All aboard? evidence-based management and the future of management scholarship
The research-practice gap has emerged as an acute problem in management scholars' internal professional debates. Evidence-based management (EBM) has been proposed as a remedy, and it is gaining adherents. This article offers a critical examination of the EBM proposal and its justification. The proposal is found to be poorly conceived and justified. Therefore, a search for a different response to the same concerns is in order. The direction of search is to understand how existing scholarly practices offer advice to actors in managerial roles. While advice-giving scholarly practices are diverse and disconnected, a commonality is that they define design issues and offer value- and knowledge-based argumentation schemes for resolving them. An alternative to EBM can be envisioned: to strengthen the management field's network of design-oriented approaches to advice-giving. By employing the unorthodox style of a dialogue, this article shows how common ground about EBM and its alternatives can be established among management scholars who identify with conflicting intellectual traditions.
| Item Type | Article |
|---|---|
| Copyright holders | © 2009 Taylor & Francis Group |
| Departments |
LSE > Academic Departments > Government LSE > Academic Departments > Government > Public Policy Group LSE > Academic Departments > Accounting > Centre for Analysis of Risk & Regulation |
| DOI | 10.1080/10967490903094087 |
| Date Deposited | 31 Jan 2011 |
| URI | https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/31919 |
Explore Further
- http://www.lse.ac.uk/management/people/academic-staff/mbarzelay.aspx (Author)
- https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/70449389189 (Scopus publication)
- http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10967494.as... (Official URL)