Expanding the Notion of Dialogic Trading Zones for Impactful Research: The Case of Women on Boards Research
| Date | 01 January 2017 |
| Author | Deirdre Anderson,Siri Terjesen,Ruth Sealy,Elena Doldor,Susan Vinnicombe,Doyin Atewologun |
| Published date | 01 January 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12203 |
British Journal of Management, Vol. 28, 64–83 (2017)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12203
Expanding the Notion of Dialogic Trading
Zones for Impactful Research: The Case of
Women on Boards Research
Ruth Sealy, Elena Doldor,1Susan Vinnicombe,2Siri Terjesen,3
Deirdre Anderson2and Doyin Atewologun1
University of Exeter Business School, Streatham Court, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK, 1School of
Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK,
2Cranfield School of Management, MK43 0AL, UK, and 3Kogod School of Business, American University,
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 20016 USA and NorwegianSchool of Economics, Helleveien 30,
Bergen, Norway 5045
Corresponding author email: R.Sealy@exeter.ac.uk
Debates about research impact highlight the importance of involving practitioners in re-
search processes but are unclear as to how precisely to foster this dialogue. This paper
considers how dialogic encounter can be encouraged through ‘trading zones’ where aca-
demics and practitioners collaborate. We drawon our experience of conducting research
on women on boards for over 15 years to examine (a) how we established and evolved
our role within trading zones in this field, achieving impact on policy and business prac-
tice, and (b) how we interfaced between trading zones and the academic field, thereby
enabling cross-fertilization of ideas between academics and practitioners. Wecontribute
to literatureon research impact by empirically examining and critically evaluating the key
characteristics of trading zones. First, trading zones are theorized to be action-oriented.
Our analysis reveals how multiple stakeholders collectively redefine the action goals, il-
lustrating the need to expand our understanding of relevant ‘practitioners’ beyond man-
agers. Second, we find that durability of trading zones is crucial because it enables gesta-
tion of ideas and reframing problems. Third,we problematize the notion of psychological
safety in trading zones, arguing that dialogic capability and the pursuit of impact require
acceptance of trade-os and political manoeuvrings.
Introduction
The impact of academic research on practice
(Rynes, Bartunek and Daft, 2001; Tranfield and
Starkey, 1998) and the role of business schools
in society (Burchell, Kennedy and Murray, 2015;
Chia, 2014; Thorpe and Rawlinson, 2014) is a
long-standing debate, characterized by frequent
criticisms of a disconnect between researchers
and practitioners (Clegg, Jarvis and Pitsis, 2013)
The authors would liketo thank three anonymous review-
ers and Editor Nic Beech for their extremely helpful and
developmental comments.
and invalid ontological assumptions ‘that aca-
demic theory provides a precedent forpractical ac-
tion’ (Jarzabkowski, Mohrman and Scherer, 2010,
p. 1190). While management scholars increasingly
recognize the importance of involving practition-
ers in research processes, how best to foster this
dialogue remains unclear. The notion of ‘trading
zones’ – spaces where knowledge from disparate
communities can be shared and integrated −is
one recent conceptualization of how communities
with dierent logics can collaborate(Romme et al.,
2015). This paper theorizes about the processes
that enable research impact beyond academia,
drawing on our research team’s experience of
© 2017 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4
2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
Dialogic Trading Zones: Women on Boards Research 65
conducting women on boards (WoB) research for
over 15 years, and engaging with multiple non-
academic stakeholders.
Building on the concept of ‘dialogic trading
zones’ (Romme et al., 2015) to conceptualize
the process of impactful research, we make three
contributions to academic debates about research
impact. First, we confirm that trading zones are
action-oriented encounters where the relationship
between knowledge and practice is not unidi-
rectional (Scherer and Steinmann, 1999); rather,
knowledge is co-constructed through evolving
engagement with non-academic stakeholders. In
our case, this involved redefining problems and
solutions in the UK WoB field. However, while
Romme et al. (2015) imply that managers are the
‘practitioners’ who should co-constitute trading
zones with academics, our experience reveals
that impact was not generated through direct en-
gagement with a single target audience but rather
through long-term coalitions with multiple change
champions in the field (government, policymakers,
corporations, media, diversity experts and women
themselves). Therefore, we demonstrate the need
to expand the definition of relevant ‘practitioners’
in trading zones to extend far beyond managers.
Second, we argue that trading zones’ durability
is crucial to enable idea gestation and problem
reframing. In our case, we both directly engaged
non-academic stakeholders in trading zones and
interfaced with the scholarly field of WoB to
allow cross-fertilization of ideas. Finally, while
Romme et al. (2015) argue that psychological
safety is a necessary feature of trading zones,
we problematize this assumption (Alvesson and
Sandberg, 2011) and question to what extent this
is achievablewhen interactions with non-academic
stakeholders require navigating sensitive political
dynamics and trade-os.
The paper is organized into four sections. First
we consider current scholarly debates about im-
pact and introduce the notion of ‘dialogic trading
zones’ (Romme et al., 2015). The subsequent two
sections outline our research team’s experience of
engaged scholarship (Van de Ven and Johnson,
2006), examining how our collaboration with
practitioners evolved, and how we enabled cross-
fertilization of ideas by reframing issues from
micro- to macro-level and by publishing issue-
driven research in academic outlets. We then
discuss how our analysis evidenced, critically
analysed and extended the concept of dialogic
trading zones, adding to the conceptualization of
impactful research.
‘Trading zones’ for dialogic encounters
between academics and practitioners
For the past 15 years, business schools and
scholars have attempted to ‘bridge the relevance
gap’ (Hodgkinson, Herriot and Anderson, 2001;
Pettigrew, 1997) by positioning themselves much
closer to practice than traditional universities
(Gingham and Clare, 2009; Hodgkinson and
Starkey, 2011). However, management academics
are frequently criticized for producing knowledge
designed for peers and highly ranked journals
rather than outputs that are accessible to non-
specialists (Aguinis et al., 2014; Cohen, 2007;
Starkey and Madan, 2001), thereby relegating
practitioners’ concerns secondary and ‘institu-
tionalising their own irrelevance’ (Bennis and
O’Toole, 2005, p. 100). Many scholars call for a
redesign of knowledge production and dissemi-
nation (Hodgkinson and Starkey, 2011) to enable
closer collaboration between researchers and
practitioners (Avenier and Parmentier Cajaiba,
2012; Hodgkinson and Starkey, 2012), particu-
larly during the enquiry process (Radaelli et al.,
2014). MacIntosh et al. (2012) propose a dia-
logic approach, moving away from the simplistic
idea of knowledge production (by academics)
and consumption (by practitioners). Early stage
collaboration and openness helps theoretical and
practical forms of knowledge come together in
collaborativeresearch (Marcos and Denyer, 2012),
although it requires academics to drawon conflict-
ing logics about the knowledgeproduction process
(Swan et al., 2012). Knowledge co-production is
a two-way process that starts with joint problem
definition, enabling academics to understand
the value of practitioners’ procedural knowledge
(Marcos and Denyer, 2012; Rousseau, 2012).
Romme et al. (2015, p. 544) argue that, despite
the normative rhetoric of what should be, the
‘fragmented landscape of management (practice
and scholarship)’ prevents multiple actors, with
their conflicting priorities, from meaningful inter-
action. So, often, there is neither a shared sense
of purpose (Rolin, 2010) nor an awareness of
being part of a collective ‘regime of responsibility’
(Goodstein and Wicks, 2007). The dividesbetween
© 2017 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial