The Dialogical Model: Developing Academic Knowledge for and from Practice

Abstract

In accordance with EMR's will to promote the diffusion of research findings to practice, we propose a methodological framework for developing and communicating academic knowledge relevant for practice: the dialogical model. This model of engaged scholarship comprises five activities: specifying a research question, elaborating local knowledge, developing conceptual knowledge, communicating knowledge, and activating knowledge. The current paper focuses on the early stage of research question design and presents the epistemological framework in which the model was initially developed. It also offers guidance on how to maintain academic value and practical relevance in tension throughout the research process. Examples illustrate how to construct research questions relevant both for academia and practice, and how to justify validity in pragmatic constructivism. This model can likewise be mobilized in other epistemological frameworks, particularly for knowledge generation purposes. It enriches the researchers’ methodological toolbox by adding a new procedural tool that provides valuable guidelines from the very start of research projects.

Research and development project management best practices and absorptive capacity: Empirical evidence from Spanish firms

“…The dialogical model is used to manage productive dialogs and deal with antagonistic and complementary positions (Morin, 1992;Tsoukas, 2009). According to Avernier's conceptualization, this model consists of five steps or activities (Avenier and Cajaiba, 2012).…”

“…In order to answer this research question, we have used the dialogical model that was designed to allow a dialog between practitioners and researchers who offer complementary visions of a research question (Avenier and Cajaiba, 2012). According to this model, we first identify the gap in academic research and then we formulate the appropriate research question.…”

Academics and Practitioners Are Alike and Unlike

“…Avenier & Parmentier Cajaiba, 2012;McGahan, 2007;Vermeulen, 2007). Some scholars (e.g., Daft & Lewin, 2008;Kieser & Leiner, 2009;Rasche & Behnam, 2009) argue strongly that academic rigor and practitioner relevance are almost mutually exclusive.…”

Expanding the Notion of Dialogic Trading Zones for Impactful Research: The Case of Women on Boards Research

“…However, management academics are frequently criticized for producing knowledge designed for peers and highly ranked journals rather than outputs that are accessible to nonspecialists (Aguinis et al, 2014;Cohen, 2007;Starkey and Madan, 2001), thereby relegating practitioners' concerns secondary and 'institutionalising their own irrelevance' (Bennis and O'Toole, 2005, p. 100). Many scholars call for a redesign of knowledge production and dissemination (Hodgkinson and Starkey, 2011) to enable closer collaboration between researchers and practitioners (Avenier and Parmentier Cajaiba, 2012;Hodgkinson and Starkey, 2012), particularly during the enquiry process (Radaelli et al, 2014). MacIntosh et al (2012) propose a dialogic approach, moving away from the simplistic idea of knowledge production (by academics) and consumption (by practitioners).…”