Yönetim Araştırmasında Teori-Pratik Kopukluğunu Gidermeye Yönelik Araştırma: Problem Temelli Metodoloji ve Bir Uygulama/ Theory-Practice Gap in Management Research: Problem Based Methodology and an Application

Abstract

Yönetim araştırmalarının, yönetim uygulaması üzerindeki etkisi ve sağladığı fayda sınırlı kalmaktadır. Üretilen bilginin tabiatı, araştırma problemlerinin uygulama problemlerinden farklı olması ve araştırma bulgularının sunumu gibi farklı sebeplerden kaynaklanan bu durum, teori ile pratik arasındaki kopukluğun artmasına sebep olmaktadır. Aynı anda hem yönetim literatürüne katkı sağlayan hem de yöneticilere problem çözmede yardımcı olacak araştırmalar yapmak, uygulama problemlerini araştırmanın merkezine almakla sağlanabilir. Problem Temelli Metodoloji, araştırmanın problemini yöneticilerin pratik problemleri ile eşgüdümlü hale getirmek, kullanılan çözümlerin etkililiğini tespit etmek, bu çözümleri kritiğe tabi tutmak ve buradan edinilen bilgilerle yeni çözümler geliştirme yoluyla yöneticilere yardımcı olurken aynı zamanda mevcut bilgi birikimine katkıda bulunur. Böylelikle bir yandan yöneticilerin mevcut gerçekliği daha iyi anlaşılırken diğer yandan daha istendik gerçeklikler üretilmesine araştırma sürecinde katkıda bulunulabilir. Bu çalışmada, çalışmaya katılan yöneticinin, çözmekte zorlandığı bir problemi çözmede etkisiz kalmasının sebepleri araştırılırken aynı zamanda, araştırma sürecinde problemin çözümüne yönelik yardım sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Problem temelli metodoloji
• teori-uygulama kopukluğu
• yönetim araştırması
• yönetimde problem çözme

Yönetim Araştırmasında Teori-Pratik Kopukluğunu Gidermeye Yönelik Araştırma: Problem Temelli Metodoloji ve Bir Uygulama/ Theory-Practice Gap in Management Research: Problem Based Methodology and an Application

Abstract

Scientific research on management continues to reveal a wide array of managerial and organizational problems and provide causal explanations for them. However, the effectiveness of research in solving management problems remains limited. Existing literature provides several reasons for this ineffectiveness and receipts for their remedial. Problem-Based Methodology (PBM) claims that there is a misalignment between the problems of researchers and the problems of managers, and this misalignment leads to scientific knowledge that cannot be used in practice.
Problem Based Methodology is a postpositivist approach that consists of a theory of problems, a theory about how to solve problems, and a set of normative criteria for judging the adequacy of solutions. PBM starts with two questions: (1) “what is the nature of the practice?” and (2) “what does the answer to the first question tells us about how it should be studied?” In PBM, practice is defined as a solution to prior problems about what to do given a particular situation. For example, a strategy is a solution to the problem of how to pursue a competitive advantage across the companies chosen market. A corporate policy is a solution to the problem of how the organization will function. An organizational learning practice is a solution to the question of how to create, acquire and transfer knowledge within the organization and how to modify the organization’s behavior to reflect the acquired knowledge and insights.
PBM claims that if we can understand the problem-solving process that leads to a current practice then we can change this process to yield better solutions. In order to match the practice, PBM uses Thomas Nickles’s problem definition: “a problem consists of all the conditions or constraints on the solution plus the demand that the solution is found”. These constraints can be variously weighted, and the solution can be a concept, behavior, or process that satisfies the constraints. Constraints are requirements that the solutions should meet. Solutions that are otherwise acceptable can be ruled out by constraints. Constraints may have been set externally by regulatory or governing bodies or be limits on resources such as finance, staffing or technology. They can be set by problem solvers themselves. These constraints are subject to revision based on experience, relevant theory or feedback from the environment.
In this paper, an example of research practice will be presented about how better problem-solving approaches can be developed through critically evaluating the managers’ reasoning and actions used in the problem-solving process within the research process by regarding managers as partners in research. This study can be a model for both the management researchers seeking to produce directly useful research and managers looking for developing better problem-solving approaches.
This particular research is aimed at understanding the problem-solving process of a manager dealing with a subordinate he identified as irresponsible. The manager’s current practice does not yield the intended results and every attempt to solve the problem strains the relationship between the manager and the subordinate. The manager’s practice is evaluated using the four criteria of PBM. The explicit and implicit constraints on the solution are identified. The researcher and the manager collaboratively developed a new solution to the problem and practiced its implementation.
The research provides insights regarding the ineffective problem-solving process of the managers and example to how research can benefit practitioners with improved solutions through research.

