As a research paradigm, collaborative research brings together practitioners and researchers for the purpose of creating knowledge that is relevant to practice and added value to theoretical development. The collaborative effort tends to bridge the rigor–relevance gap. In Kieser and Leiner’s article “Collaborate With Practitioners: But Beware of Collaborative Research,” in the Journal of Management Inquiry, the authors challenge the added value of collaborative research to both practice and the scientific outcomes. This rejoinder takes issue with Kieser and Leiner’s key arguments, basic assumptions, narrow and limited points of departure, the view of the essence of social and management science, misunderstanding of managerial work, collaborative research, and action research.
ArgyrisC.PutnamR.SmithD. (1985). Action science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
AvenierM.-J. (2010). Construction and use of generic knowledge in organization science viewed as a science of the artificial. Organization Studies, 31, 1229-1255.
3.
BartunekJ. M (2008) Insider/outsider team research: The development of the approach and its meaning. In. (Rami) ShaniA. B.MohrmanS. A.PasmoreW. A.StymneB.AdlerN. (eds.) Handbook of collaborativer management research (pp. 73-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BrannickT.CoghlanD. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for insider academic research. Organization Research Methods, 10, 59-74.
5.
CassellC.JohnsonP. (2006). Action research: Explaining the diversity. Human Relations, 59, 783-814.
6.
CoghlanD. (2010). Seeking common ground in the diversity and diffusion of action research and collaborative management research action modalities: Towards a general empirical method. In PasmoreW. A.(Rami) ShaniA. B.WoodmanR. (Eds.), Research in organization change and development (Vol. 18, pp. 149-181). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publications.
7.
CoghlanD. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 53-87.
8.
Erno-KjolhedeE. (2001). Managing collaborative research. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
9.
GenefkeJ.McDonaldF. (Eds.). (2001). Effective collaboration: Managing the obstacles to success. London, England: Palgrave.
10.
HabermasJ. (1981). Knowledge and human interests. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Frankfurt am Main Publisher.
12.
HatchuelA. (2001). The two pillars of new management research. British Journal of Management, 12, 33-39.
13.
HatchuelA. (2005). Towards an epistemology of collective action: Management research as a responsive and actionable discipline. European Management Review, 2, 36-47.
14.
HatchuelA.DavidA. (2008). Collaborating for management research: From action research to intervention research in management. In (Rami) ShaniA. B.MohrmanS. A.PasmoreW. A.StymneB.AdlerN. (Eds.), Handbook of collaborative management research (pp. 143-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
HodgkinsonG. P.RousseauD. M. (2009). Bridging the rigor-relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening!Journal of Management Studies, 46, 534-546.
16.
HuxhamC.VangenS. (2001). What makes practitioners tick? Understanding collaboration practice and practising collaboration understanding. In GenefkeJ.McDonaldJ. (Eds.), Effective collaboration: Managing the obstacles to success (pp. 1-16). London, England: Palgrave.
17.
HuxhamC.VangenS. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
KieserA.LeinerL. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 516-533.
19.
KieserA.LeinerL. (2012). Collaborate with practitioners: But beware of collaborative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21, 14-28.
20.
LawlerE. E.IIIWorleyC. G. (2011). Management reset. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21.
MirvisP. H.WorleyC. G. (2013). Organizing for sustainability: Why networks and partnerships. In WorleyC. G.MirvisP. H. (Eds.), Building networks and partnerships (pp. 1-34). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
22.
MohrmanS. A.LawlerE. E. (Eds.). (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publisher.
23.
PasmoreW. A.WoodmanW. W.SimmonsA. L. (2008). Towards a more rigorous, reflective, and relevant science of collaborative management research. In (Rami) ShaniA. BMohrmanS.PasmoreW. A.StymneB.AdlerN. (Eds.), Handbook of collaborative management research (pp. 567-582). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24.
PettigrewA. M. (2001). Management research after modernism [Special issue]. British Journal of Management, 12, 61-70.
25.
PettigrewA. M. (2004). Some challenges of collaborative research. In AdlerN.(Rami) ShaniA. B.StyhreA. (Eds.), Collaborative research in organizations (pp. xv-xviii). London, England: SAGE.
26.
PutnamH. (1978). Meaning and the moral sciences. London, England: Routledge.
27.
ReasonP. (1999). Integrating action and reflection through cooperative inquiry. Management Learning, 30, 207-226.
28.
ReasonP. (2006). Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 187-203.
29.
ReasonP.HeronJ. (1986). Research with people: The paradigm of co-operative experimental inquiry. Person Central Review, 1, 456-475.
30.
RoloffS. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 233-250.
31.
SchonD. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 27-34.
32.
ShaniA. B. (Rami)CoghlanD.CirellaS. (2012). Action research and collaborative management research: More than meets the eye?International Journal of Action Research, 8, 45-67.
33.
ShaniA. B. (Rami)DavidA.WillsonC. (2004). Collaborative research: Alternative roadmaps. In AdlerN.(Rami) ShaniA. B.StyhreA. (Eds.), Collaborative research in organizations (pp. 83-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
ShaniA. B. (Rami)MohrmanS. A.PasmoreW. A.StymneB.AdlerN. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of collaborative management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
SusmanG. I.EveredR. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582-601.
36.
TorbertW. (1991). The power of balance. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
ToulminS. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Van de VenA. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide to organizational and social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
