Pr(A)cademic publications?! - Get comfortable with the uncomfortable

What is the purpose of science and research? And specifically, what is the purpose of management science? Impact, outcome? Is it not improvement of this world and life??

If we perceive science as the observation and study of the world, aimed at understanding how things work, their mechanisms, and interrelatedness, in order to improve that world, then what would management science be expected to do? In theory - management science does all that, for the managers. In practice - management science does a lot, for the academic world, and only something - for the managers, as primary intended audience.?

This article aims to shed light to the challenges of shaping, publishing, disseminating and communicating management science for greatest impact. Especially, but not limited to qualitative, quantitative approaches and the ones following Design Science Research, from author's extensive experiences with the discussed topic.

THE PROVOCATION!

Have you been in a situation where your paper was deemed as too practitioner oriented? Lacking scientific writing style? Criticism that came from scientists for management papers, as they are one intended audience, albeit not necessarily the primary one.?

Have you had managers reading and using your article? Claiming it was lacking practitioner vocabulary? Criticism that came from managers as intended audience in the real world.?

Are we talking about the same paper, in both of these cases? Should it be some new composition, yet to be outlined, so it serves both relevance and rigour? Or can we 'tweak' the existing core elements and enhance them, to serve the purpose? And even most importantly, around communicating science - does the work instigate true impact to improve this world?

Thus far, pioneering scholars with experimental formats have often undergone severe criticism on the part of the academic community, dissatisfied with those publications that, under the guise of academic articles, dared to distance themselves from the gravity of purely theoretical research approach, to adopt a challenge-based/problem-solving method. We find such criticism to be counterproductive as it promotes doing research for research’s sake. And that does not contribute to the well-being of our society. We believe that management research should help address real-life challenges, leading to a progressive improvement of our social and economic systems, therefore, criticizing those scholars that are exploring a new path, may lead to the stagnation of research itself, and consequently impede social progress. Otherwise, it is a downward spiral for the ones attempting to communicate applicable science.

PROBLEMS OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AT THIS STAGE

Our point is - although understanding, on a theoretical level, the mechanisms behind phenomena is important, managerial science should also be APPLICABLE, that is, it should have an impact on the socio-technical-environmental world, and find solutions to real-life problems, assist adaptation to shocks and/or initiate positive change. At this stage, research presents two major features that limit its applicability, via the deployed methodology (according to us, and Seckler et. al, 2023):

1. It focuses on the past to explain the present, instead of acting in the present, to shape the future;
2. It develops on a theoretical level, with rare practical experimentations.

In their article on design science (the one in #AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business and the one in an Elsevier journal), the authors Christoph Seckler, René Mauer and Jan vom Brocke are pointing out the reasons for these problems: “in recent years, management research has almost entirely sidestepped solving real-world challenges […].” They also explain how this theoretical approach is encouraged by the ranking system regulating career advancement in the academic field. Indeed, scholars’ prestige (and consequently their professional advancement) is calculated according to the number of publications in established journals, which favour explanatory research and an academic format. This ranking system governing the academic world has a double negative effect:

• It discourages problem-solving, reality-based research;
• It sets strict guidelines for academic papers, making them accessible only to other scholars;

In this academic world, governed by the “publish or perish” rule, scholars and papers are ranked according to their impact factor, determined by the frequency with which an article is cited. But does the number of citations really determine the impact of a study? And what does that study have an impact on? Research that focuses only on theoretical matters has almost no impact on real-life problems, it seldom comes from identifying and addressing those real world problems, and is limitedly useful. In the same way, academic publications, due to their length and complexity, can be accessed and understood only by scholars, and therefore find no direct applicability to real-life problems. Or, in terms of Design Science Research - DSR (Hevner et. al, 2009) - incorporate the proper relevance and rigour, to make applicability possible.

MAIN QUESTIONS

To make research publications useful they have to have proper structure and way of reaching out to the target audience.?

Hence, it is essential to ask ourselves two questions (complementary to how science should be generated):??

1. How should applicable management science be communicated, in order to be accessible to the intended audience?
2. Who should the intended audience be? (In the case of management science, should papers be addressed to academics, to managers who are to use the investigated methods from that science, to students, to all mentioned here, but also to citizens, leaders, …)

DOWNSIDES OF THE PUBLICATIONS IN THE ISOLATED WORLDS - comfortable ACADEMIA and uncomfortable PRACTICE and vice versa

When written, academic articles in the field of managerial science have some limitations, in the communication to the intended audience - managers. Namely:

• Their research-based approach sometimes doesn't start in the relevant environment, nor aims to fundamentally find applicability in real-life situations;
• The rules of publication inhibit inter/trans/cross/multidisciplinary approaches and are usually mono-disciplinary;
• Open Access is more of a dream of those behind the paywall, than a reality of those suggesting it.
• Their length and necessary content complexity makes them accessible mainly to scholars, preventing managers to peruse and benefit from the research;

Similarly, the structure and methodology applied in practitioner articles/communication have a number of downsides, when needed to be generalized for broader use:

• Addressing mainly the business domain, practitioner publications need to be short and concise;
• Strict word limits leave no space to digressions, but may also prevent the authors from expanding sufficiently on the methodology applied, thus preventing scholars from using that research as potential data for their studies;
• The samples that practitioner articles take into consideration may be too small for any generalisation: they are often case studies carried out on a single organization, or provide technical proficiency from experience, and therefore allow no generalization of the results, other than case study approach;
• Methodology is questionable - hence the label that they are not academic.

PIONEERING STEPS - POSITIVE DEVIANCE

We have observed that traditional rules of academic publication, as well as the established qualitative and quantitative methodology, are limitedly effective in the case of management science, since their theory-based approach often does not find application in real-life, or is too distant to be effective. The qualitative research inhibits application in diverse contexts, while the quantitative research in management tends to fit metaphysical content such as the managerial challenges, into mechanistic cast. The latter, inspired by Gell-Mann's: "... Think how hard physics would be if particles could think!". Hence, it might be necessary to contravene those rules and (re)trace a new path, that advocates the intersection of different research domains and stances inspired for/by their applicability. Even though many journals and conference call for the right challenges, especially in their special issues (#MISQ, the FT50 journals and multiple others open or behind a paywall), the contributions seem to converge to singularity. Some pioneering attempts of collaboration between agents with different professional backgrounds have been carried out, through the creation of platforms such as Frontiers, promoting a science that is openly available, aimed at the collaboration of scientists from different disciplines, regions, backgrounds; while the 'Academic rigour, journalistic flair' explains it all for The Conversation Australia + NZ, as a positive deviance, in our view. Moving through the spectrum between academia and practice, the World Open Innovation Community (WOIC) brings together academia, industry and policymakers, to explore the benefits of a cross-sector collaboration. The initial idea is that once each of these different cliques start listening to each other in the same room - things will interconnect more. Aside from the conference, exemplars of this specific kind are the #BerkeleyOpenInnovationSeminar happening on Mondays, informally-formal, yet a fruitful universe of exposure of open science to practitioners and vice versa; and the EUvsVirus universe, where practice needed immediate use of applicable science, and got it, substantially. Another thread of example speaking from own experience, was the sustaining of the effective mixture by the #AcademiaDiffusionExperiment. Somewhere in between, are the approaches by the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA) especially with the combination of evaluator profiles for the funding for open disruptive innovation, where both science and practice are intertwined cohesively and effectively. These trailblazing attempts of multidisciplinary collaboration however, may still be in some measure hindered by the rules of academic and practitioner publications, sitting lonely in their worlds.?

Subjectively (since we are the authors of this Linkedin article), we would place here two examples of Design Science Research in management, management information systems and complexity, which have piloted main ingredients and applicable blueprints. Namely, the books:

• Tactical Management in Complexity: Managerial and Informational Aspects, by Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, and
• Facilitation in Complexity - From Creation to Co-creation, from Dreaming to Co-dreaming, from Evolution to Co-evolution, by Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, Gjorgji Manceski, Geert Poels, are our pathfinder for the viewpoints in this Linkedin article. Both have been fruits of bridging academia (Ghent University Belgium and University St. Kliment Ohridski North Macedonia) as well as industries (banking, ICT, consultancy); countries (EU, Western Balkans) as well as individuals around collective purpose(s).

