Advertisement

A Critical Realist Pathway to Relevant and Ethical Research

  • Jawad Syed
  • John Mingers
Chapter

Abstract

Previous research has drawn on critical realism to highlight diverse forms and types of knowledge. Scholars have also sought to assess the practical relevance and ethical dimensions of knowledge being produced across the world. This chapter offers a critical realist perspective on relevant and ethical research within the field of management. In particular, it seeks to persuade management researchers who are concerned about the research–practice gap that by adopting a critical realist perspective towards knowledge, they may be better able to recognize and explain problems of relevance to organizations and that the adoption of critical realism brings with it an explicit ethical dimension that is currently denied by positivism, and is at most implicit in interpretivism.

Keywords

Critical realism Ethics Research–practice gap Interpretivism Knowledge Positivism Rigor and relevance 

References

  1. Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1992). Critical management studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2012). Making sense of management: A critical introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, N. (2005). Relationships between practice and research in personnel selection: Does the left hand know what the right is doing? In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, M. S., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (2013). Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  9. Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. (1992). Organization science, managers, and language games. Organization Science, 3(4), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O’Brien, J. (2012). Bridging the research–practice gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  12. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. New York: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  15. Bhaskar, R. (1993). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  16. Bhaskar, R. (1998). Philosophy and scientific realism. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. 16–47). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Bhaskar, R. (2002). From science to emancipation: Alienation and the actuality of enlightenment. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Booker, L. D., Bontis, N., & Serenko, A. (2008). The relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital research. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(4), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays toward a reflexive sociology (Matthew Adamson, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art genesis and structure of the literary field (Susan Emanuel, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Browne, R. (2010, October 10). Show and tell: Food firms get kids to do the talking. The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/show-and-tell-food-firms-get-kids-to-do-the-talking-20101009-16d1q.html
  22. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Buckley, M. R., Ferris, G. R., Bernardin, H. J., & Harvey, M. G. (1998, March–April, 31–38). The disconnect between the science and practice of management. Business Horizons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Burawoy, M. (2004). Public sociologies: Contradictions, dilemma and possibilities. Social Forces, 82, 1603–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Burawoy, M. (2005). Public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70, 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clarke, R. (2003, January 16–20). Invitation to research. Research presentation at the Australian National University. Xamax Consultancy.Google Scholar
  27. Cornelissen, J. P., & Lock, A. R. (2002). Advertising research and its influence upon managerial practice. Journal of Advertising Research, 42, 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cornelissen, J. P., & Lock, A. R. (2005). The uses of marketing theory: Constructs, research propositions, and managerial implications. Marketing Theory, 5(2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cross, R., Kaše, R., Kilduff, M., & King, Z. (2013). Bridging the gap between research and practice in organizational network analysis: A conversation between Rob Cross and Martin Kilduff. Human Resource Management, 52(4), 627–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Davis, C. (2011). Structure – Part 4, Depth Ontology. Object Petit A. Available at: http://crestondavis.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/structure-part-4-depth-ontology
  31. Denzin, N. K., & Giardina, M. D. (Eds.). (2016). Ethical futures in qualitative research: Decolonizing the politics of knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Dobson, P. J. (2002). Critical realism and information systems research: Why bother with philosophy. Information Research, 7(2). Available at: http://www.informationr.net/ir/7-2/paper124.html
  33. Fischer, M. T. (2002, December 2002). The self-description of a management consultant. Paper for LOK Research Conference. Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
  34. Fleetwood, S., & Hesketh, A. (2006). HRM-performance research: Under-theorized and lacking explanatory power. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(12), 1977–1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fletcher, M., Young, S., & Dimitratos, P. (2016). Making research more policy relevant: A longitudinal case study of engaged scholarship. In Impact of international business (pp. 201–219). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. George, G., Haas, M. R., & Pentland, A. (2014). Big data and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ghobadian, A. (2010, May 28). Growing gulf between managers and research. Financial Times. Available at: http://discussions.ft.com/bused/forums/soapboxforum/growing-gulf-between-managers-and-research
  38. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gruber, W. H., & Niles, J. S. (1975). The science-technology-utilization relationship in management. Management Science, 21, 956–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour–relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starkey, K. (2011). Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again: Reframing relevance. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jefferies, B. (2011). Critical realism – An empirical realist critique. Manchester Metropolitan University Business School Working Paper 11-03. Available at: http://www.ribm.mmu.ac.uk/wps/papers/11-03.pdf
