On the Social Construction of Relevance: A Rejoinder
回应关于严谨性与相关性差距的辩论，提出只有实践者能评估研究相关性，协作研究未必提高相关性，科学证据矛盾多且无助于实践，学术期刊与排名体系阻碍相关性转向。
abstract This rejoinder ties in with a Point–Counterpoint debate on the rigour–relevance gap which was published in the May 2009 issue of JMS . Responding to our critics we advance four arguments: (1) Only practitioners, not management scholars, can ultimately assess relevance of research by applying solutions derived from research results. (2) Collaborative management research whose output, in the publishing process, has to pass reviews in which criteria of rigour dominate does not necessarily generate research of higher relevance. (3) The ‘body of scientific evidence’ which our critics refer to contains an abundance of contradicting findings and recommendations and is therefore not of much help for practitioners. (4) Since the academic management journals and the ranking systems are controlling management research, a change towards epistemologies that foster relevance of research, as envisaged by our critics, is not very likely.