Systematic reviews of academic research have not impacted management practice as much as many researchers had hoped. Part of the reason is that researchers and managers differ significantly in their knowledge systems—in both what they know and how they know it. Researchers can overcome some of these challenges by including managers as knowledge partners in the research endeavor; however, doing so is rife with challenges. This article seeks to answer, how can researchers and managers navigate the tensions related to differences in their knowledge systems to create more impactful systematic reviews? To answer this question, we embarked on a data-guided journey of the experience of the Network for Business Sustainability, which had undertaken 15 systematic reviews that involved researchers and managers. We interviewed previous participants of the projects, observed different systematic review processes, and collected archival data to learn more about researcher-manager collaborations in the systematic review process. This article offers guidance to researchers in imbricating academic with practical knowledge in the systematic review process.
AdamsJ. (2005). Early citation counts correlate with accumulated impact. Scientometrics, 63(3), 567–581.
2.
AdamsR. J.JeanrenaudS.DenyerD.OveryP. (2016). Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(2), 180–205.
3.
AdamsR. J.SmartP.HuffA. S. (2017). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 432–454.
4.
AguinisH.ShapiroD. L.AntonacopoulouE. P.CummingsT. G. (2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(4), 623–639.
5.
AstleyW. G.ZammutoR. F. (1992). Organization science, managers, and language games. Organization Science, 3(4), 443–460.
6.
BansalP.BertelsS.EwartT.MacConnachieP.O’BrienJ. (2012). Bridging the research-practice gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73–92.
7.
BartunekJ. M. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1323–1333.
8.
BartunekJ. M.RynesS. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic–practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40, 1181–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314529160
9.
BartunekJ.TrullenJ.BonetE.SauquetA. (2003). Sharing and expanding academic and practitioner knowledge in health care. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8(S2), 62–68.
10.
BriefA. P.DukerichM. (1991). Theory in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 327–352.
11.
BrinerR. B.DenyerD. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In RousseauD. M. (Ed.), Handbook of evidence-based management: Companies, classrooms, and research (pp. 112–129). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
BrinerR. B.DenyerD.RousseauD. M. (2009). Evidence-based management: Concept cleanup time?Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19–32.
DeweyJ. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: Heath.
16.
DipboyeR. L. (2014). Bridging the gap in organizational behavior: A review of Jone Pearce’s Organizational Behavior: Real Research for Real Managers(3rd ed.). Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(3), 487–491.
17.
DwyerS. C.BuckleJ. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63.
18.
EveredR.LouisM. R. (1981). Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and “inquiry from the outside.”Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 385–395.
19.
GreyC. (2001). Re-imagining relevance: A response to Starkey and Madan. British Journal of Management, 12, S27–S32.
20.
GulatiR. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 775–782.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2019). Special report: Global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
24.
JamesW. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longman Green.
25.
JarzabkowskiP.SmithW.LewisM. (2017). Practices for leveraging the paradoxes of engaged scholarship. In BartunekJ. M.McKenzieJ. (Eds.), Academic-practitioner relationships: Developments, complexities and opportunities (pp. 126–141). Routledge.
26.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.
27.
KieserA.LeinerL. (2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516–533.
28.
KieserA.LeinerL. (2011). Collaborate with practitioners: But beware of collaborative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(1), 14–28.
29.
Knorr CetinaK. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.
30.
KondratM. E. (1992). Reclaiming the practical: Formal and substantive rationality in social work practice. Social Service Review, 66(2), 237–255.
31.
KondratM. E. (1995). Concept, act and interest in professional practice: Implications of an empowerment perspective. Social Service Review, 69(3), 405–428.
32.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.
33.
LouisM. L.BartunekJ. (1992). Insider/outsider research teams. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(2), 101–110.
34.
LüscherL. S.LewisM. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
35.
MacIntoshR.BeechN.BartunekJ.MasonK.CookeB.DenyerD. (2017). Impact and management research: Exploring relationships between temporality, dialogue, reflexivity and praxis. British Journal of Management, 28, 3–13.
36.
MoisanderJ.StenforsS. (2009). Exploring the edges of theory-practice gap: Epistemic cultures in strategy-tool development and use. Organization, 16(2), 227–247.
37.
NielsenR. P. (2018). Who do we identify with? Ontological and epistemological challenges of spanning different domains of academic-practitioner praxis. In BartunekJ. M.McKenzieJ. (Eds.), Academic-practitioner relationships: Developments, complexities and opportunities (pp. 50–64). Routledge.
38.
OrrK.BennettM. (2012). Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic-practitioner research. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 487–496.
39.
PetticrewM.RobertsH. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide(1st ed.). Blackwell.
40.
ReayT.BertaW.KohnM. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on evidence-based management?Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 5–18.
41.
ReillyG.SouderD.RanucciR. (2016). Time horizon of investments in the resource allocation process: Review and framework for next steps. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1169–1194.
42.
RhodesC.CarlsenA. (2018). The teaching of the other: Ethical vulnerability and generous reciprocity in the research process. Human Relations, 71, 1295–1318.
43.
RousseauD. M.ManningJ.DenyerD. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475–515.
44.
RousseauD. M.McCarthyS. (2007). Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 84–101.
45.
RynesS. L.ColbertA. E.O’BoyleE. H. (2018). When the “best available evidence” doesn’t win: How doubts about science and scientists threaten the future of evidence-based management. Journal of Management, 44, 2995–3010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318796934
46.
SchulzA.-C.NicolaiA. T. (2015). The intellectual link between management research and popularization media: A bibliometric analysis of the Harvard Business Review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(1), 31–49.
47.
SchunemannH. J.OxmanA. D.VistG. E.HigginsJ. P.DeeksJ. J.GlasziouP.AklE. A.GuyattG. H. (2008). Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 359–387). Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley.
48.
ShapiroD. L.KirkmanB. L.CourtneyH. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 249–266.
49.
SharmaG.BansalP. (2020). Cocreating rigorous and relevant knowledge. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 386–410.
50.
SimsekZ.BansalP.ShawJ. D.HeugensP.SmithW. K. (2018). From the editors: Seeing practice impact in new ways. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2021–2025.
51.
StephanU.PattersonM. G.KellyC.MairJ. (2016). Organizations driving positive social change: A review and an integrative framework of change processes. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1250–1281.
52.
TranfieldD.DenyerD.SmartP. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.
53.
Van de VenA. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press.
54.
Van de VenA. H.JohnsonP. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.
55.
VermeulenF. (2005). On rigor and relevance: Fostering dialectic progress in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 978–982.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
