Rigour, Relevance and Reward: Introducing the Knowledge Translation Value‐chain
| Author | Colin Eden,John Bessant,Richard Thorpe,Paul Ellwood |
| Date | 01 September 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00760.x |
| Published date | 01 September 2011 |
Rigour, Relevance and Reward:
Introducing the Knowledge Translation
Value-chain
Richard Thorpe, Colin Eden
1
, John Bessant
2
and Paul Ellwood
Leeds University Business School, Maurice Keyworth Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK,
1
Strathclyde Business School, 199 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G4 0QU, UK, and
2
University of Exeter Business
School, Streatham Court, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4ST, UK
Corresponding author email: r.thorpe@lubs.leeds.ac.uk
This paper recognizes the substantive contributions made within the British Journal of
Management to conducting research relevant to management at the level of individual
studies. We aim to reorient the debate to take account of a researcher’s contribution to
practice over time and, by so doing, to indicate the range of ways knowledge can be
translated and (through engagement with users and policymakers) modified, embedded
and otherwise found useful. To achieve this, we conceptualize management scholarship
as a knowledge translation value-chain. We propose that, to maximize relevance,
knowledge must be reconfigured in multiple contexts, of which management research
provides but one. The paper concludes with observations on the additional skills that
researchers might need to make use of opportunities for engagement right across the
knowledge translation value-chain.
Introduction
This paper is motivated by the view that the
debate on rigour versus relevance has run for far
too long. It is a debate that is conducted by
academics writing in academic journals, rather
than taking action to make their work more
relevant. A recent review (Nicolai and Seidl,
2010) identified a total of 133 papers dedicated to
the topic. There is an irony here that the
Academy’s default reaction to an accusation of
lack of relevance is to engage in yet another
academic debate.
This paper seeks to encourage the kinds of
discussions that the presidents of the Academy of
Management wish to engender at the end of their
distinguished careers (Hambrick, 1994). We
believe that the time is ripe for change, as young
researchers embarking on their careers are faced
with new challenges and calls for their contribu-
tions to be more relevant and to have a more
direct impact on practitioners. This paper
appears in a heated policy climate that demands
greater research impact and more value-added
teaching. What then are the skills and perspec-
tives that researchers in the management and
business field need in order to make an impact on
practice, as well as a theoretical impact addressed
solely to academic colleagues? What changes are
necessary in the professional activities of business
and management academics for this debate not to
merit space in future special editions of the
British Journal of Management, because rigour
and relevance have all become the norm?
Rather than advocating a particular approach
to relevance,
1
this paper adopts a more long-
1
Although we address the word relevance here we
recognize that over many years now there have been a
number of ways in which the debate has been cast which
include knowledge transfer, business engagement, im-
pact and more recently benefits.
British Journal of Management, Vol. 22, 420–431 (2011)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00760.x
r2011 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management r2011 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
To continue reading
Request your trial