Towards Common Ground and Trading Zones in Management Research and Practice

Abstract

The purpose and nature of management scholarship is contested, evidenced by debates about the 'academic-practitioner divide' and attendant remedies for addressing it, including mode 2 and mode 3 research, engaged scholarship, evidence-based management and design science. In this paper the authors argue that, without a culture of dialogical encounter, management scholarship will never be able to emerge from its adolescence, and management will not develop into the profession that it should and can become. The central proposition is that the highly fragmented landscape of management (practice and scholarship) lacks sufficient capability for dialogue among the plurality of actors situated across that landscape. Developing the dialogical capability ultimately required to break this fundamental impasse demands, first, a shared sense of purpose and responsibility (akin to the Hippocratic Oath in medicine) and, second, institutional entrepreneurship to establish more and better 'trading zones'. Drawing on the philosophy of pragmatism, the authors further this endeavour by identifying and proposing key elements of a statement of shared purpose and responsibility. Finally, they explore the nature and characteristics of successful trading zones, highlighting particular examples that have already been created in management studies.

Conducting Mode 2 research in HRM: A phase‐based framework

“…“Trading zones” are spaces where knowledge is integrated among scientific communities that must communicate across different paradigms (Romme et al, ). Successful trading zones are (a) explicitly action‐ and goal‐oriented, involving a commitment to contributing to advances in scholarly knowledge as well as management practice; (b) durable, so that they can render collaboration more visible and tangible; and (c) characterized by psychological safety and informed consent, as conditions enabling authentic dialogue (Romme et al, ).…”

“…“Trading zones” are spaces where knowledge is integrated among scientific communities that must communicate across different paradigms (Romme et al, ). Successful trading zones are (a) explicitly action‐ and goal‐oriented, involving a commitment to contributing to advances in scholarly knowledge as well as management practice; (b) durable, so that they can render collaboration more visible and tangible; and (c) characterized by psychological safety and informed consent, as conditions enabling authentic dialogue (Romme et al, ). As academics and practitioners can use social ties to identify interested parties, share knowledge, and collaborate, Romme et al () suggested that “the most durable trading zones in management are likely to be embedded in the context of industry‐sponsored projects, large publicly funded research programs, or research institutes established and governed collaboratively by the diverse constituencies involved” (p. 549).…”

“…Relational spaces might be better positioned outside work settings because “midlevel reformers and their subordinates are often not comfortable trying out new task allocations, expressing new identities, or discussing nontraditional ideas… This discomfort may be especially pronounced for lower‐status reformers… Having a setting for interaction apart from work itself is crucial because it facilitates discussion of new tasks, identities, and frames” (p. 701). Mode 2 researchers might rotate the settings for relational spaces so that all participants are represented; use virtual communications to bring conversations and negotiations together; rotate leadership responsibilities so that a specific relational space is not perceived as the “territory” of one party (Romme et al, ).…”

Engaged scholarship

“…Thus, in trying to minimise the theory/practice gap as well as reconcile the polarised views of academics and practitioners, there is a greater need for encouraging mutual respect while developing shared approaches in problem solving (Antonacopoulou, 2010;Bartunek, 2007;Jordan, 1991;Miller and Stiver, 1997;Pearce et al, 2008;Romme et al, 2015;Santini et al, 2016).…”

From Evidence-based Medicine to Evidence-based Management (and Policy)?

“…[16][17][18] When addressing the kinds of knowledge that management researchers develop, solutions have tended to focus on the second, emphasizing researcher-manager collaboration, development of knowledge in context, and more pragmatic designs to better balance rigor and relevance. 17,19 This brings us back to the brief report and how it might be viewed by a manager interested in his/her clinic's performance in treating hypertension.…”