Organization of scientific research in applied sciences – policy and practice

Abstract

Abstract. Despite the increasing sophistication of methods and the greater emphasis on theory over the past decades, we have not made the corresponding strides in relevance and impact. At the heart of this challenge is a culture in applied disciplines that demands new theoretical advances from every paper, which can inadvertently limit our ability to address pressing organizational challenges. Previous calls to increase the impact of research as an applied science have largely focused on urging individual scholars to conduct research that is more relevant to the pressing problems facing organizations and businesses. And while reorienting scholarly efforts to increase the relevance and impact of research as an applied science meets many needs, how to translate these calls into practice remains poorly defined. In other words, calls to innovate and reorient our priorities to increase the relevance and impact of research results while leaving the overall publication system largely unchanged have yielded limited results at the discipline level. Many of the leading journals in the field, which are the backbone and direction of the research community, remain “theoretical for its own sake,” where publication decisions are based on theoretical novelty as a contribution, limiting choices about research efforts. The expectation that every paper should make theoretical progress has led to the proliferation of fragmented and insubstantial theories [9] that do not accumulate into a coherent body of knowledge supported by strong evidence. As a result, the collective research output as a whole has not made significant progress in addressing phenomena and problems within the field’s purview, with the aim of increasing impact and relevance to stakeholders. To effect change, an approach that identifies and addresses the systemic sources of the problem is required. While individual elements of research practice, such as expectations of methods, theoretical novelty, and writing, are often discussed, less attention has been paid to how the assessment system we use enables or constrains different forms of knowledge creation. The publication paradigms and assessment systems used in academic disciplines shape how each discipline develops and tests knowledge. Understanding these paradigms and systems is critical to enhancing the scientific rigor, practical relevance, and impact of organizational research as an applied science. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to examine how the publication system in organizational research differs from that in other applied sciences in four fundamental properties: balance between evidence and theory, diversity of research types, systemic sensitivity, and the relationship between research and replication. Understanding these differences can help assess how publication systems are vital drivers of the field’s development and identify avenues for publication systems in general that can better serve both scholarly and practical endeavors.