Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article "Action Research Critiques" provides a comprehensive overview of two streams of literature that examine the relevance of management research to management practice. While the article presents valuable insights into the complex relationship between academic knowledge and organizational dynamics, it also has some potential biases and limitations.

One potential bias in the article is its focus on studies that support the argument that management research has limited impact on management practice. The article cites several studies that show how research results are often ignored or distorted by practitioners, and how scholarly publications have little influence on the development of management fashions. However, there are also studies that suggest a more positive relationship between academic knowledge and organizational outcomes. For example, some studies have shown how evidence-based management practices can improve organizational performance (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). By not acknowledging these counterarguments, the article may present a one-sided view of the relevance debate.

Another limitation of the article is its lack of empirical evidence to support some of its claims. For example, the article suggests that popularization media do not communicate scientific knowledge to practitioners, but it does not provide any data to support this claim. Similarly, while the article argues that scholarly publications serve a symbolic function by providing legitimacy to fashion discourse as a whole, it does not provide any evidence to support this assertion.

Moreover, while the article acknowledges some of the complexities involved in adopting and adapting academic knowledge in organizations, it does not explore all possible factors that may influence this process. For example, it does not consider how power dynamics within organizations may affect which research results are adopted or ignored (Bartunek & Rynes, 2014). Similarly, while the article notes that different organizations may use similar labels for their own constructs but have different practices behind them, it does not explore how these differences may arise or what implications they may have for organizational outcomes.

Finally, while the article provides valuable insights into how academic knowledge is adopted and adapted in organizations and how scholarly publications relate to practitioner discourse, it does not consider other ways in which management research may be relevant to society at large. For example, it does not explore how management research can contribute to addressing social and environmental challenges or promoting ethical business practices (Donaldson & Preston, 1995).

In conclusion, while "Action Research Critiques" provides valuable insights into debates about the relevance of management research to practice and popular discourse, it also has some potential biases and limitations. To fully understand this complex relationship requires considering multiple perspectives and empirical evidence from various sources.

References:

Bartunek J.M., & Rynes S.L. (2014). Academics’ Contributions to Practice: Untangling

the Relationship Between Scholars’ Work and Firm Performance.

Academy of Management Perspectives 28(3), 306-328.

Donaldson T., & Preston L.E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of

the Corporation: Concepts,

Evidence,

and Implications.

Academy

of

Management

Review

20(1),

65-91.

Pfeffer J., & Sutton R.I. (2006). Evidence-Based Management.

Harvard Business Review

84(1), 62-74.