Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
Czasopismo
2023 | nr 3 | 22-31
Tytuł artykułu

Włączenie menedżerów i innych praktyków w badania naukowe (za i przeciw)

Warianty tytułu
Inclusion of managers and other practitioners in scientific research (pros and cons)
Języki publikacji
PL
Abstrakty
Celem artykułu jest rozpoznanie pozytywnych i negatywnych konsekwencji włączenia menedżerów i innych praktyków w badania nauk o zarządzaniu i jakości. W artykule zaprezentowano wyniki badań jakościowych w formie wywiadów swobodnych częściowo ukierunkowanych przeprowadzonych z 40 pracownikami naukowymi. Pokazują one, że wśród pozytywnych konsekwencji włączenia menedżerów i innych praktyków w badania można wymienić: możliwość uzyskania potwierdzenia ustaleń badacza, szerszego spojrzenia na problem badawczy, pozyskiwania pomysłów na realizację badań naukowych, formułowania pytań badawczych, zwiększenia przystępności języka naukowego dla osób spoza akademii oraz utylitarności i aplikacyjności badań. Zalety to także: tworzenie lepszych narzędzi badawczych, uzyskanie dostępu do zasobów, gromadzenie danych badawczych, zaangażowanie w interpretację, a następnie pisanie raportów z badań oraz komercjalizacja wyników badań. Natomiast negatywne konsekwencje odnoszą się do: postrzeganego braku korzyści z tytułu włączenia innych badaczy i/lub członków społeczeństwa w realizację procesu badawczego, braku możliwości zaangażowania menedżerów i innych praktyków we wszystkie problemy naukowe, postrzeganych nacisków ze strony interesariuszy na ostateczną postać wyników, trudności ze zrozumieniem specyfiki badań przez menedżerów i innych praktyków, koszto- i czasochłonności, subiektywizmu badacza, potencjalnego zagrożenia naruszeniem rygoru metodologicznego oraz praw własności intelektualnej(abstrakt oryginalny)
EN
The aim of the article is to identify positive and negative consequences of inclusion of managers and other practitioners in scientific research in management and quality science. The article presents the results of qualitative research in the form of semi-structured interviews conducted with forty scientists. The results show that positive consequences of inclusion of managers and other practitioners in scientific research include the possibility of confirming the researcher's findings, obtaining a broader view of the research problem, being provided with ideas for conducting scientific research, formulating research questions, making scientific language more accessible for people outside academia, the utilitarian and practical application of research, better creating research tools, accessing resources, collecting research data, involvement in interpretation and, subsequently, writing research reports, and commercializing research results. On the other hand, the negative consequences are the perceived lack of benefits from including managers and other practitioners in scientific research in the research process, the lack of opportunity to involve society in all scientific problems, organizational reluctance due to lack of benefits, pressure from organizations concerning the final form of results, difficulty in understanding the specifics of research by managers and other practitioners in scientific research, cost and time consumption, researcher subjectivity, and the risk of violating methodological rigor and intellectual property rights(original abstract)
Czasopismo
Rocznik
Numer
Strony
22-31
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
  • Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Polska
Bibliografia
  • Adler, N. , Beer, M. (2013). Collaborative R&D in management: The practical experience of FENIX and TruePoint in bridging the divide between scientific and managerial goals. W: B. Shani, N. Adler, N. Mohrman, W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne (red.), Handbook of collaborative management research (s. 545-566). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976671.n26
  • Baron, N. (2010). Escape from the ivory tower: A guide to making your science matter. Island Press.
  • Bartunek, J. M. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. "Academy of Management Journal", 50(6), 1323-1333. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28165912
  • Bennis, W. G. i O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. "Harvard Business Review", 83(5), 96-104, 154.
  • Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. "Human Resource Management", 47(3), 423-441. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20225
  • Brammer, S., Branicki, L., Linnenluecke, M., Smith, T. (2019). Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement. "Australian Journal of Management", 44(4), 517-533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871337
  • Brannick, T., Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being 'native': The case for insider academic research. "Organizational Research Methods", 10(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289253
  • Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. "Qualitative Research in Psychology", 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  • Burgoyne, J. G., Reynolds, P. M. (1997). Management learning: Integrating perspectives in theory and practice. Sage.
