Making Research More Policy Relevant: A Longitudinal Case Study of Engaged Scholarship

  • Margaret Fletcher
  • Stephen Young
  • Pavlos Dimitratos
Part of the The Academy of International Business book series


Following calls for more policy-relevant academic research, this paper utilises an engaged scholarship (ES) approach (associated with Van de Ven, 2007) to study an innovative evaluation and research (E&R) study of the Scottish Enterprise (SE) Global Companies Development Programme (GCDP).1 The latter was a public policy initiative to support the internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Scotland, UK. The E&R study was undertaken by academics and included a combined formal evaluation and research study; a follow-up workshop and group interviews; and policymaker reflections. The chapter demonstrates the value of a longitudinal approach to evidence-based policy analysis that engages stakeholders through continuous dialogue, and presents lessons from this evaluation and research project for implementing an effective ES methodology.


International Business Absorptive Capacity Management Research International Entrepreneurship Evaluation Team 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amabile, T.M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P.W., Marsh, M. and Kramer, S. J. (2001). ‘Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atherton, A. (2008). ‘Makingenterprise research more policy relevant? A process approach to policy research’. Plenary Session, Institute for Small Business & Entrepreneurship Conference, Belfast, 5–7 November.Google Scholar
  3. Autio, E., Sapienza, H. and Almeida, J. (2000) ‘Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth’, Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, J., McNaughton, R., Young, S. and Crick, D. (2003). ‘Towards an integrative model of small firm internationalisation’, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(4), 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1982). ‘The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 591–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouwmeester, O. (2010). Economic Advice and Rhetoric. Why Do Consultants Perform Better Than Economic Advisers? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990). ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curran, J., Berney, R. and Kuusisto, J. (1999). A Critical Evaluation of Industry SME Support Policies in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland . Stage One Report: ‘An introduction to SME support policies and their evaluation’, Helsinki: Ministry of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  9. Curran, J. and Storey, D.J. (2002). ‘Small business policy in the United Kingdom: The inheritance of the small business service and implications for its future effectiveness’, Environment and Planning C: Government Policy, 20, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donaldson, S.I. (2009). ‘A practitioner’s guide for gathering credible evidence in the evidence-based global society’. In S.I. Donaldson, C.A. Christie and M.M. Mark (eds), What Counts as Credible Evidence in Applied and Evaluation Practice? London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991). Management Research: An Introduction . London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (2002). ‘Action research for the study of organisations’. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (eds) Handbook of Organisation Studies . London and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Fincham, R. and Clark, T. (2009). ‘Introduction: Can we bridge the rigour-relevance gap?’ Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fletcher, M. and Harris, S. (2012). ‘Knowledge acquisition for the internationalization of the smaller firm: Content and sources’, International Business Review, 21(4), 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fletcher, M., Harris, S. and Richey, G. (2013). ‘Internationalization knowledge: What, why, where and when?’, Journal of International Marketing, 21(3), 47–71 (Accepted subject to minor revisions for final submission).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodgkinson, G.P. and Rousseau, D.M. (2009). ‘Bridging the rigour-relevance gap in management research: It is already happening!’ Journal of Management Studies, 46, 534–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huber, G.P. (1991). ‘Organizational learning. The contributing processes and the literatures’, Organizational Science, 2(1) 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huxham, C. (2002). ‘The new public management. An action research proposal’. In K. McLaughlin, S.P. Osborne and Ferlie, E. (eds), The New Public Management . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Jarzabkowski, P., Mohrman, S.A. and Scherer, A.G. (2010). ‘Organization studies as applied science: The generation and use of academic knowledge about organizations. Introduction to the special issue’, Organization Studies, 31(9–10), 1189–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. (2009). ‘The Uppsala internationalisation process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership’, Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, M.V., Coviello, N. and Tang, Y.K. (2011). ‘International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis’, Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karafyllia, M. (2009). ‘Perspectives on the interrelationships between domestic and international markets for the smaller firm’. In M.V. Jones, P. Dimitratos, M. Fletcher and S. Young (eds), Internationalization, Entrepreneurship and the Smaller Firm: Evidence from around the World . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 53–72.Google Scholar
