en pl
en pl

Central European Management Journal

Zobacz wydanie
Rok 2015 
Tom 23 
Numer 3

Debate Over Rigor and Relevance in Scientific Study of Management

Jonathan Sidor
Kozminski University

2015 23 (3) Central European Management Journal

DOI 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.149


Purpose: This article provides a general review of the debate over rigor and relevance in academia,
specifically in the scientific field of management. It seeks to contribute to the body of literature
while emphasizing instances where the gap between rigor and relevance has been bridged, along
with the role of business schools.

Approach: This takes the approach of underscoring the most important works in the present literature
regarding rigor and relevance, and then focusing on three points of emphasis: 1) role of
business schools in the debate; 2) main points of contention; and 3) strongest examples of success
in this field.

Findings: The most important findings in this work indicate that the debate surrounding relevance
and rigor still persists and may also be reaching a breaking point where the two sides of the debate
cannot reconcile. Various proposed solutions to the debate are available but meaningful action has
yet to be taken.

Implications: The practical applications of this work are manifold. Scholars would have a clearer
understanding of the environments in which their works are operating and practitioners would
find academic works in management more accessible.

Value: This work provides a description of both the points of contention in the rigor vs. relevance
debate and the points of successful unification of the two.


  1. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Decisions. London: Harper Collins. [Google Scholar]
  2. Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (1999). Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance, MIS Quarterly, 23(1): 3–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249403 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bessant, J. and Tidd, J. (2011). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Lawrenceville: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, T. and Fincham, R. (2009). Introduction: Can We Bridge the Rigour-Relevance Gap? Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): 510–515. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dearborn, D.C. and Simon, H.A. (1958). Selective perception: a note on the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21: 140–144, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2785898 [Google Scholar]
  7. Denyer, D., Tranfield, D. and Van Aken, J.E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29: 393–413. [Google Scholar]
  8. Empson, L. (2013). My Affair With the “Other”: Identity Journeys Across the Research-Practice Divide. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(2): 229–248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492612 446068 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gordon, R.A. (1976). Rigor and Relevance in a Changing Institutional Setting. The American Economic Review, 66(1): 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gulati, R. (2007). Tent Poles, Tribalism, and Boundary Spanning: The Rigor-Relevance Debate in Management Research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): 775–782, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279170 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hodgkinson, G.P. and Rousseau, D.M. (2009). Bridging the Rigour-Relevance Gap in Management Research: It’s Already Happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): 534–546, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00832 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kieser, A. and Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): 516–533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831 [Google Scholar]
  13. Latusek, D. and Vlaar, P. (2014). Exploring managerial talk through metaphor: An opportunity to bridge rigour and relevance? Management Learning, 46(2): 211–232, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350507614529512 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lewin, K. (1951). Problems in Research in Social Psychology. In: D. Cartwright (ed.), Field Theory inSocial Science. New York: Harper and Row. [Google Scholar]
  15. Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L. and Gentner, D. (2003). Analogical learning in negotiation teams: comparing cases promotes learning and transfer. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(2): 119–127, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2003.9901663 [Google Scholar]
  16. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Markides, C. (2011). Crossing the Chasm: How to Convert Relevant Research Into Managerially Useful Research, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1): 121–134, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886310388162 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mintzberg, H. (1977). Policy as a Field of Management Theory. Academy of Management, 2(1): 88–103. [Google Scholar]
  19. Neil, A., Herriot, P., and Hodgkinson, G.P. (2001) The Practitioner-Researcher Divide in Industry. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4): 391–423. [Google Scholar]
  20. Palmer, D., Dick, B., and Freiburger, N. (2009). Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4): 265–272, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492609343491 [Google Scholar]
  21. Peters, K. (2008). The Other Two R’s: Rigour and Relevance, Management Today, 71. [Google Scholar]
  22. Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2006). Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Polzer, J., Gulati, R., Khurana, R, and Tushman, M. (2009). Crossing Boundaries to Increase Relevance in Organizational Research, Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4): 280–286, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1056492609345429 [Google Scholar]
  24. Porter, L.W. and McKibbin, L.E. (1988). Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st Century? New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  25. Romme, A.G.L. (2003). Making a difference: organization as design. Organization Science, 14(5): 558–573, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.558.16769 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R. (1996). Information Technology and Innovation: Strategies for Success, Morristown: Financial Executives Research Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  27. Simon, H.A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12(3). [Google Scholar]
  29. Thomas, K.W. and Tymon, W.G. (1982) Necessary Properties of Relevant Research: Lessons from Recent Criticisms of the Organizational Sciences, Academy of Management, 7(3), 345–352, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5465/AMR.1982.4285308 [Google Scholar]
  30. Van De Ven, A.H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. White, S. (2002). Rigor and Relevance in Asian Management Research: Where Are We and Where Can We Go? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2/3): 287–352, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016295803623 [Google Scholar]

Kompletne metadane

Cytowanie zasobu

APA style

Sidor, Jonathan (2015). Sidor, J. . (2015). Debate Over Rigor and Relevance in Scientific Study of Management. Central European Management Journal, 23(3), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.149 (Original work published 2015)

MLA style

Sidor, Jonathan. Sidor, J. . „Debate Over Rigor And Relevance In Scientific Study Of Management”. 2015. Central European Management Journal, t. 23, nr 3, 2015, ss. 32-46.

Chicago style

Sidor, Jonathan. Sidor, Jonathan . „Debate Over Rigor And Relevance In Scientific Study Of Management”. Central European Management Journal, Central European Management Journal, 23, nr 3 (2015): 32-46. doi:10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.149.