Many organization studies (OS) scholars are motivated by the desire to generate theory and research that is relevant to practicing managers. But concerns about the irrelevance of OS theory and research surfaced early in the field's development and have intensified recently. Many believe that a growing preoccupation with theoretical and methodological rigor underpin the increasing generation of theory and research that is irrelevant to managers. But there is little empirical research on: 1) historical trends in theoretical and methodological rigor, 2) historical trends in relevance, and 3) the relationship between the two. This is partly because the measurement of theoretical and methodological rigor, as well as of relevance, is fraught with conceptual problems. This article describes a study that attempts to address these gaps in our knowledge, partly by tackling the conceptual problems responsible for them. We then present preliminary findings from that study. We conclude by pondering the value of research aimed at assessing the level and determinants of the relevance of OS scholarship.
Augier, M., March, J.G., & Sullivan, B.N. (2005). Notes on the evolution of a research community: Organization studies in Anglophone North America, 1945-2000. Organization Science, 16, 85-95.
2.
Bartunek, J. ( 2003). Presidential address: A dream for the academy. Academy of Management Review, 28, 198-203.
3.
Bennis, W.G., & O’Toole, J. (2005, May). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 1-9.
4.
Daft, R.L. ( 1980). The evolution of organization analysis in ASQ, 1959-1979 . Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 623-636.
5.
Daft, R.L., & Lewin, A.Y. ( 1990). Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straightjacket? An editorial essay. Organization Science , 1, 1-9.
6.
Daft, R.L., & Lewin, A.Y. ( 2008). Perspective-Rigor and relevance in organization studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolution. Organization Science, 19, 177-183.
7.
Donaldson, L. ( 1995). American anti-management theories of organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Eisenhardt, K.M. ( 1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
9.
Gulati, R. ( 2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal , 50, 775-782.
10.
Hambrick, D. ( 1994). Presidential address: What if the academy actually mattered . Academy of Management Review, 19, 11-16.
11.
Hambrick, D. ( 2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346-1352.
12.
Hickson, D.J., Agersnap, F., Ferraresi, F., Hofstede, G., Kieser, A., Lammers, C., et al. (1980). Editorial. Organization Studies, 1, 1-2.
13.
Hinings, C.R., & Greenwood, R. ( 2002). Disconnects and consequences in organization theory? Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 411-421.
14.
Khurana, R. ( 2007). From higher aims to hired hands. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15.
Litchfield, E.H. ( 1956). Notes on a general theory of administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 3-29.
16.
Locke, K. ( 2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage.
17.
Luthans, F. ( 1986, August). Fifty years later: What do we really know about managers and managing?Presidential speech at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management Meeting.
18.
Merton, R.K. ( 1959). Notes on problem-finding in sociology. In R. K. Merton, L. Broom, & L. S. Cottrell, Jr. (Eds.), Sociology today (pp. ix-xxxiv). New York: Basic Books.
19.
Pfeffer, J. ( 1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620.
20.
Pfeffer, J. ( 1995). Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory. Organization Science, 6, 681-686.
21.
Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M., & Daft, R.L. ( 2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 340-355.
22.
Rynes, S.L., Gulik, T.L., & Brown, K.G. ( 2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 987-1008.
Shapiro, D.L., Kirkman, R.L. & Courtney, H.G. ( 2007). From the editors: Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 249-266.
25.
Slocum, J.W. ( 1984, August). Management from Mars. Presidential address. Academy of Management Meeting.
Thompson, J.D. ( 1956). On building an administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 102-111.
28.
Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur’s quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 769-774.
29.
Van de Ven, A.H., & Johnson, P.E. ( 2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31, 802-821.
30.
Van Maanen, J. ( 1995a). Style as theory. Organization Science , 6, 133-143.
31.
Van Maanen, J. ( 1995b). Fear and loathing in organizational studies. Organization Science, 6, 687-692.
32.
Vermeulen, F. ( 2007). I shall not remain insignificant: Adding a second loop to matter more. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 754-761.