  23. Kaufmann, L., and Denk, M. (2011). ‘How to demonstrate rigour when presenting grounded theory in the supply chain management literature’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(4), 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keiser, A. and Leiner, L. (2009). ‘Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable’, Journal of Management Studies, (46), 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koshy, E., Koshy, V. and Waterman, H. (2011). Action Research in Healthcare . London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). ‘A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites’, Organization Science, 1(3), 248–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewin, K. (1945). ‘The research centre for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’, Sociometry, 8, 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Miles, I.D. and Keenan, M.P. (2002). Practical Guide to Regional Foresight in the United Kingdom . Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  30. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (1994). ‘Toward a theory of international new ventures’, Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Papaconstantinou, G. and Polt, W. (1997). ‘Policy evaluation in innovation and technology: An overview’, In OECD Proceedings, Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology – Towards Best Practices. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  33. Paton, S., Chia, R. and Burt, G. (2013). ‘Relevance or “relevate”? How university business schools can add value through reflexively learning from strategic partnerships with business’. Journal of Management Studies, online publication, 21 March, 1–22.Google Scholar
  34. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Q ualitative Research and Evaluation Methods , 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Pettigrew, A.M. (1992). ‘The character and significance of strategy process research’, Strategic Management Review , 13, Special issue, Winter, 5–16.Google Scholar
  36. Pettigrew, A.P. (1997). ‘The double hurdles of management research’. In T. Clarke (ed.), Advancement in Organisational Behaviour: Essays in Honour of D.S. Pugh . London: Dartmouth Press, 277–296.Google Scholar
  37. — (2011). ‘Scholarship with impact’, British Journal of Management, 22, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pettigrew, A.P., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S. (2001). ‘Studying organizational change and development for future research’, The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Potter, J. and Storey, D. (2007). OECD Framework for the Evaluation of SME and Entrepreneurship Policies and Programmes . Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  40. Raines, P. and Brown, R. (2001). ‘From “international” to global: The Scottish Enterprise global companies strategy and new approaches to overseas expansion’, Regional Studies, 35(7), 657–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M. and Daft, D.L. (2001). ‘Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sapienza, H.J., Autio, E., George, G. and Zahra, S.A. (2006). ‘A capabilities perspective on the effects of early internationalization on firm growth and survival’, Academy of Management Review , 31, 914–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schein, E.H. (2001). ‘Clinical inquiry/research’. In P. Reason and H. Brandbury (eds), Handbook of Action Research . London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Scottish Enterprise (1999a). Global Companies Enquiry Research Findings . Glasgow: Scottish Enterprise.Google Scholar
  45. — (1999b). Global Companies – A Strategy for Scotland . Glasgow: Scottish Enterprise.Google Scholar
  46. — (2003). Global Companies Development Programme . Glasgow: Scottish Enterprise.Google Scholar
  47. Sharpe, D.R. (2004). ‘The relevance of ethnography for international business research’. In R. Marschan-Piekkari and C. Welch (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 306–323.Google Scholar
  48. Sinkovics, R.R., Penz, E. and Ghauri, P.N. (2008). ‘Enhancing trustworthiness of qualitative research in international business’, Management International Review, 48(6), 689–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smallbone, D. and Baldock, R. (2002). ‘Policy support for high growth start-ups: The recent English Experience’, Rent XVII Conference, Lodz, Poland, 20–21 November.Google Scholar
  50. Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A. and Tempest, S. (2009). ‘Management research and the new logics of discovery and engagement’, Journal of Management Studies, 46, 547–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001). ‘Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research’, British Journal of Management, 12, 358–373.Google Scholar
  52. Storey, D.J. (1994). Understanding the Small Business Sector . London: International Thompson Business Press.Google Scholar
  53. Thorpe, R., Eden, C., Bessant, J. and Ellwood, P. (2011). ‘Rigour, relevance and reward: Introducing the knowledge translation valuechain’, British Journal of Management, 22(30), 420–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van de Ven, A.H. (1992). ‘Strategies for studying strategic process: A research note’, Strategic Management Journal , 13, Special Issue, Summer, 169–188.Google Scholar
  55. — (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Williams, P. (2010). ‘Special agents: The nature and role of boundary spanners’. ESRC Research Seminar Series. Collaborative Futures: New Insights from Intra- and Inter- Sectoral Collaboration . University of Birmingham, February.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, N., Hart, M. and Kitching, J. (2008). ‘It’s the evidence, stupid: Doing and legitimising policy–funder research’, Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference Proceedings, 5–7 November, Belfast.Google Scholar
  58. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods , 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002). ‘Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension’, Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  60. Zhao, Z.J. and Anand, J. (2013). ‘Beyond boundary spanners: The “collective bridge” as an efficient interunit structure for transferring collective knowledge’, Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1513–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Margaret Fletcher, Stephen Young and Pavlos Dimitratos 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret Fletcher
  • Stephen Young
  • Pavlos Dimitratos

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations