How Individual Scholars Can Reduce the Rigor-Relevance Gap in Management Research

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Abstract:     

This paper discusses a number of avenues management scholars could follow to reduce the existing gap between scientific rigor and practical relevance without relativizing the importance of the first goal dimension. Such changes are necessary because many management studies do not fully exploit the possibilities to increase their practical relevance while maintaining scientific rigor. We argue that this rigor-relevance gap is not only the consequence of the currently prevailing institutional context in the scientific system, but that individual scholars can reduce the gap between rigorous and practically relevant research by modifying their research work. Thus, most of our suggestions refer to individual scholars’ research activities and relate to specific steps in the (empirical) research process. Our discussion does not imply that all management studies should be practically oriented; basic research will remain a very important part of management research. However, we believe that not enough management research studies are significantly influenced by practical relevance. The authors: ” The discussion of these suggestions has shown that significant changes are necessary in the area of idea generation, in the area of testing ideas, as well as in the area of their presentation. If the practical relevance of management research is to increase, modifications will have to be made in all stages of the
(empirical) research process. An integrative view of these suggestions shows the advantages of close cooperation between scholars and practitioners. This insight is fully consistent with the results of the publications by Gibbons and colleagues (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny,
Schwartzman, Scott, and Trow 1994; Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons 2001). According to them, the generation of new knowledge is increasingly due to joint efforts by scholars and practitioners. This will
help management research become “a contextualized science” (Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons 2001, p. 90) and to advance its stock of insights from “reliable knowledge to socially robust knowledge” (pp.
167 et seq.).1 Moreover, the current paper has shown that if the
scientific community is to reduce the rigorrelevance gap, it will have to master the challenge of increasing the creativity of the research results and the consistency of management research’s body of knowledge. The integration of these two goals is not a trivial task. Nevertheless, management’s scientific community should be able to reduce this conflict, as not all research projects have to be both highly creative
and highly commensurable with the existing stock of knowledge.” Source:How Individual Scholars Can Reduce the Rigor-Relevance Gap in Management Research
Joachim Wolf
University of Kiel – Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences

Timo Rosenberg
University of Kiel

BuR Business Research Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.178-196, November 2012  
See on papers.ssrn.com

Achieving Impact in Research; a guide for the purposes of gaining research funding and reporting achieved impact for the Research Excellenc Framework (REF)

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

This addition to the “Success in Research” series addresses the importance of understanding and achieving impact for the purposes of gaining research funding and reporting achieved impact for the Research Excellence Framework (REF).

 

The book includes contributions from researchers and researcher developers who feel that impact is ill-defined and poorly understood despite its prevalence in policy documents, websites and institutional activities. This succinct and cohesive text draws on the expert contributors’ collective research practice, knowledge and experience.

 

Using a variety of examples, boxed activities and highlighted reflection points, this practical guide covers the following key areas:

 

– The meaning of impact in relation to research

 

– How the Impact Agenda fits with attitudes and ethics that motivate research

 

– The different characterisations of research impact and when impact is apparent

 

– How impact can be planned into proposals, evaluated and evidenced

 

– The skills needed to be an impactful researcher

 

– How impact can be supported through Knowledge Exchange and effective partnerships

 

Table of contents:

 

What is the meaning of impact in relation to research and why does it matter? A view from inside academia     
Colin Chandler

What is the meaning of the Impact Agenda – is it a repackaged or a new entity? Views from inside the Research Councils     
Sophie Payne-Gifford

How does the Impact Agenda fit with attitudes and ethics that motivate research?     
Jennifer Chubb

What are the different characteristics of research impact?     
Jo Lakey, Geoff Rodgers and Rosa Scoble

When might research impact be apparent?     
Christopher Wood

How can impact be planned into research proposals?     
Rob Daley and Sara Shinton

How can impact evaluation be planned?     
Tony Bromley and André de Campos

How can impact be evidenced: practical methods?     
Tony Bromley

What skills are needed to be an impactful researcher?     
Jennifer Chubb

How can knowledge exchange support the development of impact through partnerships and university infrastructures?     
Andy Jackson

How can you become an impactful researcher?     
Ellen Pearce and Pam Denicolo

Appendix I A special case: researcher development and the work of the impact and evaluation group     
Christopher Wood and Pam Denicolo

