Scholarly Conflict in Practice

  • Jean M. Bartunek
  • Sara L. Rynes
Part of the Jepson Studies in Leadership book series (JSL)

Abstract

Conflicts between scholars who are working together are not unusual. Some of these conflicts are famous (or infamous). Freud and Jung came to disagree strongly with each other (Borch-Jacobsen & Shamdasani, 2012). After developing grounded theory together, Glaser and Strauss (1967) had a falling out that led them in two conflicting directions regarding grounded theory (Locke, 1996). There have been major disagreements between scholars whose ethnicity or political views differ from each other (Special editorial: Boycott by passport, 2002; Smith & Redington, 2010). These conflicts frequently end in splits between the scholars that are not reconciled.

Keywords

Peri Hate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Amabile, T.M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Kramer, S.J., Odomirok, P.W., & Marsh, M. (2001). Academic—practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartunek, J.M., & Rynes, S.L. (2010). The construction and contribution of implications for practice: What’s in them and what might they offer? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9,100–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartunek, J.M., & Rynes, S.L. (2014a). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40, 1181–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartunek, J.M., & Rynes, S.L. (2014b). The gap between academics and practitioners is a reflection of the underlying tensions of academic belonging. Impact of Social Science blog, London School of Economics. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impac-tofsocialsciences/2014/05/23/the-paradoxes-of-academic-and-practitioner-relationships/Google Scholar
  5. Bartunek, J.M., Rynes, S.L., & Ireland, R.D. (2006). What makes management research interesting and why does it matter? Academy of Management Review, 49, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borch-Jacobsen, M., & Shamdasani, S. (2012). The Freud Files: An inquiry into the history of psychoanalysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. De Dreu, C.K., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams. International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working, pp. 151–166.Google Scholar
  8. De Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L., & Jehn, K.A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeWit, F.R.C., Jehn, K.A., & Scheepers, D. (2013). Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eberly, M.B., Holley, E.C., Johnson, M.D., & Mitchell, T.R. (2011). Beyond internal and external: A dyadic theory of relational attributions. Academy of Management Review, 36, 731–753.Google Scholar
  11. Foldy, E.G., & Buckley, T.R. (2016). Permeable borders: How understanding conflict in research teams can enhance understanding conflict in work teams. In D.T. Kong & D.R. Forsyth (Eds, Leading through conflict: Into the fray (pp. 45–64). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  13. Hinings, C.R., & Greenwood, R. (1996). Working together. In P.J. Frost & M.S. Taylor (Eds.), Rhythms of academic life: Personal accounts of careers in academia (pp. 225–238). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jarvenpaa, S.L. (2016). Leadership in global service teams: Strong subgroups without active faultiness. In D.T. Kong & D.R. Forsyth (Eds, Leading through conflict: Into the fray (pp. 131–152). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intra-group conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 262–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jehn, K.A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jehn, K.A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S.M. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Korsgaard, M.A., Jeong, S.S., Mahony, D.M., & Pitariu, A.H. (2008). A multilevel view of intragroup conflict. Journal of Management, 34, 1222–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lau, R.S., & Cobb, A.T. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 898–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(3), 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mooney, A.C., Holahan, P.J., & Amason, A.C. (2007). Don’t take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 733–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pluut, H., & Curseu, P.L. (2013). Perceptions of intragroup conflict: The effect of coping strategies on conflict transformation and escalation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 412–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review, 34, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rispens, S. (2012). The influence of conflict issue importance on the co-occurrence of task and relationship conflict in teams. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rupp, D.E., Thornton, M.A., Rogelberg, S.G., Olien, J.L., & Berka, G. (2014). The characteristics of quality scholarly submissions: Considerations of author team composition and decision making. Journal of Management, 40, 1501–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rynes, S.L., & Bartunek, J.M. (2013). Curriculum matters: Toward a more holistic graduate management education. In B.C. Holton & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Disrupt or be disrupted: A blueprint for change in management education (pp. 179–218). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Rynes, S.L., & Bartunek, J.M. (In Press). Qualitative Research: It just keeps getting more interesting! In R.D. Kramer & K.D. Elsbach (Eds.), Handbook of Innovative Qualitative Research Methods: Pathways to Cool Ideas and Interesting Papers. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shah, P.P., & Jehn, K.A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, L., & Redington, R.M. (2010). Lessons from the experiences of white antiracist activists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41, 541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Special editorial: Boycott by passport. (2002). International Journal of Psychanalysis, 83(5), 1001.Google Scholar
  33. Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H.F. (2002). Understanding conflict avoidance: relationship, motivations, actions, and consequences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2), 142–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Jean M. Bartunek and Sara L. Rynes 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean M. Bartunek
  • Sara L. Rynes

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations