Crilly et al chose this as the most interesting paper in this section…
Interesting paper – methodological debate (p.68)
Abstract from Tranfield, Denyer & Smart (2003) Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review
Abstract: Undertaking a review of the literature is an important part of any research project. The researcher both maps and assesses the relevant intellectual territory in order to specify a research question which will further develop the knowledge base. However, traditional ‘narrative’ reviews frequently lack thoroughness, and in many cases are not undertaken as genuine pieces of investigatory science. Consequently they can lack a means for making sense of what the collection of studies is saying. These reviews can be biased by the researcher and often lack rigour. Furthermore, the use of reviews of the available evidence to provide insights and guidance for intervention into operational needs of practitioners and policy makers has largely been of secondary importance. For practitioners, making sense of a mass of often-contradictory evidence has become progressively harder. The quality of evidence underpinning decision-making and action has been questioned, for inadequate or incomplete evidence seriously impedes policy formulation and implementation. In exploring ways in which evidence-informed management reviews might be achieved, the authors evaluate the process of systematic review used in the medical sciences. Over the last fifteen years, medical science has attempted to improve the review process by synthesizing research in a systematic, transparent, and reproducible manner with the twin aims of enhancing the knowledge base and informing policymaking and practice. This paper evaluates the extent to which the process of systematic review can be applied to the management field in order to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research. The paper highlights the challenges in developing an appropriate methodology.
What Crilly et al said about it:
“Tranfield, Denyer & Smart (2003), dealing with health-related subject matter but published in generic management literature, polarise the approaches of narrative and systematic methods of acquiring knowledge in the form of literature reviews. They argue that narrative reviews lack rigour and that the systematic approach applied in biomedical sciences offers a more comprehensive and therefore valid methodology. The question ‘how do we know what we know?’ becomes a methodological question.
The debate between hard and soft dimensions of management knowledge was stimulated by Tranfied & Starkey (1998) who argued that a hierarchy of management evidence was possible, in spite of ambiguous and diffuse notions of context, stakeholder perspectives, contestability and challenges to authority.
In spite of the explicit distinctions between medical and management knowledge bases, Tranfield et al conclude that systematic reviews are the underpinning of ‘pragmatic’ research, aiming to be both relevant and rigorous (Hodgkinson et al, 2001). They put a marker in the sand against which any evidence review can test itself. In effect, Evidence Based (or Informed or Aware) Management is exhorted to learn from Evidence Based Medicine.
Page 7 (pdf via above link) (p.213 in the paper) shows a box outlining the differences between medical research and management research.
This extract is taken from the end of Chapter 5: Nature of knowledge and knowing from
Reading KM0001: SDO knowledge mobilisation literature review (7) Crilly T, Jashapara A, Ferlie E (2010) “Research Utilisation & knowledge mobilisation: A scoping review of the literature” Report for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme HMSO
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.