  • Cross, S. N. N., Gustafsson, A., Pechmann, C. (connie), Winterich, K. P. (2022). Responsible research in business and management (RRBM) and the journal of public policy & marketing: Connected through impact. "Journal of Public Policy & Marketing", 41(1), 51-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156211056538
  • de Villiers, C., Farooq, M. B., Molinari, M. (2022). Qualitative research interviews using online video technology - challenges and opportunities. "Meditari Accountancy Research", 30(6), 1764-1782. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-03-2021-1252
  • DeVasto, D. (2016). Being expert: L'Aquila and issues of inclusion in science-policy decision making." Social Epistemology", 30(4), 372-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2015.1065928
  • Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Augustine, D. J., Porensky, L. M., Wilmer, H., Derner, J. D., Briske, D. D., Stewart, M. O. (2019). Complexity fosters learning in collaborative adaptive management. "Ecology and Society", 24(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10963-240229
  • Foxx, A. J., Franco Meléndez, K. P., Hariharan, J., Kozik, A. J., Wattenburger, C. J., Godoy-Vitorino, F., Rivers, A. R. (2021). Advancing equity and inclusion in microbiome research and training. "MSystems", 6(5), e0115121. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.01151-21
  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. , Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology." Organizational Research Methods", 16(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
  • Hayes, R. H. i Abernathy, W. J. (1980). Managing our way to economic decline. "Harvard Business Review", 58(4), 67-77.
  • Johnson, L., Eccleston, R. (2023). Interrogating inclusive growth: Implications for conceptualisation, measurement and policy practice. Australian Economic Papers, 62(2), 362-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8454.12294
  • Judd, K., McKinnon, M. (2021). A systematic map of inclusion, equity and diversity in science communication research: Do we practice what we preach? "Frontiers in Communication", 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.744365
  • Kieser, A., Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. "The Journal of Management Studies", 46(3), 516-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831.x
  • Kieser, A., Leiner, L. (2012). Collaborate with practitioners: But beware of collaborative research. "Journal of Management Inquiry", 21(1), 14-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492611411923
  • Knight, L., Pettigrew, A. (2007). Explaining process and performance in the co-production of knowledge [Prezentacja papierowa]. 3rd Organization Studies Summer Workshop: 'Organization Studies as Applied Science: The Generation and Use of Academic Knowledge about Organization', Crete, Greece.
  • Kozłowski, R., Matejun, M. (2018). Sub-disciplines in management sciences: Review of classifications in polish and worldwide research practice. "International Journal of Contemporary Management", 17(1), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.4467/24498939ijcm.18.008.8387
  • Krasny, M. E., Bonney, R. (2005). A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics literacy and environmental citizenship in environmental education. W: E. A. Johnson , M. J. Mappin (red.), Environmental education and advocacy: Changing perspectives of ecology and education (s. 227-266). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kuhlmann, S., Stegmaier, P., Konrad, K. (2019). The tentative governance of emerging science and technology - A conceptual introduction. "Research Policy", 48(5), 1091-1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.006
  • Lenart-Gansiniec, R. (2023). Crowdsourcing naukowy. Perspektywa mikro. Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.
  • Markides, C. (2011). Crossing the chasm: How to convert relevant research into managerially useful research. "The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science", 47(1), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310388162
  • Mckelvey, B. (2006). Van de Ven and Johnson's "Engaged Scholarship": Nice try but.. "Academy of Management Review", 31(4), 822-829. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527451
  • Mohrman, S. A., Gibson, C. B., Mohrman, A. M. (2001). Doing research that is useful to practice a model and empirical exploration. "Academy of Management Journal", 44(2), 357-375.
  • Müller, U. K. (2019). Editorial: Science needs an inclusive and transparent publication process - how integrative and comparative biology works toward this aim. "Integrative and Comparative Biology", 59(6), 1445-1450. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icz148
  • Nyden, P. (2003). Academic incentives for faculty participation in community-based participatory research. "Journal of General Internal Medicine", 18(7), 576-585. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20350.x
  • Paleco, C., García Peter, S., Salas Seoane, N., Kaufmann, J., Argyri, P. (2021). Inclusiveness and diversity in Citizen Science. W: K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson, K. Wagenknecht (red.), The Science of Citizen Science (s. 261-281). Springer International Publishing.
