Control and traceability of research impact on practice: reframing the ‘relevance gap’ debate in management

Abstract

This paper aims at reframing the relevance gap debate in management science by repositioning scholar-practitioner collaboration and knowledge coproduction practices regarding knowledge relevance and impact. Based on a reflection about the nature of management knowledge, we argue that the so-called relevance gap should be more aptly reframed as a ‘traceability’ or a ‘controllability’ gap. Although management knowledge may be deemed relevant by a wide range of practitioners, the ways these practitioners use management knowledge are hardly visible, let alone controllable. Scholar-practitioner collaboration can be seen as a way for management scholars to regain some control over the utilization process, rather than a way to ensure knowledge relevance as such. Instrumental knowledge, which is paramount in the popular design-science perspective, certainly accounts for a share of management knowledge. Besides this, the design-science perspective offers a promising way to put scholar-practitioner collaboration into practice. It enhances the visibility of research products and the traceability of knowledge transfer. Yet instrumental knowledge should not be seen as the only type of relevant and used knowledge. Conceptual and critical knowledge are vital for management science. Instrumental relevance should be complemented by conceptual relevance, although the latter seriously tempers scholars’ quest for traceability and control over knowledge utilization. In the debate about the relevance and impact of management knowledge, the fundamental question of ‘knowledge for whom?’ should remain at the center of the debate.