Can they trust us? The relevance debate and the perceived trustworthiness of the management scholarly community

Abstract

Concerns about the relevance of management research and its impact on management practice have been ongoing for decades. We propose a novel angle to explain this research vs practice gap: instead of focusing on the content and language of management papers as reasons for practitioners’ limited interest in the majority of our results, we focus on the role of trust. We propose that management research is often seen as irrelevant by practitioners because of the shape and direction of trustworthiness-building institutions. Unlike in other professions, such as medical doctors and lawyers, the trustworthiness-building institutions in our field are directed inwards rather than outwards. Institutional arrangements governing the area of management research ensure that scholars can trust results delivered by other scholars, but they do not cover the interaction between scholars and practitioners. Thus, practitioners have few reasons to trust and reach for our results. We conclude that the issue can be addressed, albeit only partially. This is because, unlike in the case of established professions, the well-being of our discipline is not highly dependent on practitioners, neither is practitioners’ well-being particularly dependent on our research.