TOWARDS A NEW TRAJECTORY: WHAT SHOULD THE NEW FORMAT TAKE FROM THE TWO WORLDS

Considering the limits that both models face in communicating applicable science to their intended audience, and ensuring better applicability, we believe that a new format of publication could even originate. It can be a hybrid structure between an academic article and a practitioner article - in direction of a “Pr(A)cademic publication.” Such format, should:

• Amalgamate inter/trans/cross/multidisciplinary approaches (read: life) - it should be the preferred format for those studies carried out as a cooperation and co-creation of scholars and practitioners from different disciplines;
• Underpin (read: oblige for) applicability, target audience and co-creation;
• Encourage (read: not be afraid of) creative multimodal, multimedia expression;
• Open for continuous onboarding and reflection (read: not closed) throughout the entire workflow of applicable research;

As previously discussed, the purpose of science, and in our case - management science, should be its applicability to real-life situations, and since reality is multifaceted, the problems/challenges that we have to face also interweave many different aspects (social, environmental, digital, financial, etc.). To address and find a solution to those problems, experts’ multimodal knowledge needs to be built and utilized alongside scientists’, and this multilateral approach should find its place in publications, too. Indeed, when publishing a research that results from the cooperation within different contexts (e.g. academia and business) and disciplinary fields (e.g. sociology, ICT and environmental studies), it is difficult to follow the strict rules of academic publication, for the intangible, non-mechanistic managerial science. A publication composition that deals with academic studies (theoretical level) and real-life problems (practical level) - does it exist? Does something join together the elements from the two worlds? (please note our subtle transition from 'paper' to 'publication' here)

Inter/trans/cross/multidisciplinary knowledge is in the essence of problem-solving research. How do we place it in publications? How does a reviewing process look like then?

The genesis of Pr(A)cademic publications and the incorporation of the 'uncomfortable':

• Accessibility (fundamental, not just technical): while they would contain a section exposing the methodology, and they would add up on a study which is more than a narrow sample, Pr(A)cademic papers should not have an overly complex structure and highly technical wording and calculations (albeit it can expand via appendices), so as to remain accessible to the non-academic population;?
• Applicability (real, not just imaginary): when drafting the publication, authors should concentrate on how their findings might be applied to real-life challenges, to facilitate people or organization management. Even better if this is to be done when conducting the research;
• Multimedia approach (the uncomfortable - new competences to be mastered): publications should not only use written word to convey the message, but preferably include other media, such as visuals, podcasts, videos, etc., for a more effective, but also multidirectional communication;
• Hybrid form with emergent traits: pr(A)cademic publications should take the best from both worlds (academic and practitioner), and blend the different features in one single publication, with the aim of producing a useful product that might have a positive impact on society. Such product could be utilized by scholars, who could take it into consideration and use it as a basis for further research, by managers, who could apply the exposed models in real-life challenges, and also by students, who might be working on thesis or papers on the explored subjects, in primary, secondary and tertiary education, science and research.?

PERCEIVED LIMITATIONS OF THE NEW FORMAT

Such hybrid format still?has to develop guidelines regulating its structure and methods, therefore, it presents a number of limitations and risks:

• Methodology - this section should showcase the relevance and rigour, while generalisability can be open to debate, without discern;
• Opportunistic creation and improvisation - due to the circumstantial, opportunistic and unique nature of such publications, it could be difficult to trace definite guidelines;
• Philosophical understanding - funny or not, this category is placed under limitations, because one cannot publish a paper today without the clarity (and rigidity) of the Frascati classification details (to which institutions tend to strictly stick to, unless one is happy with going under 'other' beyond basic, applied and experimental research); science of today has diverted from its core to understand the phenomena and utilise that for progress;
• Superficiality - considering the broad scope of these publications, authors’ in depth knowledge might be limited;
• Difficulty in the reviewing process - in the present time, hybrid publications find it hard to be reviewed and positioned in predetermined tracks and journals, since they are more amorphous than the mechanistic exactness expected and measured thus far in the academic world. One suggestion - 'The pheromone trail for co-creative writing and reviewing in open collaboration in science'
• Subjectivity - science should be objective while practitioner approach can give subjective preference. For instance, we are using this article, which is in itself hybrid, to point out books/initiatives which in our personal opinion are ethnographic examples of Pr(A)cademic publications.?

However, the generation and communication of Pr(A)cademic publications does not mean they ought to be stripped from scientific or applicable value - on the contrary, the intention is to unify both!

WHAT NEXT?