Appendix II An illustration of the Researcher Development Framework (Vitae)
    
Appendix III The pathways to impact framework provided by RCUK

 

source:

Achieving Impact in Research
Pam Denicolo     
October 2013, AGE Publications Ltd   
Series: Success in Research

 

 

See on www.uk.sagepub.com

Moving Beyond Bibliometrics: Understanding Breakthrough Emergence through Missed Opportunities; a framework for failures in identifying breakthrough opportunities

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

 

 ABSTRACT 

Who is most likely to discover a breakthrough? Why are some scientists more successful than others at discovering them? By using extant theories of breakthrough emergence to predict a groundbreaking discovery in biology, RNA interference, I show that the explanatory power of combining all current theories are weak because they sample on rare successes rather than the multiple instances of failure in the discovery process. Instead, I focus on understanding these failures by interviewing scientists with high potential of discovering breakthroughs in a case historical analysis. My findings suggest that the seminal discovery was missed several times not only due to difficulties in solving a particular problem but also due to failures in identifying breakthrough opportunities. I propose a cognitive framework with institutional underpinnings at the basis of these failures. In the problem identification stage, framing barriers from pursuing normal science and existing boundary barriers between communities of scientists contribute to difficulties in identifying the breakthrough opportunity by misrepresenting the magnitude of the problem. In the problem-solving stage, scientists are constrained by paradigmatic pressures to avoid being wrong, and coupled with boundary barriers similar anti-dogmatic observations stay isolated and unsubstantiated, thus diminishing confidence to identify a new revolutionary paradigm. 

 

The author: “This work has implications in the design of organizations and institutions that partake in scientific discovery. Understanding the barriers to scientific knowledge creation is vital not only for academic administrators but also crucial from both managerial and policy standpoints. It illustrates the fundamental differences inherent in the production of scientific and technological knowledge, and directly speaks to the organizational design of science-based firms (where the literature has mainly focused on technological innovation and remains thin) by providing structural characteristics and policies that foster the production of groundbreaking discoveries. These include facilitating interdisciplinary research teams, encouraging cross-organism and 33 

cross-field conference attendance, and providing incentives that enable the flexibility to take on side projects at the fringe. “

 

Source:

Sen Chai (LWP-HLS and NBER) ”  “Moving Beyond Bibliometrics: Understanding Breakthrough Emergence through Missed Opportunities” 

 

Fulltext: http://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/chai-sen_moving_beyond_bibliometrics_10-11-13.pdf

 

See on economics.harvard.edu

Moving Beyond Bibliometrics: Understanding Breakthrough Emergence through Missed Opportunities; a framework for failures in identifying breakthrough opportunities

See on Scoop.it – DataPhilanthropy

 

 ABSTRACT 

Who is most likely to discover a breakthrough? Why are some scientists more successful than others at discovering them? By using extant theories of breakthrough emergence to predict a groundbreaking discovery in biology, RNA interference, I show that the explanatory power of combining all current theories are weak because they sample on rare successes rather than the multiple instances of failure in the discovery process. Instead, I focus on understanding these failures by interviewing scientists with high potential of discovering breakthroughs in a case historical analysis. My findings suggest that the seminal discovery was missed several times not only due to difficulties in solving a particular problem but also due to failures in identifying breakthrough opportunities. I propose a cognitive framework with institutional underpinnings at the basis of these failures. In the problem identification stage, framing barriers from pursuing normal science and existing boundary barriers between communities of scientists contribute to difficulties in identifying the breakthrough opportunity by misrepresenting the magnitude of the problem. In the problem-solving stage, scientists are constrained by paradigmatic pressures to avoid being wrong, and coupled with boundary barriers similar anti-dogmatic observations stay isolated and unsubstantiated, thus diminishing confidence to identify a new revolutionary paradigm. 

