This article addresses how knowing and practising unfolds in collaborative research amongst practitioners from a large consulting and business services group and academics from a UK School of Management. Dialogue enabled actors to cross between theory and practice by providing a ‘space’ for support, challenge, exchange and experimentation. However, this ‘space’ was fragile and the insensitive actions of one individual, driven by institutional pressure to exploit the project for competitive advantage, resulted in withdrawal and the re-establishment of traditional divisions. Our view is that collaborative research is not necessarily an exercise in producing, transferring and implementing research findings but is better thought of as knowledge integration through a dialogue of theory and practice. The article contributes to the ongoing debate about the relevance of management research and the theoretical development of knowledge co-production.
AntonacopoulouEP (2009) Impact and scholarship: Unlearning and practising to co-create actionable knowledge. Management Learning40(4): 421–430.
3.
AvenierMJ (2010) Shaping a constructivist view of organizational design science. Organization Studies31(9/10): 1229–1255.
4.
BartunekJM (2007) Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal50(6): 1323–1333.
5.
BeechNMacIntoshRMacLeanD (2010) Dialogues between academics and practitioners: The role of generative dialogic encounters. Organization Studies31(9/10): 1341–1367.
6.
BennisWGO’TooleJ (2005) How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review83(5): 96–105.
7.
BeyerJMTriceHM (1982) The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly27(4): 591–622.
8.
BoazAAshbyD (2003) Fit for purpose? Assessing research quality for evidence based policy and practice. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper 11, University of London. London: ESRC. Available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/interdisciplinary/evidence/publications/wp11.html (accessed 20 February 2010).
9.
BohmD (1996) On Dialogue. New York: Routledge.
10.
BridgmanT (2007) Reconstituting relevance: Exploring possibilities for management educators’ critical engagement with the public. Management Learning38(4): 425–439.
ChellE (2004) Critical incident technique. In: CassellCSymonG (eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp.45–60.
13.
DehlerGE (1998) ‘Relevance’ in management research: A critical reappraisal. Management Learning29(1): 69–89.
14.
DouglasJ (1974) Investigative Social Research. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
DunneDMartinR (2006) Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education5(4): 512–523.
16.
DuttonJDukerichJ (1991) Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal34(3): 517–554.
17.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
18.
GherardiS (2009) Practice? It’s a matter of taste!Management Learning40(5): 535–550.
19.
GlaserBGStraussAL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
20.
HambrickDC (1994) What if the academy actually mattered?Academy of Management Review19(1): 11–16.
21.
HevnerARMarchSTJinsooP. (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly28(1): 75–105.
22.
HodgkinsonGPRousseauDM (2009) Bridging the rigour-relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening!Journal of Management Studies46(3): 534–546.
23.
HodgkinsonGPHerriotPAndersonN (2001) Re-aligning the stakeholders in management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology. British Journal of Management12(Special Issue): S41–48.
24.
IsaacsW (1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life. New York: Currency-Doubleday.
25.
IsabellaLA (1990) Evolving interpretations as a change unfold: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal33(1): 7–41.
26.
JarzabkowskiPMohrmanSSchererA (2010) Organization studies as applied science: The generation and use of academic knowledge about organizations. Organization Studies31(9/10): 1189–1207.
27.
KelemenMBansalP (2002) The conventions of management research and their relevance to management practice. British Journal of Management13(2): 97–108.
28.
KiplingR (1926) Debits and Credits. London: Macmillan.
29.
LangleyA (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review24(4): 691–710.
30.
LeseureMJBauerJBirdiK. (2004) Adoption of promising practices: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews5(3/4): 169–190.
31.
LincolnYSGubaE (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
32.
LockwoodCAKeatsBWDessGG (1990) Bridging the strategy research and practice ‘Gap’: A suggested pedagogy. Journal of Management Education14(1): 82–96.
33.
MacLeanDMacIntoshRGrantS (2002) Mode 2 management research. British Journal of Management13(3): 189–208.
34.
MartinS (2010) Co-production of social research: Strategies for engaged scholarship. Public Money & Management30(4): 211–218.
35.
MeyerAD (1982) How ideologies supplant formal structures and shape responses to environment. Journal of Management Studies19(1): 45–61.
36.
MilesMBHubermanAM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage.
37.
MintzbergH (2004) Managers Not MBA’s: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Management and Management Development. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
38.
MohrLB (1982) Explaining Organizational Behaviour: The Limits and Possibilities of Theory and Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
39.
