Management research is constantly criticized in the academic community to have very little impact on managers in practical life. This problem is highly discussed in academic circles and often referred to as the utilization problem (van Aken, 2004) or the rigor-relevance dilemma/gap (Fincham & Clark, 2009; Avenier, 2010). The problem is that the conducted management research is either scientifically verified, but not relevant for practice or practically relevant but not scientifically verified (van Aken, 2004).
There are various explanations for this problem. Many researchers claim that a lack of sufficient communication presentation of management research is the root of the problem (Davies, 2007). This is in accordance with the so-called “knowledge transfer problem”(Shapiro, Kirkman, & Courtey, 2007). Others blame the little relevance of management research for practitioners (Denyer, Tranfield, & van Aken, 2007), which is reflected in the “knowledge production problem” (Shapiro, Kirkman, & Courtey, 2007). Furthermore, management research is claimed as “too descriptive” (van Aken, 2004), which means that management science is only describing and analyzing but not actually providing solutions to problems. Lastly, some researchers describe management research as too fragmented in terms of research groups and knowledge products (Denyer, Tranfield, & van Aken, 2007). The researchers claim that too little cooperation between researchers restricts knowledge solutions and weakens the position of management research.
In order to increase relevance of management research and to create a clear academic identity (Tranfield & van Aken, 2006) academic community calls for new research approaches, particularly the so-called design science approach (van Aken, 2004). Design science helps to actually design solutions to field problems but still keeping academic relevance in order to fulfill Pettigrew’s idea of accomplishing both, academic and practical relevance (Pettigrew, 1997).
This paper aims to give the reader an overview on design science and its (possible) practical relevance in management research. First of all, the author will present the ideas of design science and its main determinants of major research contributors. Afterwards, a comparison between design science and the often with design science presented action research and evidence-based management approach is made. Chapter 3 will then present two examples of executed research and applied design science.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Background
2.1 Overview on design science
2.2 Comparison with action research and evidence-based management
2.3 Methodological/philosophical categorization
3 Executed research and applied design science
4 Further application and future contributions
5 Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to explore the design science approach in management research as a solution to the "rigor-relevance dilemma," which posits that academic research often lacks practical utility for managers. The author investigates how design science can facilitate the creation of actionable, field-tested solutions while maintaining academic integrity.
- The theoretical foundations and defining characteristics of design science.
- A comparative analysis of design science, action research, and evidence-based management.
- Methodological and philosophical categorizations of design science paradigms.
- Practical applications of design science through case studies in construction and healthcare.
- Future development needs for establishing design science as a mature management research methodology.
Excerpts from the Book
1 Introduction
Management research is constantly criticized in the academic community to have very little impact on managers in practical life. Often leading managers don’t even take notice of journals with cutting-edge management research (Davies, 2007). This problem is highly discussed in academic circles and often referred to as the utilization problem (van Aken, 2004) or the rigor-relevance dilemma/gap (Fincham & Clark, 2009; Avenier, 2010). The problem is that the conducted management research is either scientifically verified, but not relevant for practice or practically relevant but not scientifically verified (van Aken, 2004).
There are various explanations for this problem. Many researchers claim that a lack of sufficient communication presentation of management research is the root of the problem (Davies, 2007). This is in accordance with the so-called “knowledge transfer problem”(Shapiro, Kirkman, & Courtey, 2007). Others blame the little relevance of management research for practitioners (Denyer, Tranfield, & van Aken, 2007), which is reflected in the “knowledge production problem” (Shapiro, Kirkman, & Courtey, 2007). Furthermore, management research is claimed as “too descriptive” (van Aken, 2004), which means that management science is only describing and analyzing but not actually providing solutions to problems. Lastly, some researchers describe management research as too fragmented in terms of research groups and knowledge products (Denyer, Tranfield, & van Aken, 2007). The researchers claim that too little cooperation between researchers restricts knowledge solutions and weakens the position of management research.
In order to increase relevance of management research and to create a clear academic identity (Tranfield & van Aken, 2006) academic community calls for new research approaches, particularly the so-called design science approach (van Aken, 2004; Pandza & Thorpe, 2010; Bate, 2007; Romme & Damen, 2007; Burgoyne & James, 2006). Design science helps to actually design solutions to field problems but still keeping academic relevance in order to fulfill Pettigrew’s idea of accomplishing both, academic and practical relevance (Pettigrew, 1997).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Discusses the rigor-relevance gap in management research and introduces design science as a potential methodology to bridge this divide.
2 Background: Provides a definition of design science, compares it with action research and evidence-based management, and explores its philosophical underpinnings.
3 Executed research and applied design science: Illustrates the practical application of design science through case studies in construction (VMI) and the NHS healthcare system.
4 Further application and future contributions: Argues for the necessity of a structured framework for design science in management and proposes potential applications in areas like politics.
5 Conclusion: Summarizes the potential of design science as a promising but still immature field that requires further structural development to become standard practice.
Keywords
Design Science, Management Research, Rigor-Relevance Gap, Action Research, Evidence-Based Management, Technological Rule, Design Proposition, Mode 2 Research, Problem Solving, Organizational Change, Knowledge Transfer, Constructivism, Pragmatism, Methodology, Applied Science.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this work?
The work focuses on the design science approach as a methodology to improve the practical impact of academic management research.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the rigor-relevance dilemma, the differentiation between explanatory and prescriptive sciences, and the integration of academic knowledge into practical organizational problem-solving.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to analyze how design science can help researchers design "technological rules" or solutions that are both scientifically rigorous and practically relevant.
Which methodologies are examined?
The paper examines design science alongside action research, evidence-based management, and Mode 2 research, contrasting their paradigmatic assumptions.
What is covered in the main section?
The main section provides theoretical definitions of design science and presents two concrete case studies: one on vendor-managed inventory in construction and another on healthcare reform in the NHS.
Which keywords characterize this research?
Key terms include Design Science, Rigor-Relevance Gap, Technological Rule, Action Research, and Evidence-Based Management.
How is the "CIMO-logic" applied in design science?
CIMO-logic (Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome) is utilized to structure the design of technological rules, allowing researchers to apply specific interventions to achieve desired outcomes within defined organizational contexts.
What specific criticism do Pandza and Thorpe raise?
They criticize the narrowness of current design science discussions, arguing that some organizational phenomena are explainable rather than prescriptively solvable, suggesting a need for evolutionary design patterns.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the maturity of design science?
The author concludes that while design science is a highly promising approach, it remains in an immature, unstandardized state in management research, requiring more rigorous structural frameworks to become a widely accepted standard.
- Quote paper
- Markus Karmann (Author), 2013, Design science in management research, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/213085