While such risks and limits have to be acknowledged and taken into consideration when experimenting with an hybrid format, academics should open to, and get comfortable with, experimentations in publications and their communication. Thus, it may be counterproductive to label as invalid, rejected or inadequate those papers that deviate from the “beaten path” of academic publications. It is necessary to explore novel formats, best suited to publish, communicate and disseminate the scientific findings derived from an innovative approach to management science (which is a social science - not the same as natural or formal science). Moreover, the reviewing system of academic publications should be updated, to leave some space and give relevance to new publication formats, other than traditional academic papers. Indeed, the reviewing system based on the impact factor is possibly the biggest obstacle that hybrid publications have to overcome. Management science should evolve with society, according to its needs, and it should help the evolution of society, so management science publications and reviewing system, should develop accordingly. Hence, the academic world should get comfortable with the dichotomies that such hybrid formats encompass:?

• proficiency AND superficiality;
• theory AND best practices;
• academic AND practitioner;
• broad AND scoped;
• creative AND formalised;
• ... (this list can inspire many more entries)

Management science necessitates scholars to utilize knowledge and methods pertaining to different disciplines, therefore "specialist" proficiency in the single domains cannot be fully included, but can gravitate towards “generalist, with several specialties” that is, a more or less (in lack of better words) superficial-yet comprehensive, knowledge and understanding in multiple disciplines, and its cross-fertilisation. Although as academics it might be uncomfortable, and against our academic profile nature, to accept it, we should learn to strive for good quality, but forget about perfection.

Pr(A)cademic publications, beside giving a substantial contribution to society’s development, could provide benefits to both the academic and the practitioner world: Academia should be inspired from and witness the application of its scientific findings, which would also be more widespread and understood; Practitioners, on the other hand, would gain more comprehensive tools to employ in real-life situations, and would contribute to the generation and application of science in return.

If we each move beyond our 'comfortable' we can co-evolve to make the 'uncomfortable' (A) beautiful challenge which could mean (true, healthy, sustained, socio-tehnical-economicalenvironmental) progress.

Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, Double PhD degree - in Business Economics (UGent) and in Management (UKLO), a banker for 10 years, in Academia for 10 years, project evaluator for almost 10 years, voluntary academic citizen for 10+ years - a bit of everywhere, bridging worlds.

Daria Cecchinato, an amazing high-level intern (AI-NURECC PLUS, UniAdrion - Universities of the Adriatic-Ionian region) whose communication, research and writing capabilities have made this (and the following) articles to move status from important and non-urgent to realized.

References:

Murray Gell-Mann. 1995. The quark and the jaguar: adventures in the simple and the complex. W. H. Freeman & Co., USA. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/211536

Petrevska Nechkoska, R. (2020). Tactical management in complexity: Managerial and informational aspects. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22804-0

Facilitation in Complexity: From creation to co-creation, from dreaming to co-dreaming, from evolution to co-evolution, Renata Petrevska Nechkoska, Gjorgji Manceski, Geert Poels (Editors), Springer Nature, 2023, ISBN 978-3-031-11064-1, Series Title Contributions to Management Science, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11065-8

Hevner, Alan R., et al. “Design Science in Information Systems Research.” MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, 2004, pp. 75–105. JSTOR,https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625.

Gregor, Shirley, and Alan R. Hevner. “Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact.” MIS Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 2, 2013, pp. 337–55. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43825912.

INDULSKA, MARTA, and JAN RECKER. “Design Science in IS Research: A Literature Analysis.” Information Systems Foundations: The Role of Design Science, edited by Dennis N. Hart and Shirley D. Gregor, ANU Press, 2010, pp. 285–304. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24h3z6.16.

Peffers, Ken, et al. “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research.” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 24, no. 3, 2007, pp. 45–77. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40398896.

Sein, Maung K., et al. “Action Design Research.” MIS Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, 2011, pp. 37–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/23043488.

Murray Gell-Mann. 1995. The quark and the jaguar: adventures in the simple and the complex. W. H. Freeman & Co., USA.https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/211536

Christoph Seckler, René Mauer, Jan vom Brocke. 2023. The World Needs Design Science Now More Than Ever. https://www.aacsb.edu/insights/articles/2023/08/the-world-needs-design-science-now-more-than-ever

C. Seckler, R. Mauer and J. vom Brocke. 2021. Design science in entrepreneurship: Conceptual foundations and guiding principles. Journal of Business Venturing Design 1 - 100004. Elsevier Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvd.2022.100004