This article explores the dynamics of initiating and implementing an engaged scholarship approach by taking a current research project relating to small business development and employing Van de Ven’s diamond model to frame a personal critical reflection of our research process. We explore the scholarly and practical debates implicit in Van de Ven’s method of Engaged Scholarship before unpacking our research project to illustrate the challenges that scholars pursuing engaged forms of scholarship have no doubt faced, but journal article formats do not usually allow authors to explore, thereby providing lessons for scholars wanting to embark upon such projects. We make the argument that engaged scholarship and interactive research methods are well suited to the entrepreneurship and small firm field, but find that tensions are likely to be faced in respect of personal motivations and identities, gaining and maintaining stakeholder engagement, and balancing and managing relationships within diverse research teams.
AntonacopoulouE (2009) Impact and scholarship: Unlearning and practising to co-create actionable knowledge. Management Learning40(4): 421–430.
2.
AramJDSalipantePF (2003) Bridging scholarship in management: Epistemological reflections. British Journal of Management14(3): 189–205.
3.
BargeJKShockley-ZalabakP (2008) Engaged scholarship and the creation of useful organizational knowledge. Journal of Applied Communication Research36(3): 251–265.
4.
BartunekJMRynesSL (2014) Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike. Journal of Management40(5): 1181–1201.
5.
BoyerE (1996) The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach1(1): 11–20.
6.
CaswillCShoveE (2000) Introducing interactive social science. Science and Public Policy27(3): 154–157.
7.
DelantyG (2001) The university in the knowledge society. Organization8(2): 149–153.
8.
DownSHughesM (2009) When the ‘subject’ and the ‘researcher’ speak together: Co-producing organizational ethnography. In: YbemaSYanowDWelsHet al. (eds) Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexity of Everyday Life. London: Sage, pp.83–98.
9.
EisenhardtKMGraebnerME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal50(1): 25–32.
10.
EmpsonL (2013) My affair with the ‘other’: Identity journeys across the research–practice divide. Journal of Management Inquiry22: 229–248.
11.
FrankHLandströmH (2016) What makes entrepreneurship research interesting? Reflections on strategies to overcome the rigour–relevance gap. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development28(1–2): 51–75.
12.
GibbAA (1997) Small firms’ training and competitiveness: Building upon the small business as a learning organisation. International Small Business Journal15(3): 13–29.
13.
GoddardJ (2009) Re-inventing the Civic University. London: NESTA.
14.
GoddardJCoombesMKemptonLet al. (2014) Universities as anchor institutions in cities in a turbulent funding environment: Vulnerable institutions and vulnerable places in England. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society7(2): 307–325.
15.
GreenwoodDJ (2002) Action research – unfilled promises and unmet challenges. Concepts & Transformation7: 117–139.
16.
GulatiR (2007) Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal50(4): 775–782.
17.
HabermasJ (1987) The idea of the university – learning processes. New German Critique41: 3–22.
18.
HammelJMagasiSMirzaMPet al. (2015) A scholarship of practice revisited: Creating community-engaged occupational therapy practitioners, educators, and scholars, occupational therapy. Health Care29(4): 352–369.
19.
HartM (2007) Evaluating EU regional policy: How might we understand the causal connections between interventions and outcomes more effectively?Policy Studies28(4): 295–308.
HodgkinsonGPHerriotPAndersonN (2001) Realigning the stakeholders in management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology. British Journal of Management12: 41–48.
23.
JohannissonB (2011) Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics36: 135–150.
24.
JohnsonSWebberDJThomasW (2007) Which SMEs use external business advice? A multivariate subregional study. Environment and Planning A39: 1981–1997.
25.
JonesOMacphersonA (2014) Research perspectives on learning in small firms. In: ChellEKaratas-OzkanM (eds) Handbook of Research on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.289–314.
26.
KevillATrehanKEasterby-SmithMet al. (2015) Stick or twist? The practice of undertaking life story interviews in-the-moment. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research21(3): 448–471.
27.
KieserALeinerL (2009) Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies49(3): 516–533.
28.
KumsaMKChambonAYanMCet al. (2015) Catching the shimmers of the social: From the limits of reflexivity to methodological creativity. Qualitative Research15(4): 419–436.
29.
LaredoP (2007) Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities?Higher Education Policy20(4): 441–456.
30.