  • Panda, A., Gupta, R. K. (2014). Making academic research more relevant: A few suggestions. "IIMB Management Review", 26(3), 156-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2014.07.008
  • Patient, D. L., Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager's empathic concern and moral development. "Journal of Management", 36(2), 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328509
  • Pearce, J. L., Huang, L. (2012). The decreasing value of our research to management education. "Academy of Management Learning and Education", 11(2), 247-262. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0554
  • Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. "Academy of Management Journal", 44(4), 697-713.
  • Ramachandran, A., Mouat, I. C., Öberg, G. (2023). Incorporating equity, diversity, and inclusion in science: Lessons learned from an undergraduate seminar. "Science Education", 107(1), 180-202. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21768
  • Rasche, A., Behnam, M. (2009). As if it were relevant: A systems theoretical perspective on the relation between science and practice. "Journal of Management Inquiry", 18(3), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492609337495
  • Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., O'Boyle, E. H. (2018). When the "best available evidence" doesn't win: How doubts about science and scientists threaten the future of evidence-based management. "Journal of Management", 44(8), 2995-3010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318796934
  • Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B. V., Krasny, M. E., Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design." Ecology and Society", 17(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-04705-170229
  • Simchi-Levi, D. (2020). From the editor: Diversity, equity, and inclusion in management science. "Management Science", 66(9), 3802. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3759
  • Simsek, Z., Li, N., Huang, J. L. (2022). Turbocharging practical implications in management studies. "Journal of Management", 48(5), 1083-1102. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211040562
  • Subudhi, R. N. , Mishra, S. (red.). (2020). Methodological issues in management research: Advances, challenges and the way ahead. Emerald Publishing.
  • Sułkowski, Ł., Lenart-Gansiniec, R. (2021). Epistemologia, metodologia i metody badań w naukach o zarządzaniu i jakości. Społeczna Akademia Nauk.
  • Swartz, T. H., Palermo, A.-G. S., Masur, S. K., Aberg, J. A. (2019). The science and value of diversity: Closing the gaps in our understanding of inclusion and diversity. "The Journal of Infectious Diseases", 220, Issue Supplement 2, S33-S41. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz174
  • Taylor, B. C., Lindlof, T. R. (2016). Travelling methods: Tracing the globalization of qualitative communication research. "Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations", 15(3), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.21018/rjcpr.2013.3.192
  • Tushman, M., O'Reilly, C., III. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur'S quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. "Academy of Management Journal", 50(4), 769-774. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279169
  • Uhlmann, E. L., Ebersole, C. R., Chartier, C. R., Errington, T. M., Kidwell, M. C., Lai, C. K., McCarthy, R. J., Riegelman, A., Silberzahn, R., Nosek, B. A. (2019). Scientific utopia III: Crowdsourcing science. "Perspectives on Psychological Science", 14(5), 711-733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619850561
  • Uriarte, M., Ewing, H. A., Eviner, V. T. ,Weathers, K. C. (2007). Constructing a broader and more inclusive value system in science. "Bioscience", 57(1), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570111
  • Van De Ven, A. H. , Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. "Academy of Management Review", 31(4), 802-821. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527385
  • Walmsley, J., Strnadová, I. Johnson, K. (2018). The added value of inclusive research. "Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities", 31(5), 751-759. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12431
  • Weingart, P., Joubert, M., Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with science - Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. "PloS One", 16(7), e0254201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254201
  • Wieczorek, A. L., Mitręga, M., Spáčil, V. (2021). Dynamic academic networking concept and its links with English language skills and research productivity-non-Anglophone context." PloS One", 16(2), e0245980. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245980
  • Young, L. Freytag, P. V. (2021). Beyond research method to research collaboration: Research co-production relationships with practitioners. "Industrial Marketing Management", 92, 244-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.016
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171678677
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.