theory in their own way, but, their institutional mandate and training scarcely prepares or requires them for this type of activity. Furthermore, executive teaching may be biased (again, it draws heavily on experience and war stories), or plain wrong (granted, there are academics of all stripes as well). Universities have a unique mission, b-schools included. Problematizing, as suggested by the use of quotation marks, “research” or “knowledge” in postmodern fashion only lends itself to a more general relativization of knowledge itself - nothing can be priviledged, there is no truth. This type of effort seems self-destructive, or to be more provocative (borrowing from Alvin Goldman), “veriphobic.”

Overall, I think we are in broad agreement that executive and adjunct teaching can play a role in b-schools, and that academic research needs to be “grounded” in practical considerations. The question simply is to what extent - an important balancing act.

[teppof]

To briefly augment the above comment, there is a recent Academy of Management Journal article highlighting some of the problems associated with management fashions (related to business bestsellers, consultants etc), which relates to this discussion.

For a precis see:

http://www.aomonline.org/aom.asp?ID=251&page_ID=224&pr_id=317