Full Picture

Extension usage examples:

Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Appears moderately imbalanced

Article summary:

1. The lack of practical relevance in management research has been a topic of discussion for many years, with various suggestions for solutions.

2. The programmatic relevance literature suggests ways to deal with the issue, such as popularization, action research, design science, and evidence-based management.

3. However, the programmatic relevance debate is fragmented and lacks empirical support, while the descriptive relevance literature focuses on the different meanings and forms of practical relevance.

Article analysis:

The article provides a comprehensive review of the literature on the practical relevance of management research. It identifies different streams of thought and their respective solutions to the perceived lack of relevance in management research. However, the article also highlights several shortcomings in the programmatic relevance debate, including its fragmentation, lack of empirical support, and normative expectations.

One potential bias in the article is its focus on academic literature and its neglect of practitioner perspectives. While the article acknowledges that collaboration between researchers and practitioners is one solution to increasing practical relevance, it does not explore how practitioners perceive the relevance problem or what they consider relevant research.

Another potential bias is the article's emphasis on scientific rigor over practical relevance. While it acknowledges that both dimensions are important, it tends to prioritize rigor and dismisses some suggestions for increasing practical relevance as based on "uncritical transfer of concepts from other disciplines." This bias may reflect a disciplinary culture that values theoretical contributions over practical applications.

The article also makes some unsupported claims, such as stating that "hardly any studies" have examined the impact of suggested solutions on practical relevance without providing evidence for this claim. Similarly, it suggests that editorial policies requiring authors to address both academics and practitioners are ineffective without providing data to support this assertion.

One missing point of consideration is how different stakeholders define practical relevance. The article briefly mentions that there are different meanings associated with the term but does not explore these differences or their implications for addressing the relevance problem.

The article could benefit from exploring counterarguments to some of its claims. For example, while it dismisses popularization as a low-status activity without empirical support, others may argue that popularization can be an effective way to increase practical relevance by making research accessible to non-academic audiences.

Overall, while the article provides a useful overview of the literature on practical relevance in management research, it could benefit from more balanced reporting and greater attention to practitioner perspectives and alternative viewpoints.