hide
Free keywords:
Applied research; Basic research; Institutional logics; Institutional complexity; Management studies; Relevance; Rigor; Rigor—relevance gap
Abstract:
In contrast to existing studies on the issue of the rigor—relevance gap, we do not
discuss in this article how to bridge it but analyze the responses of management scholars to it.
Referring to institutional theory, we argue that the gap is related to different logics of research
aimed at scientific progress (basic research) or at relevant knowledge (applied research).
Analyzing publications in leading scholarly and practitioner-oriented management journals
between 1961 and 2010, we identify a variety of responses. Management scholars address the
demand for relevance by providing implications-for-practice sections and the development of
approaches for the production of relevant knowledge. Most of them believe that the dominant
logic of basic research integrates the demand for both rigor and relevance. However, we find
evidence for the existence of competing logics: researchers do not base applied research on their
basic research, and they tend to publish applied research in later periods of their careers.
We conclude that compartmentalization is the dominant response strategy of management
researchers.
