The Impactful Academic: Relational Management Education as an Intervention for Impact
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12202 |
| Author | Charlotte Coleman,Lisa Anderson,Paul Ellwood |
| Date | 01 January 2017 |
| Published date | 01 January 2017 |
British Journal of Management, Vol. 28, 14–28 (2017)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12202
The Impactful Academic: Relational
Management Education as an Intervention
for Impact
Lisa Anderson, Paul Ellwood and Charlotte Coleman1
University of Liverpool Management School, Chatham Street,Liverpool L69 7ZH, UK, and 1Pluralthinking,
Henry Wood House, 2 Riding House Street,Fitzrovia, London W1W 7FA, UK
Corresponding author email: l.anderson@liverpool.ac.uk
We widen the scope of the impact debate by extending Boyer’s theorization of scholar-
ship through Denyer, Tranfield and van Aken’s CIMO framework to propose relational
management education as an intervention that creates the generative mechanism of co-
production and subsequent impact. In so doing, we propose a new conceptualization of
academic impact that occurs through teaching and is situated within a community of in-
quirers. We oer a critique of current thinking, dominated by the idea that the research
paper is the most appropriate unit of analysis by which to measure the excellence and
impact of research. We examine the notion of the gap between academics and practi-
tioners and argue that the impact agenda should be widened to include a consideration
of how management academics can become impactful through their teaching of practi-
tioners, broadly defined to include the whole range of learners associated with business
schools. We propose that for management research to have the potential to change these
practitioners, an engagement with knowledge is needed, and that this involves morethan
translation but the creation of new ideas. Such impact can be brought about by a disrup-
tion of, and challenge to, thinking engendered by an approach to management education
that we term relational.
Introduction
In this paper we oer a new characterization
of the way in which business school researchers
can deliver impact upon the practices of organi-
zations and managers. In doing so, we critique
current thinking and practice that positions the re-
search paper as the most appropriate and impor-
tant unit of analysis to measure the excellence of
research and its impact (Aguinis et al., 2014). We
make a case for broadeninghow research impact is
understood and assessed. This new understanding
incorporates approaches to management educa-
tion that engage practitioners and lead to changes
in management practice. It builds on the work of
Antonacopoulou (2008, 2010) who warned of the
dangers of neglecting the centrality of our teaching
and learning practices as an integral aspect of the
impact our scholarship delivers. We first consider
the relevance debateand the apparent gulf between
management researchers and the dominance of the
highly starred and highly cited journal paperas the
unit of analysis of academic performance. From
there, we problematize research impact and chal-
lenge the notion of a ‘gap’ between researchers and
practitioners, and propose that the double hurdle
(Pettigrew, 1997) cannot be negotiated by a single
piece of writing. Increased impact may be derived
through our teaching of managers and we reflect
on the original intentions of UK business schools
and how they set out to educate practitioners.
Drawing on these ideas, we position all students
as current or potential practitioners and explain
the rationale behind this, building on a broad no-
tion of scholarship, set out by Boyer(1990). We use
Denyer, Tranfield and van Aken’s (2008) CIMO
logic and, in particular, the idea of generative
mechanisms as integral elements for producing
© 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial