Abstract
This study examines the contestability of “relevance” as an abstract construction with no fixed meaning when applied, and questions its usage in the research quality debate. It finds that different research agendas and approaches have their own idiosyncratic logic and that any logic has its own criteria for assessing quality which cannot be applied to assess the quality of others. This is illustrated by delineating practitioner-led research from academic-led research and by comparing and contrasting research perspectives as examples. The research quality debate becomes meaningless when it is limited to a singular research agenda or approach as in practice these are invariably combined. Having said this, however, every agenda and approach can be argued to be legitimate as potentially each can find what otherwise cannot be noticed. As a result, this study challenges the conventional unitarist wisdom that conceptualises knowledge as commodity, and suggests instead that heterogeneity, linked to tolerance and relative independence of means and mind, free from the control or influence of others to enable critical distance from context and status quo and facilitate judgement, is the key to those seeking a meaningful research quality debate that acknowledges tolerance of the diversity of knowledge, difference, contestation and struggle. Although such heterogeneity may at first appear to add confusion rather than clarity, without first looking at this heterogeneity it is not possible to develop a dialogue, in the context of the present neo-liberal post-political drift that emphasises consensus, the annulment of dissensus and diverts attention from relationships of power, through which a positive contribution can be made to the research quality debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. MacIntyre “The essential contestability of some social science concepts” Ethics Vol 1,1984: pp. 1–9.
A.G. Hopwood “Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an age when curiosity is not enough” European Accounting Review Vol 17, 2008: pp. 87–96.
M. Gibbons, H. Nowotny, C. Limoges, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies Sage, London 1994.
M. Weber “Science as a Vocation” In: H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills From Max Weber: essays in sociology Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1948.
E Furedi Where have all the intellectuals gone? Confronting 21st century philistinism. Continuum, London 2004.
L.J. Nicholson Introduction In: L.J. Nicholson (ed) Feminism/postmodernism Routledge and Chapman Hall, New York and London 1990.
J. Habermas “Reconciliation through the public use of reason: remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism” The Journal of Philosophy Vol XCII No 3, 1995: pp. 109–131.
C. Mouffe “Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?” Social Research Vol 66 No 3, 1999: pp. 745–757.
P. du Gay Organizing identity Sage, London 2007.
A.G. Hopwood “Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an age when curiosity is not enough” European Accounting Review Vol 17, 2008: pp. 87–96.
K. Starkey and P. Madan “Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research” British Journal of Management Vol 12 Special Issue, 2001: pp. S3-S26.
D. Harvey A Brief History of Neoliberalism Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005.
C. Mouffe On the political, thinking in action Routledge, London 2005.
J. Rancière 1998. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy J. Rose (trans.) University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis 1998.
G. Graham Universities: the recovery of an idea Imprint Academic, Thorverton 2002.
J.M. Beyer and H.M. Trice “The Utilization process: a conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings” Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 27 No 4, 1982: pp. 591–622.
H. Willmott STS, CMS and the business school debate Paper prepared for the Workshop “Does STS Mean Business Too?” held at the Said Business School, Oxford University 28th June 2005.
T. Becher Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines SRHE and Open University Press, Milton Keynes 1989.
Cited in: E. Dunning Obituary: Professor Olive Banks Network: Newsletter of the British Sociological Association Spring 2007.
D. Wicks “The constitution of tenure: freedom or discipline?” Management Decision Vol 42 No 5, 2004: pp 619–627.
A.G. Hopwood “Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an age when curiosity is not enough” European Accounting Review Vol 17, 2008: pp. 87–96.
M. Curie The Discovery of Radium — Address by Marie Curie at Vassar College, May 14, 1921 Ellen S. Richards Monographs No 2 Vassar College, Poughkeepsie 1921.
H.S. Becker “Whose side are we on?” Social Problems Vol 14, 1967: pp. 239–47.
J.F. Galliher “Chicago’s two worlds of deviance research: whose side are they on” In: G.A. Fine (ed) A second Chicago School? The development of post-war American Sociology University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1995.
T. Becher Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines SRHE and Open University Press, Milton Keynes 1989.
M. Alvesson and S. Deetz Doing critical management research Sage, London 2000.
L. Alcoff “Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory” Signs Vol 13 No 3, 1988: pp. 405–36.
S. Becker, A. Bryman and J. Sempik “Defining ‘quality’in socialpolicy research: views, perceptions and aframework for discussion” Social Policy Association, Lavenham, Suffolk 2006.
S. Becker, A. Bryman and J. Sempik “Defining ‘quality’in social policy research: views, perceptions and aframework for discussion” Social Policy Association, Lavenham, Suffolk 2006.
H. Willmott STS, CMS and the business school debate Paper prepared for the Workshop “Does STS Mean Business Too?” held at the Said Business School, Oxford University 28th June 2005.
P.S. Adler L.C. Forbes and H. Willmott Critical management studier, premises, practices, problems and prospects Draft for Annals of the Academy of Management, November 2nd Version, http://www.criticalmanagement.org/publications/working.htm 2006.
J.L. Kincheloe and P L McLaren “Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research” In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1994.
E.G. Guba and Y.S. Lincoln “Competing paradigms in qualitative research” In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1994.
P.S. Adler, L.C. Forbes and H. Willmott Critical management studies: premises, practices, problems and prospects Draft for Annals of the Academy of Management, November 2nd Version, http://www.criticalmanagement.org/publications/working.htm 2006.
M. Alvesson and S. Deetz Doing critical management research Sage, London 2000.
K. Coyle “Postmodernism” Bulletin of the Marx Memorial Library No 117 Winter-Spring 1992.
M. Foucault “Afterword: the subject and power” In: H.L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics; with an afterword by Michel Foucault Harvester Press, Sussex 1982 pp. 208–226.
L. Alcoff “Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory” Signs Vol 13 No 3, 1988: pp. 405–36.
D.E. Meyerson and M.A. Scully “Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change” Organization Science Vol 6 No 5, 1995: pp. 585–600.
K. Mannheim Ideology and Utopia Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1936.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chaharbaghi, K., Barry, J. Paradoxing Relevance in the Research Quality Debate: Reflections of the “Irrelevance” of “Relevance”. Philos. of Manag. 9, 77–94 (2010). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom2010936
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom2010936