MowdayRT (1997) Reafirming our scholarly values. Academy of Management Review22(2): 335–345.
40.
NIHR Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2001) Homepage. Available at: www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ (accessed 1 February 2011).
41.
NonakaITakeuchiH (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
OliverSClarke-JonesLReesR. (2004) Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: Developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technology Assessment8(15): 1–148.
43.
PattonMQ (2002) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: Sage.
44.
PawsonR (2006) Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: Sage.
45.
PerrowC (1994) The limits of safety: The enhancements of a theory of accidents. Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management2(4): 212–220.
46.
PetticrewM (2001) Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions. British Medical Journal322(13): 98–101.
47.
PettigrewAM (1997) The Double Hurdles for Management Research. Advancement in Organizational Behaviour: Essays in Honour of Derek S. Pugh. Aldershot: Ashgate.
48.
PfefferJFongCT (2002) The end of business schools? Less success that meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education1(1): 78–95.
49.
PfefferJSuttonRI (2006) Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review84(1): 62–74.
50.
PittawayLRobertsonMMunirK. (2004) Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews5(3/4): 137–168.
51.
PlowmanDABakerLTBeckTE. (2007) Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal50(3): 515–543.
52.
PlsekPBibbyJWhitbyE (2007) Practical methods for extracting explicit design rules grounded in the experience of organizational managers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science43(1): 153–170.
53.
ReasonJ (1995) A systems-approach to organizational error. Ergonomics38(8): 1708–1721.
54.
RobertsKH (1990) Managing high reliability organizations. California Management Review32(4): 101–113.
55.
RousseauDMManningJDenyerD (2008) Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals2(1): 475–515.
56.
RynesSLBartunekJMDaftRL (2001) Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal44(2): 340–355.
57.
SackettDLRosenbergWMCGrayJAM. (1996) Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t – it’s about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence. British Medical Journal312(7023): 71–72.
58.
SaganSD (1993) The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
ShapiroDLKirkmanBLCourtneyHG (2007) Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal50(2): 249–266.
60.
ShirivastavaPMitroffIMillerD. (1988) Understanding industrial crises. Journal of Management Studies25(4): 285–303.
61.
ShotterJ (2006) Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘Withness’-thinking. Organization Studies27(4): 585–604.
62.
StarkeyKMadanP (2001) Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management12(Special issue): S3–S26.
63.
StraussACorbinJ (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
TaylorSJBogdanR (1984) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for Meanings. New York: Wiley.
65.
Time Magazine (1942) The place they do imagineering. Time Magazine, 16February, 59.
66.
TranfieldDStarkeyK (1998) The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: Towards policy. British Journal of Management9(4): 341–353.
67.
TranfieldDDenyerDSmartP (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management14(3): 207–222.
TsoukasH (2009) A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science20(6): 941–957.
70.
TurnerBAPidgeonNF (1997) Man Made Disasters. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
71.
Van AkenJRommeG (2009) Reinventing the future: Adding design science to the repertoire of organization and management studies. Organization Management Journal6(1): 2–12.
72.
Van AkenJE (2004) Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies41(2): 219–246.
73.
Van BurgERommeAGLGilsingVA. (2008) Creating university spin-offs: A science-based design perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management25(2): 114–128.
74.
Van de VenAH (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
75.
Van de VenAHJohnsonPE (2006) Knowledge for Theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review31(4): 802–821.
76.
WeickK (1988) Enacted sense making in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies25(4): 305–317.
77.
WeickKE (1979) The Psychology of Organizing. New York: Random House.
78.
WeickKE (2001) Gapping the relevance bridge: Fashions meet fundamentals in management research. British Journal of Management12(Special issue): S71–S76.
79.
WeissCH (1981) Use of social science research in organizations: The constrained repertoire theory. In: SteinH (ed.) Organization and the Human Services. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, pp.180–204.
80.
WensleyR (2007) Beyond rigour and relevance: The underlying nature of both business schools and management research. Advanced Institute of Management Research Working Paper No. 051. Available at: http://www.aimresearch.org/uploads/pdf/working_papers/051rwpaper.pdf (accessed 20 February 2012).
81.
YbemaSKeenoyTOswickC. (2009) Articulating identities. Human Relations62(3): 299–322.
82.
YinRK (1982) Studying phenomenon and context across sites. American Behavioral Scientist26(1): 84–100.
83.
YinRK (2003) Case Study Research. 3rd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
84.
ZundelMKokkalisP (2010) Theorizing as engaged practice. Organization Studies31(9/10): 1209–1227.
