Pär Mårtensson

There are few acknowledged multidisciplinary quality standards for research practice and evaluation. This study evaluates the face validity of a recently developed comprehensive quality model that includes 32 defined concepts based on four main areas (credible, contributory, communicable, and conforming) describing indicators of research practice quality. Responses from 42 senior researchers working within 18 different departments at three major universities showed that the research quality model was–overall–valid. The vast majority believed all concepts in the model to be important, and did not indicate the need for further development. However, some of the sub-concepts were indicated as being slightly less important. Further, there were significant differences concerning ‘communicable’ between disciplines and academic levels, and for ‘conforming’ between genders. Our study indicates that the research quality model proposes the opportunity to move to a more systematic and multidisciplinary approach to research quality improvement, which has implications for how scientific knowledge is obtained.

The quality of research is central to scientific organizations. But how to evaluate research practice and quality when managing research? There is not one standard for what “good research” is. In a recent study, we developed a model for evaluating research practice and quality and in this model, there are four core concepts: Credible, Contributory, Communicable, and Conforming. Based on these concepts a model including 32 sub-concepts was developed. The aim of this article is to explore implications and applications of the model using three fundamental perspectives of research management; the process, the organization, and the governance.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the advancement of research methods in management spirituality by proposing a novel and innovative approach for generating empirical material on issues relevant for practitioners. Design/methodology/approach: The approach introduced is designed as a one-year group process based on Schein’s concept of clinical inquiry, primarily aimed at helping the participating managers to address challenging issues that they face in real life. When this helping process is successful, empirical material on these issues is revealed, as the participants share information to receive help themselves. Findings: Findings illustrate how the approach generates extensive, rich and broad data, guided by what becomes important for the participating managers as the process unfolds. A strong holding environment allows for urgent matters to be shared straight from the heart. Research limitations/implications: As this activity is based on the belief that the managers know best the issues relevant to them, a deviation from the assumed research direction should be seen as help to focus on relevant issues, rather than an obstacle of following an original plan. Practical implications: The proposed approach may be of particular interest to researchers who not only want to contribute to academic knowledge but also wish to work with people and facilitate transformation. Originality/value: This paper advances understandings of generating empirical material in the field of management spirituality through an innovative, client-centered research approach, rooted in well-established theories. © 2017, © Emerald Publishing Limited.

There are few widely acknowledged quality standards for research practice, and few definitions of what constitutes good research. The overall aim was therefore to describe what constitutes research, and then to use this description to develop a model of research practice and to define concepts related to its quality. The primary objective was to explore such a model and to create a multidisciplinary understanding of the generic dimensions of the quality of research practice. Eight concept modelling working seminars were conducted. A graphic representation of concepts and their relationships was developed to bridge the gap between different disciplines. A concept model of research as a phenomenon was created, which included a total of 18 defined concepts and their relationships. In a second phase four main areas were distilled, describing research practice in a multidisciplinary context: Credible, Contributory, Communicable, and Conforming. Each of these was further specified in a concept hierarchy together with a defined terminology. A comprehensive quality model including 32 concepts, based on the four main areas, was developed for describing quality issues of research practice, where the model of research as a phenomenon was used to define the quality concepts. The quality model may be used for further development of elements, weights and operationalizations related to the quality of research practice in different academic fields.

We open up the black box of business angel risk mitigation within investments, exploring triggers that force angels to shift strategies to overcome performance and relationship risks. Primary data were collected from 32 interviews with four matched business angel–entrepreneur dyads. Extensive iterative theory and cross-case comparisons reveal that business angels often shift strategies over the course of an investment cycle due to internal or external context-specific triggers, rather than factors associated with a particular investor, entrepreneur, or investment-related characteristic. Moreover, entrepreneur responses significantly impact business angels’ subsequent risk mitigation strategies. Two triggers emerging particularly strongly from the data were: (i) a shift in the angel’s perception of the entrepreneur’s ability and (ii) the entrance of new investors. We theorize on these findings and derive four novel propositions.

The starting point of this paper is the question: Which issues do students think are important when choosing a higher education institution, and how are they related to the factors taken into consideration in ranking institutions? The aim is to identify and rank the parameters students perceive as important when choosing their place of education. The paper is based on a qualitative pre-study and a quantitative main study in which the authors examine what students perceive as important in business school rankings. Our findings show that, by taking the students’ perspective into account, one can see that some of the parameters used in rankings are of less importance to the students: for example, rankings that over-emphasise research. Second, we identify the parameters that could be included in business school rankings to make them more relevant to students: for example, paying more attention to learning outputs in rankings. Our findings highlight the importance of taking individual stakeholders into account in the rankings and understanding how rankings could be made more relevant and valuable for the range of stakeholders.

In dialogical action research, the scientific researcher does not "speak science" or otherwise attempt to teach scientific theory to the real-world practitioner, but instead attempts to speak the language of the practitioner and accepts him as the expert on his organization and its problems. Recognizing the difficulty that a practitioner and a scientific researcher can have in communicating across the world of science and the world of practice, dialogical action research offers, as its centerpiece, reflective one-on-one dialogues between the practitioner and the scientific researcher, taking place periodically in a setting removed from the practitioner's organization. The dialogue itself serves as the interface between the world of science, marked by theoria and the scientific attitude, and the world of the practitioner, marked by praxis and the natural attitude of everyday life. The dialogue attempts to address knowledge heterogeneity, which refers to the different forms that knowledge takes in the world of science and the world of practice, and knowledge contextuality, which refers to the dependence of the meaning of knowledge, such as a scientific theory or professional expertise, on its context. In successive dialogues, the scientific researcher and the practitioner build a mutual understanding, including an understanding of the organization and its problems. The scientific researcher, based on one or more of the scientific theories in her discipline, formulates and suggests one or more actions for the practitioner to take in order to solve or remedy a problem in his organization. Dialogical action research recognizes that the practitioner's experience, expertise, and tacit knowledge, or praxis, largely shapes how he understands the suggested actions and appropriates them as his own. Upon returning to his organization, he takes one or more of the suggested actions, depending on his reading of the situation at hand. The reactions or responses of the problem to the actions or stimuli of the practitioner would embody, in the practitioner's eyes, success or failure in solving or remedying the problem and, in the scientific researcher's eyes, evidence confirming or disconfirming the theory on which the action was based. The scientific researcher may then suggest, based on her theories, additional actions, hence initiating another cycle of action and learning. To illustrate dialogical action research, this paper reconstructs some dialogues between an information systems researcher and a managing director at a European company called Omega Corporation.

Like King Midas, the champion of a Knowledge Management (KM) initiative might find herself in an awkward situation because the wish came true. Successful KM initiatives can lead to problems. The case study presented in this article details how a consulting company attempted to support its dispersed staff of consultants through the introduction of a web-based KM portal. The application became popular – too popular in the sense that it led to a deterioration of certain types of knowledge exchange. It achieved the intended goals, but created unforeseen problems. In the article we explore KM practices and explore the role of contexts for IT-mediated KM. It is suggested that the need to view IT-mediated KM in various wider contexts is even more important than in many other forms of IS implementation. The KM activities are not only related to identifiable tasks and work processes, but also to social interaction, learning and other dynamic processes in the organisation.