Keywords

• Problem based methodology
• theory-practice gap
• management research
• management problem solving

References

1. Anandalingam, G., & Kulatilaka, N. (1987). Decomposing production efficiency into technical, allocative and structural components. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 150(part 2), 143–151.
2. Argyle, M. (1994). Psychology of ınterpersonal behaviour (5th Edition). Penguin UK.
3. Argyris, C. (1971). Intervention theory and method: A behavioral science View. Addison-Wesley.
4. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organization. Jossey-Bass.
5. Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action a guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. Jossey-Bass.
6. Argyris, C. (1996). Prologue: toward a comprehensive theory or management. In B. Moingeon & A. C. Edmondson (Eds.), Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage (pp. 1–6). SAGE Publications.
7. Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and management trap. Oxford University Press.
8. Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations. Oxford University Press.

9. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science (1st Editio). Jossey-Bass, Inc.
10. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
11. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
12. Arieli, D., Friedman, V. J., & Agbaria, K. (2009). The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research, 7(3), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750309336718
13. Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O’Brien, J. (2012). Bridging the Research–Practice Gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0140
14. Bradbury-Huang, H. (2010). What is good action research? Action Research, 8(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750310362435
15. Bryman, A., Stephens, M., & Campo, C. À. (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90025-9
16. Burns, J. C., & Okey, J. R. (1985). Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 167–177.
17. Dent, E. B. (2003). the Interactional Model: An Alternative To the Direct Cause and Effect Construct for Mutually Causal Organizational Phenomena. Foundations of Science, 8, 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A
18. Derindere, M. S. (2020). A core problem with human data processing: Epistemic Circularity in Action. In S. Gülseçen, S. K. Sharma, & E. Akadal (Eds.), Who Runs The World: DATA (pp. 107–122). İstanbul University Press.
19. Derindere, M. S. (2022). Yönetim Problemlerini Çözümsüz Kılmak: Epistemik Döngüsel Muhakeme. Bilgi Dergisi, 24(1), 21–52.
20. Donmoyer, R. (1996). Introduction: Talking “truth” to power: The conversation continues. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 2–14.
21. Friedman, V. J. (2001). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in communities of practice. Handbook of Action Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 131–143.
22. Gage, N. A., & Lewis, T. J. (2014). Hierarchical Linear Modeling Meta-Analysis of Single-Subject Design Research. The Journal of Special Education, 48(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912443894
23. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.16132558
24. Haig, B. D. (1987). Scientific problems and the conduct of research. In Educational Philosophy and Theory (Vol. 19). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1987.tb00003.x
25. Haig, B. D. (2014). Reflections on problem-based methodology. In A Companion to Research in Education (pp. 353–356). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6809-3_47
26. Hannah, D., Sinnema, C., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2019). Theory of action accounts of problem-solving: How a Japanese school communicates student incidents to parents. Management in Education, 33(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618783809
27. Hirschkorn, M., & Geelan, D. (2008). Bridging the Research-Practice Gap: Research Translation and/or Research Transformation. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(1), 1–13.
28. Ittner, C., & Larcker, D. (2002). Empirical managerial accounting research: Are we just describing management consulting practice? European Accounting Review, 11(4), 787–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818022000047082
29. Kaplan, A. (1965). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. In American Sociological Review (Vol. 30). https://doi.org/10.2307/2091353
30. Kaplan, R. S. (1986). The role for empirical research in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(4–5), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(86)90012-7
31. Kelemen, M., & Bansal, P. (2002). The conventions of management research and their relevance to management practice. British Journal of Management, 13(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00225
32. Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the Rigour-Relevance Gap in Management Alfred Kieser and Lars Leiner. Journal of Management Studies, 46(May), 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831.x
33. Kuhn, T. S. (2011). Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice. In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (pp. 320–339). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226217239-014
34. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3103804
35. Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ understanding and teaching of the nature of science: An intervention study. The Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 1(2), 135–160.
36. Lee, T. (1989). Education, Practice and Research in Accounting: Gaps, Closed Loops, Bridges and Magic Accounting. Accounting and Business Research, 19(75), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1989.9728854
37. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology (pp. xv, 238). McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1037/10019-000
38. Mitchell, F. (2002). Research and practice in management accounting: Improving integration and communication. European Accounting Review, 11(2), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180020017087
39. Nickles, T. (1978). Scientific Problems and Constraints. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1978, 134–148.
40. Nickles, T. (1981). What is a problem that we may solve it? Synthese, 47(1), 85–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064267
41. Norman, D. A. (2010). The research-practice gap: The need for translational developers. Interactions, 17(4), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806491.1806494
42. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6th ed.). Sage.
43. Ordun, G. (2005). Kişilik faktörleri ve satış temsilcilerinin performansı arasındaki ilişkiler üzerine bir çalışma. Yönetim Dergisi: İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü, 16(51), 56–68.
44. Popper, K. (2003). Bilimsel araştırmanın mantığı (Ç. İlknur & İ. Turan, Eds.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994627
45. Popper, K. R. (1999). All life is problem solving. Routledge.
46. Popper, K. R. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (2nd Editio). Routledge Classics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412688
47. Putnam, R. (1993). Unlocking organizational routines that prevent learning. The Systems Thinker, 4(6), 7–10.
48. Razer, M., & Friedman, V. J. (2016). From exclusion to excellence: Building restorative relationships to create ınclusive schools. Sense Publishers.
49. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
50. Robinson, V. (1996). Problem-Based methodology and administrative practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X96032003007
51. Robinson, V. (2015). Open-to-learning conversations: Background paper ıntroduction to open-to-learning conversations (February). The University of Auckland.
52. Robinson, V., & Lai, M. K. (2006). Practitioner research for educators. Corwin Press.
53. Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). Problem-based methodology: research for the improvement of practice. Pergamon Press.
54. Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Methodology and the Research-Practice Gap. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176923
55. Robinson, V. M. J. (2014). Reducing the research practice gap through problem based methodology. In A. D. Reid, E. P. Hart, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), A Companion to Research in Education (pp. 341–352). Springer Science & Business Media.
56. Robinson, V. M. J. (2018). Reduce change to ıncrease ımprovement. Corwin Press.
57. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The power of the situation. In The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of social psychology (pp. 27–58). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014077
58. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2011). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Pinter & Martin.
59. Rudolph, J. W., Taylor, S. S., & Foldy, E. G. (2001). Collaborative off-line reflection: A way to develop skill in action science and action ınquiry. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 405–412). Sage Publications.
60. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. Doubleday.
61. Simon, H. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes: Vol. V (pp. 271–295). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315770314
62. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press.
63. Taylor, S. S., Rudolph, jenny W., & Foldy, E. G. (2007). Teaching Reflective Practice in the Action Science / Action Inquiry Tradition: Key stages, concepts and practices. The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, 656–668. https://doi.org/doi: 10.4135/9781848607934
64. Tucker, B., & Parker, L. (2014). In our ivory towers? The research-practice gap in management accounting. Accounting and Business Research, 44(2), 104–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2013.798234