他们能信任我们吗?管理学术界的相关性辩论和感知可信度

IF 2 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Dominika Latusek , Przemysław G. Hensel
{"title":"他们能信任我们吗?管理学术界的相关性辩论和感知可信度","authors":"Dominika Latusek ,&nbsp;Przemysław G. Hensel","doi":"10.1016/j.scaman.2021.101193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47759,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can they trust us? The relevance debate and the perceived trustworthiness of the management scholarly community\",\"authors\":\"Dominika Latusek ,&nbsp;Przemysław G. Hensel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.scaman.2021.101193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522121000555\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522121000555","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

对管理研究的相关性及其对管理实践的影响的关注已经持续了几十年。我们提出了一个新的角度来解释这种研究与实践的差距:我们关注的是信任的作用,而不是将管理论文的内容和语言作为从业者对我们大多数结果兴趣有限的原因。我们认为,由于建立信任的机构的形态和方向,管理研究经常被实践者视为无关紧要。与医生和律师等其他职业不同,我们这一领域建立信任的机构是向内而不是向外的。管理研究领域的制度安排确保学者可以信任其他学者的成果,但它们不包括学者和实践者之间的互动。因此,从业者几乎没有理由相信并达到我们的结果。我们的结论是,这个问题是可以解决的,尽管只是部分解决。这是因为,与既定职业的情况不同,我们学科的福祉并不高度依赖于从业者,从业者的福祉也不特别依赖于我们的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can they trust us? The relevance debate and the perceived trustworthiness of the management scholarly community

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Management (SJM) provides an international forum for innovative and carefully crafted research on different aspects of management. We promote dialogue and new thinking around theory and practice, based on conceptual creativity, reasoned reflexivity and contextual awareness. We have a passion for empirical inquiry. We promote constructive dialogue among researchers as well as between researchers and practitioners. We encourage new approaches to the study of management and we aim to foster new thinking around management theory and practice. We publish original empirical and theoretical material, which contributes to understanding management in private and public organizations. Full-length articles and book reviews form the core of the journal, but focused discussion-type texts (around 3.000-5.000 words), empirically or theoretically oriented, can also be considered for publication. The Scandinavian Journal of Management is open to different research approaches in terms of methodology and epistemology. We are open to different fields of management application, but narrow technical discussions relevant only to specific sub-fields will not be given priority.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信