 

The author: “This work has implications in the design of organizations and institutions that partake in scientific discovery. Understanding the barriers to scientific knowledge creation is vital not only for academic administrators but also crucial from both managerial and policy standpoints. It illustrates the fundamental differences inherent in the production of scientific and technological knowledge, and directly speaks to the organizational design of science-based firms (where the literature has mainly focused on technological innovation and remains thin) by providing structural characteristics and policies that foster the production of groundbreaking discoveries. These include facilitating interdisciplinary research teams, encouraging cross-organism and 33 

cross-field conference attendance, and providing incentives that enable the flexibility to take on side projects at the fringe. “

 

Source:

Sen Chai (LWP-HLS and NBER) ”  “Moving Beyond Bibliometrics: Understanding Breakthrough Emergence through Missed Opportunities” 

Fulltext: http://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/chai-sen_moving_beyond_bibliometrics_10-11-13.pdf

See on economics.harvard.edu

NL has highest percentage of international co-publications in Economics, econometrics and Finance compared to UK, France and Germany 1996-2012

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Researchers in economy, econometrics and finance from the Netherlands have the highest collaboration with internatonal co-authros. compared to the UK, France and Germany.

In 2012 over 60% of publications were collaborative. See the Scimago compare tool, very useful for benchmarking.

Link here: http://www.scimagojr.com/compare.php

 

See on www.scimagojr.com

NL has highest percentage of international co-publications in business and management compared to UK, France and Germany 1996-2012

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

See on www.scimagojr.com

How to evaluate individual researchers meaningfully and with a focus on excellence? A proposal for a set of indicators based on percentiles of citations

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Abstract:

Although bibliometrics has been a separate research field for many years, there is still no uniformity in the way bibliometric analyses are applied to individual researchers. Therefore, this study aims to set up proposals how to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences. 2005 saw the introduction of the h index, which gives information about a researcher’s productivity and the impact of his or her publications in a single number (h is the number of publications with at least h citations); however, it is not possible to cover the multidimensional complexity of research performance and to undertake inter-personal comparisons with this number. This study therefore includes recommendations for a set of indicators to be used for evaluating researchers. Our proposals relate to the selection of data on which an evaluation is based, the analysis of the data and the presentation of the results.

 

The authors give a “handle with care” advice: ” Scientists, who should be used to handling bibliometric data as end users, should be able to understand the limitations of the data and the risks that can result and it must be possible for them to call them to account. However this is often not the case: when money and reputation are at stake, scientists are also only human and forget the rules of good scientific practice. Bibliometric data is likely to be misinterpreted if this can benefit their positive image or completely ignored if it does not provide confirmation of scientists’ perception of themselves. It might also be used as ammunition against competitors if it seems appropriate for this purpose. The danger of partiality presents anyone creating bibliometric data (the database producers) and undertaking bibliometric studies (the bibliometricians) with a special responsibility. The end users of the data are called upon to take the guidelines of both groups seriously to take account of the outcomes and relationships determined by bibliometric research over decades.”

 

Source:

How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citationsLutz Bornmann, Werner MarxarXiv:1302.3697, 4 Oct 2013
See on arxiv.org

Dual Impact cloud by Infomous; a cool new way to explore content online

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Infomous creates a nice topiccloud from your rss feed. As example I created one for my Dual Impact weblog.

See on www.infomous.com

The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009) ; towards new patterns of citat…

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Abstract

This article addresses the issue of internationalization of social sciences by studying the evolution of production (of academic articles), collaboration and citations patterns among main world regions over the period 1980–2009 using the SSCI. The results confirm the centre–periphery model and indicate that the centrality of the two major regions that are North America and Europe is largely unchallenged, Europe having become more important and despite the growing development of Asian social sciences. The authors’ quantitative approach shows that the growing production in the social sciences but also the rise of international collaborations between regions have not led to a more homogeneous circulation of the knowledge produced by different regions, or to a substantial increase in the visibility of the contributions produced by peripheral regions. Social scientists from peripheral regions, while producing more papers in the core journals compiled by the SSCI, have a stronger tendency to cite journals from the two central regions, thus losing at least partially their more locally embedded references, and to collaborate more with western social scientists. In other words, the dynamic of internationalization of social science research may also lead to a phagocytosis of the periphery into the two major centers, which brings with it the danger of losing interest in the local objects specific to those peripheral regions.

 

Source:

The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009) doi: 10.1177/0011392113498866 Current Sociology October 1, 2013 0011392113498866  Authors: Sébastien Mosbah-Natanson (Paris-Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; CIRST, UQAM, Canada) & Yves Gingras (CIRST, UQAM, Canada). http://m.csi.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/30/0011392113498866.full.pdf ;

See on m.csi.sagepub.com