The following readings were discussed

1.  Brannick, T. & Coghlan, D. (2006). ‘To Know and to Do: Academics’ and Practitioners’ Approaches to Management Research’.Irish Journal of Management, 26(2), 1–22

1.Brannick2006-To Know and To Do

2.  Huff, A.S. (2000). ‘Citigroup’s John Reed and Stanford’s James March on management research and practice’. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 52-64.

2.Huff2000-Citigroup March on Management

MIS40910 – Group ‘D’ questions/comments

Philip Burtenshaw, Conor Gleeson, Tarun Rattan, Thomas Joseph, Fiona Walsh

Question 1: Don’t you think that the relationship between research schools & business organisations is mutually conducive to each other? If the purpose of life as reiterated in both readings is primarily a “pursuit of knowledge” then isn’t it imperative to have research schools to collate that management knowledge. And taking the argument to the other side don’t you agree that knowledge in itself is not sufficient and that business organisations are required for the application of that knowledge so as to generate some material gains for the greater good of human kind?

In the article John Reed references a quote by James Atlas which forms the bases of this mutually beneficial aspect of a relevant business school in the eyes of management practitioner. Atlas “portrays a movement toward viewing business schools as credentialing and contact-forming institutions” which as Reed puts it “is not an unworthy vision it is a vision with consequences for the development of ideas about management.”

Philip Burtenshaw, Conor Gleeson, Tarun Rattan, Thomas Joseph, Fiona Walsh

Question 2: Do you think that the issue at hand is that the dominant academic vocabulary is out of sync with that used in the real world thus even if the research on a topic is good it is often seen as “not relevant, readable or reachable.”? The content problem is better explained by the quote in the article which professes that “researchers should ensure that knowledge produced is relevant and transferred to practitioners in ways that enhance their capacity to us it”. But on the contrary care needs to be taken that any research which relies heavily on practitioner input does not get corrupted by the “contemporary enthusiasm for immediate relevance”.

So the right tone & balance in the researcher & practitioner inputs should be a prime focus in a collaborative research. The great debates are not always won by the side with the strongest arguments but by one who transmits the message loud & clear.