FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2624359610> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2624359610 endingPage "124" @default.
• W2624359610 startingPage "111" @default.
• W2624359610 abstract "1 Relevance and rigour: competing demandsThe tension between rigour and relevance is intrinsic to practice-based research and subject of continuing debate. The literature on rigour-relevance debate describes these criteria as either complementary, competing yet reconcilable, or incompatible.Andriessen (2014) defines rigour and relevance as two dimensions of practice-based research and provides an impartial overview of choices researchers have in terms of orientation, quality criteria and methodology. He is less impartial about concept of 'applied research' that assumes a linear model of knowledge generation by conducting basic research followed by applied research. Andriessen rejects this idea of applied research, using Schon's metaphor (1983) of swampy lowlands of practice where everything is insecure, complex, unstable and full of value conflicts, implying that if research is to be relevant to practice, it should engage with that reality from outset.As a discipline, organisational development, change and learning is concerned with messy reality of organisations. Most action researchers in this field assert that rigor and relevance are complementary (e.g. Cummings & Worley, 2009; Luscher & Lewis, 2008; Argyris, Putnam & McLain Smith, 1985). Yet complementarity thesis covers up some real contradictions between rigour and relevance. One is demand that choice of intervention be based on empirical findings indicating that intended outcomes can actually be produced, while knowledge of intervention effects is, even after 40 years, still at a rudimentary stage of development (Cummings & Worley, 2009: 152). Four decades of OD work has proven practically relevant without that knowledge, so it seems warranted to ask how crucial it really is to making effective interventions. In practice, interventions may not need to be so rigorous to be effective. Even Luscher and Lewis (2008), whose AR reports are among few published in an eminent academic journal, simply say their contract did not include studying effects on performance. Another contradiction is that rigorously researched interventions are not applied very often. For example, Argyris set rigorous standards and used rigorous methods for designing action science and for making practitioners' theories-in-use explicit in order to test and modify these, but interventions of action science are rarely applied. One revealing example of contradiction between rigour and relevance is debate between Beer and Argyris about Strategic Fitness Process intervention method. Beer and Eisenstat (2000) claim that this method solves strategy implementation problems, because it enables managers to have an honest, cross-hierarchical dialogue about possible obstacles blocking effective strategy implementation. Argyris (2010: 169) questions Beer's use of word 'problems'. Is Beer referring to barriers that surface during interventions or to obstacles that prevent participants from identifying and avoiding barriers and from being candid about these before? If intervention addressed barriers, it solved first-order problems, but if it did not address original obstacles, it failed to solve second-order problems of covering up and making barriers undiscussable, making the changes ... not likely to persevere. Beer's response (2011) was that skills of action science are too complicated to learn during an intervention.By glossing over real contradictions between rigour and relevance, OD action researchers have not generated much in way of knowledge that contributes to management theory. Only a few AR reports have ever been published in academic journals, publications whose main requirement is rigour. This low publication rate has led some researchers to question action researchers' assumption that rigour and relevance are reconcilable (Kieser, Nicolai & Seidl, 2015: 165; Kieser & Leiner, 2009: 526). …" @default.
• W2624359610 created "2017-06-15" @default.
• W2624359610 creator A5009865530 @default.
• W2624359610 creator A5050950812 @default.
• W2624359610 date "2016-11-01" @default.
• W2624359610 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2624359610 title "Action Research as intertwining the three processes of practice-based research" @default.
• W2624359610 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2624359610 type Work @default.
• W2624359610 sameAs 2624359610 @default.
• W2624359610 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2624359610 countsByYear W26243596102019 @default.
• W2624359610 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2624359610 hasAuthorship W2624359610A5009865530 @default.
• W2624359610 hasAuthorship W2624359610A5050950812 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C158154518 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConcept C71008984 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C111472728 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C121332964 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C127413603 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C138885662 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C144024400 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C15744967 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C158154518 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C17744445 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C199539241 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C2780791683 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C55587333 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C62520636 @default.
• W2624359610 hasConceptScore W2624359610C71008984 @default.
• W2624359610 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2624359610 hasLocation W26243596101 @default.
• W2624359610 hasOpenAccess W2624359610 @default.
• W2624359610 hasPrimaryLocation W26243596101 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W125361991 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W1480836431 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W1581101113 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W182745202 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2012392693 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2024837420 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2032898408 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2118342745 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2129062686 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2170173970 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2296822487 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W232064894 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2337918073 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W240455762 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2936665775 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W3027403736 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W33273148 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W594562147 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W99840340 @default.
• W2624359610 hasRelatedWork W2292112173 @default.
• W2624359610 hasVolume "14" @default.
• W2624359610 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2624359610 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2624359610 magId "2624359610" @default.
• W2624359610 workType "article" @default.