research agendas
Teppo
Vic Fleischer at the Conglomerate had a post last week on research agendas. In short, he asks whether one should enter an ongoing debate, or, carve a new niche?
Dave Whetten, an excellent organization theorist, highlights the need (particularly for young scholars) to join an existing scholarly conversation. I have heard him (building on the book Writing for Scholarly Publication by Anne Huff) draw an analogy between research agendas and cocktail conversations. That is, one can envision a host of conversations at an AOM or ASA-type academic convention – developing an agenda is a kin to addressing such questions as – what are the ongoing cocktail conversations, who is conversing, and how can one understand, enter, and make a persuasive contribution to those discussions? In terms of Fleischer’s question, and extending Dave’s intuition – it might be risky, and perhaps arrogant, or even impossible, for a young scholar to try to start a new conversation. Dave has given some thoughtful presentations on these matters throughout the world in past years - here’s a link to a recent presentation at a university in China (the presentation also is an excellent primer on theory-building and research in general), here are some related slides from a 2000 ICOS presentation at the University of Michigan.
I have some deep epistemological problems with the “conversations”/community-of-practice approach to research and knowledge, specifically given its Kuhnian undertones, yet, in part, the advise does also resonate and perhaps is the more tenurable approach to take – I guess. I suppose one can readily think of some exceptions and those who have truly carved a new direction. In all, luckily organization theory is a big enough tent where I think good folks can end up on both sides of the divide – entering ongoing debates or carving new niches – or simply, straddle the two.
