Linking Relevance to Practical Significance

Lee, Allen; Mohajeri, Kaveh

doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.416

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first tactic deals with utilizing a type of analysis known as "marginal analysis," whenever possible. … As stated earlier in this essay, through marginal analysis, the sensitivity of a dependent variable to changes in an independent variable may be measured and reported by researchers (see Lee and Mohajeri, 2012;Lin et al, 2013;Vittinghoff et al, 2005). Indeed, in the case of nonlinear models, which are quite Although the label effect size suggests a measure of the magnitude of an effect, Cohen did not intend these indexes to gauge whether the explanatory variables have substantial effects on the dependent variable… III 4 Cohen's effect size is a measure of a model's goodness-of-fit, and not a measure of the practical importance of any of the model's explanatory variables.…”

Section: Ssvn's Presentation Of "Marginal Effects"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflating relevance with practical significance and other issues: Commentary on Sen, Smith, and Van Note’s “statistical significance versus practical importance in information systems research”

Mohajeri

Mesgari

Lee

2022

Journal of Information Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expanding on the current debate on the issues of statistical and practical significance in information systems research, where the article by Sen, Smith, and Van Note is a recent contribution, this commentary cautions against conflating relevance with practical significance. We emphasize that relevance is 1) about the real-world usefulness of research findings rather than their impressiveness for the researcher audience, 2) an essential quality of research spanning beyond its findings and not merely limited to statistical studies, and 3) determined by nonacademics rather than academics. We also comment on other aspects of the article by Sen et al., such as the term “practical importance,” the treatment of effect size measures, and the presentation of “marginal effects.”

show abstract

Section: Ssvn's Presentation Of "Marginal Effects"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflating relevance with practical significance and other issues: Commentary on Sen, Smith, and Van Note’s “statistical significance versus practical importance in information systems research”

Mohajeri

Mesgari

Lee

2022

Journal of Information Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have recently been some calls to improve relevance by addressing the topic of statistical significance. Lee and Mohajeri (2012) discuss the limits of statistical significance and the need to consider practical significance. Mohajeri et al (2020) further distinguish the practical significance (research impressiveness to academicians) from relevance (realworld usefulness to practitioners) and demonstrate that current research papers do not sufficiently provide the necessary information for practical significance and relevance.…”

Section: Axiomatic Theories In Thementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This phenomenon seems to be becoming more serious because tenure and promotion at university business schools increasingly require publications in top research journals, often discounting more practically oriented publications (Lee and Mohajeri 2012). Although the top research journals demand a demonstration of rigor, the objective evaluation of relevance is anything but straightforward.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Axiomatic Theories and Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research

Lee

Park

Gregor

et al. 2021

Information Systems Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Axiomatic Theories and Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research This paper examines the fact that a significant number of empirical information systems (IS) studies engage in confirmative testing of self-evident axiomatic theories without yielding highly relevant knowledge for the IS community. The authors conduct both a horizontal analysis of 72 representative IS theories and an in-depth vertical analysis of 3 well-known theories (i.e., technology acceptance model, diffusion of innovation theory, and institutional theory) in order to measure how pervasive such testing of axiomatic theories is. The authors discovered that more than 60% of 666 hypotheses from the horizontal analysis could be regarded as axiomatic theory elements. In the vertical analysis, 68.1% of 1,301 hypotheses from 148 articles were axiomatic. Based on these findings, the authors propose four complementary IS research approaches: (1) identifying disconfirming boundary conditions, (2) measuring the relative importance of axiomatic causal factors, (3) measuring the stage of progression toward visionary goals when the nature of the axiomatic theory can be extended to future visions, and (4) engaging in the conceptual design of visionary axiomatic goals. They argue that these complementary IS research approaches can enhance the relevance of IS research outcomes without sacrificing methodological rigor.

show abstract

“…Van de Ven (2007) states that the root cause (gap) is as a result of the knowledge distribution problem. According to Lee and Mohajeri (2012) researchers in the academic discipline, including IS, have two basic problems, one lack of practical relevance and the gap between academics and practices. Rigorous research in IS lays on theoretical relevance and methodologies but differ in practical relevance.…”

Section: Figure 6: Solving Challenges Facing Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rigorous research in IS lays on theoretical relevance and methodologies but differ in practical relevance. Furthermore, IS research topics are selected based on academic ideas and not on practitioner's ideas (Lee & Mohajeri 2012).…”

Section: Figure 6: Solving Challenges Facing Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigourversus Relevance in Information Systems Research in South Africa

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rigour and relevance division is as a result of many reasons. The gap between the two has promoted debate and argument that has lasted for years. Many believed that IS research is effective and others opposed the argument. Others within or outside the discipline are considering whether IS research output is affecting and impacting decision making in the industry. Meanwhile, the debate on rigour and relevance has lasted for decades but in reality, the debate and the gap still persist, in spite of efforts by researchers. Their efforts and hard-work seems ineffective. The study determined whether the needs of practitioners through rigour and relevance of IS/academic research and also to determine whether this lingering debate over these decades has worth from an academic viewpoint. There is also an ongoing criticism that IS research lacks rigour, relevance, effective communication and acceptance in the field as noted in the literature.

show abstract

Linking Relevance to Practical Significance

Cited by 4 publications

References 16 publications

Conflating relevance with practical significance and other issues: Commentary on Sen, Smith, and Van Note’s “statistical significance versus practical importance in information systems research”

Conflating relevance with practical significance and other issues: Commentary on Sen, Smith, and Van Note’s “statistical significance versus practical importance in information systems research”

Axiomatic Theories and Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research

Rigourversus Relevance in Information Systems Research in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About