LearmonthMLockettADowdK (2012) Promoting scholarship that matters: The uselessness of useful research and the usefulness of useless research. British Journal of Management23: 35–44.
31.
LynchNLenihanHHartM (2009) Developing a framework to evaluate business networks: The case of Ireland’s industry-led network initiative. Policy Studies30(2): 163–180.
32.
McKelveyB (2006) Van de Ven and Johnson’s ‘engaged scholarship’: Nice try, but…Academy of Management Review31(4): 822–829.
33.
MallettORichterPWhitehurstFet al. (2016) Reconceptualising anchor institutions: A new direction for regionally-focused small firm support. In: 39th international small business and entrepreneurship conference, Paris, 26–28 October.
34.
MartinS (2010) Co-production of social research: Strategies for engaged scholarship. Public Money and Management30(4): 211–218.
35.
MeyerD (2009) Commentary: On the integration of strategic management and entrepreneurship: Views of a contrarian. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice33: 341–352.
36.
MohrmanSGibsonCMohrmanA (2001) Doing research that is useful to practice: A model and empirical perspective. Academy of Management Journal44(2): 357–375.
37.
NilsonCJewellLMCammanCet al. (2014) Community-engaged scholarship: The experience of ongoing collaboration between criminal justice professionals and scholars at the University of Saskatchewan. Criminal Justice Studies27(3): 264–277.
38.
PettigrewAM (2001) Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management12(Special Issue): s61–s70.
39.
PettigrewAM (2005) The character and significance of management research on the public services. Academy of Management Journal48(6): 973–977.
40.
PosnerPL (2009) The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics. Public Budgeting and Finance29(1): 12–26.
41.
RamMTrehanK (2010) Critical action learning, policy learning and small firms: An inquiry. Management Learning41(4): 415–428.
42.
RamMJonesTVillares-VarelaM (2017) Migrant entrepreneurship: Reflections on research and practice. International Small Business Journal35(1): 3–18.
43.
RamMJonesTEdwardsPet al. (2013) Engaging with super-diversity: New migrant businesses and the research–policy nexus. International Small Business Journal31(4): 337–356.
44.
RamMTheodorakopoulosNWorthingtonI (2007) Policy transfer in practice: Implementing supplier diversity in the UK. Public Administration85(3): 799–803.
45.
RamMTrehanKRouseJet al. (2012) Ethnic minority business support in the West Midlands: Challenges and developments. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30: 504–519.
46.
RobsonPJBennettRJ (2000) SME growth: The relationship with business advice and external collaboration. Small Business Economics15(3): 193–208.
47.
RynesSLBartunekJMDaftRL (2001) Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal44: 340–355.
48.
SchönDA (1995) The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change27: 27–34.
StarkeyKMadanP (2001) Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management12(Special Issue): s3–s26.
52.
SvenssonLEllströmPBrulinG (2007b) Introduction: On interactive research. International Journal of Action Research3(3): 233–249.
53.
TaylorHLLuterG (2013) Anchor Institutions: An Interpretive Review Essay. New York: Anchor Institutions Task Force.
54.
Ter BogtHJvan HeldenGJ (2014) A pragmatic view on engaged scholarship in accounting research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management11(1): 40–50.
55.
ThorpeRRawlinsonR (2014) Engaging with engagement: How UK business schools could meet the innovation challenge. Journal of Management Development33(5): 470–486.
van BurgERommeALG (2014) Creating the future together: Toward a framework for research synthesis in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(2): 369–397.
61.
Van de VenAH (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62.
Van de VenAHJohnsonPE (2006a) Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review31(4): 802–821.
63.
Van de VenAHJohnsonPE (2006b) Nice try, Bill, but there you go again. Academy of Management Review31(4): 830–883.
64.
Van MaanenJ (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
65.
VoordijkHAdriaanseA (2016) Engaged scholarship in construction management research: The adoption of information and communications technology in construction projects. Construction Management and Economics34(7–8): 536–551.
66.
VoronovM (2008) Towards engaged critical management studies. Organization15(6): 939–945.
67.
WalshJPTushmanMLKimberlyJRet al. (2007) On the relationship between research and practice: Debate and reflections. Journal of Management Inquiry16: 128–154.
68.
WensleyR (2007) Beyond rigour and relevance: The underlying nature of both business schools and management research. AIM Research Working Paper Series 051, January. London: Advanced Institute of Management.