  43. Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kolakowski, L. (1968). The alienation of reason: A history of positivist thought. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  46. Lapsley, I., & Oldfield, R. (2001). Transforming the public sector: Management consultants as agents of change. European Accounting Review, 10(3), 523–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.). (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lion, H., Donovan, J., & Bedggood, R. E. (2013). Environmental impact assessments from a business perspective: Extending knowledge and guiding business practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 789–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lipscomb, M. (2008). Mixed method nursing studies: A critical realist critique. Nursing Philosophy, 9(1), 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maton, K. (2001, May). The real and critical need of educational research for critical realism. The Journal of Critical Realism, 4(1), 56–59.Google Scholar
  51. McEvoy, P., & Richards, D. (2003). Critical realism: A way forward for evaluation research in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(4), 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mingers, J. (2003). The paucity of multimethod research: A survey of the IS literature. Information Systems Journal, 13, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mingers, J. (2004a). Re-establishing the real: Critical realism and information systems. In J. Mingers & L. P. Willcocks (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 372–406). Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  54. Mingers, J. (2004b). Can social systems be Autopoietic? Bhaskar’s and Giddens’ social theories. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34(4), 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mingers, J. (2004c). Paradigm wars: Ceasefire announced, who will set up the new administration? Journal of Information Technology, 19, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mingers, J. (2008). Management knowledge and knowledge management: Realism and forms of truth. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(1), 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mingers, J. (2009). Discourse ethics and critical realist ethics: An evaluation in the context of business. Journal of Critical Realism, 8(2), 172–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mingers, J., & Gill, A. (Eds.). (1997). Multimethodology: Theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  59. Moisander, J., & Stenfors, S. (2009). Exploring the edges of theory-practice gap: Epistemic cultures in strategy-tool development and use. Organization, 16(2), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mutch, A. (2010). Technology, organization and structure – A morphogenetic approach. Organization Science, 21(2), 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Özbilgin, M. F. (2009). From journal rankings to making sense of the world. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peirce, C. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286–302.Google Scholar
  64. Pettigrew, A. M. (2001). Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management, 12, S61–S70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pettigrew, A. (2011). Scholarship with Impact. British Journal of Management, 22, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business School ‘business’: Some lessons from the US experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1501–1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reed, M. (2009). The theory/practice gap: A problem for research in business schools? Journal of Management Development, 28(8), 685–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2005). Building theory from practice. Strategic Organization, 3, 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schweitzer, M. E., Ordóñez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 422–432.Google Scholar
  70. Scott, D. (2000). Realism and educational research: New perspectives and possibilities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or culture matters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, M. L. (2006). Overcoming research–practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research. Information and Organization, 16(3), 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Spicer, A., Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2009). Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies. Human Relations, 62(4), 537–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12, s3–s26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2009). From crisis to purpose. Journal of Management Development, 28(8), 700–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Starkey, K., & Tiratsoo, N. (2007). The business school and the bottom line. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Syed, J., Mingers, J., & Murray, P. (2010). Beyond rigour and relevance: A critical realist approach to business education. Management Learning, 41(1), 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Tenhiälä, A., Giluk, T. L., Kepes, S., Simón, C., Oh, I. S., & Kim, S. (2016). The research–practice gap in human resource management: A cross-cultural study. Human Resource Management, 55(2), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Thomas, H., & Cornuel, E. (2011). Business school futures: Evaluation and perspectives. Journal of Management Development, 30(5), 444–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Thomas, H., & Cornuel, E. (2012). Business schools in transition? Issues of impact, legitimacy, capabilities and re-Invention. Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tourish, D. (2013). ‘Evidence based management’, or ‘evidence oriented organizing’? A critical realist perspective. Organization, 20(20), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide to organizational and social research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Volkoff, O., Strong, D., & Elmes, M. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science, 18(5), 832–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vranceanu, R. (2003). Manager unethical behavior during the new economy bubble. Essec Research Center, DR-03026 Dec 03.Google Scholar
  87. Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (2007). Whither the MBA? Or the withering of MBAs? Management Learning, 38(4), 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wensley, R. (2007). Beyond rigour and relevance: The underlying nature of both business schools and management research. AIM Research Working Paper Series: 051-January-2007.Google Scholar
  89. Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A. M., & Thomas, H. (2001). Conclusion: Doing more in strategy research. In A. M. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 447–490). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  90. Wilson, D., & Thomas, H. (2012). The legitimacy of the business of business schools: What’s the future. Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wry, T. (2009). Does business and society scholarship matter to society? Pursuing a normative agenda with critical realism and neoinstitutional theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jawad Syed
    • 1
  • John Mingers
    • 2
  1. 1.Suleman Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management SciencesLahorePakistan
  2. 2.Kent Business School, University of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations