Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Marketing Management

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Management Inquiry
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Walsh, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Ashford, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

On the Relationship Between Research and Practice

Debate and Reflections

James P. Walsh

University of Michigan

Michael L. Tushman

Harvard University

John R. Kimberly

University of Pennsylvania

Bill Starbuck

University of Oregon

Susan Ashford

University of Michigan

This article offers a lively and spirited debate on the pros and cons of relating research to practice. The authors' goal is to illuminate fundamental issues in the debate in detail, consider a variety of prescriptions, and then come to a mindful conclusion about a course of action. The article begins with a point—counterpoint debate to make sure that scholars fully understand the issues in play. Mike Tushman starts off by arguing for an emic approach. He believes that scholars are most effective when they closely work with management and organizations. John Kimberly counters with an etic perspective. He argues that scholars need to keep their distance. Two attempts to make sense of the many issues raised in the debate close the article. First, Bill Starbuck steps back and offers his ideas about what the debate means for continuing scholarship. And then Sue Ashford brings the exchange to a conclusion. She draws on her many years in the dean's office to offer her wisdom about how to best organize business schools in the coming years. In the end, the authors know that there will be nearly as many errors as trials when the world's business schools determine how best to proceed. Their aim here is to minimize the effects of these errors. If and when schools do err, the authors want to be sure that they do it with their eyes wide open.

Key Words: practice • relevance • rigor • theory

Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 2, 128-154 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1056492607302654


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Management InquiryHome page
N. Phillips and M. Washington
Editors' Introduction
Journal of Management Inquiry, March 1, 2009; 18(1): 3 - 3.
[PDF]


Home page
Journal of Management InquiryHome page
M. Lounsbury and P. Hirsch
Editors' Introduction
Journal of Management Inquiry, December 1, 2007; 16(4): 299 - 299.
[PDF]