Revisiting the rigor–relevance relationship: An institutional logics perspective

• Author: Ted A. Paterson,P. D. Harms,Christopher S. Tuggle
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21911
• Date: 01 November 2018

HR SCIENCE FORUM

Revisiting the rigor–relevance relationship: An institutional

logics perspective

Ted A. Paterson

1

| P. D. Harms

2

| Christopher S. Tuggle

3

1

Oregon State University, Oregon

2

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

3

University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska

Correspondence

Ted A. Paterson, College of Business, Oregon

State University, 374 Austin Hall, Corvallis,

OR 97331.

Email: ted.paterson@oregonstate.edu

The question of whether academic research should emphasize scientific rigor, practical rele-

vance, or both simultaneously has been hotly debated in HRM research and other related disci-

plines for much of the past century. That said, empirical investigations of whether these values

are mutually exclusive or compatible are surprisingly rare. Moreover, the perspective of the

end consumers of research—practitioners—as to what research is relevant has been almost

completely ignored. In the present study, we adopt an institutional logics perspective to assess

the perceived relevance of common management research findings with two samples of

298 and 143 practicing managers, respectively. Further, we examine whether objective indica-

tors of rigor and manager-rated relevance impact academic legitimacy. The results indicate a

positive relationship between rigor and relevance. Interestingly, practitioner ratings of rele-

vance were stronger predictors of academic legitimacy than methodological rigor. Finally,

research findings that deal with leadership topics are rated as most relevant to practitioners,

whereas job characteristics, demographics, and human resource practices are seen as the least

relevant to managers. The contributions of this study and implications for future research con-

clude the article.

KEYWORDS

institutional logics, legitimacy, rigor, relevance

1|INTRODUCTION

In 2007, Dipboye published “Eight Outrageous Statements About HR

Science.”Among these were the claims that (a) rigor in HR research is

more façade than reality and (b) HR research is relevant only to aca-

demics. This stinging indictment of the HR field questions the success

of journals such as Human Resource Management that have made it

their mission to provide a bridge between the interests of practicing

managers and the rigorous research conducted by academics (Beer,

Boselie, & Brewster, 2015;Hayton, Piperopoulos, & Welbourne, 2011;

Zhang, Levenson, &Crossley, 2015). Dipboye’s claims were not backed

up by any evidence other than anecdotes and personal opinions, but

they can be empiricallyexamined. Although Dipboye (2007) singled out

HR research in particular, others have similarly questioned the rigor

and relevance of both organizational behavior (Edwards, 2015) and

industrial and organizationalpsychology research (Anderson, Herriot, &

Hodgkinson, 2001). So what is the current state of the micro domains

in management as it pertainsto their rigor and relevance?

Central to answering this question is identifying a theoretical frame-

work that can best help us understand the interplay between rigor and rel-

evance. Recently, Kieser (2011) suggested that rigor and relevance can be

considered two institutional logics that influence the degree to which aca-

demic research is perceived as legitimate. Thus, this study draws upon

institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Meyer & Rowan, 1977;

Scott, 2008; Zucker, 1987) to explain that rigor and relevance are coexist-

ing institutional logics, or the organizing principles of a field (Reay & Hin-

ings, 2009), which to varying degrees influence the legitimacy of academic

research. As such, it is our assertion that the twin directives of rigor and rel-

evance have a positive, augmenting impact (Hodgkinson & Rousseau,

2009; Peng & Dess, 2010; Walsh, 2011), rather than an opposing (Kieser,

2011; Kieser & Leiner, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012; Kieser & Nicolai, 2005) or

orthogonal relationship (Ghoshal, 2005; Gulati, 2007; Palmer, 2006) as

others have contended.

Evidence for the institutional logics at work in the academy

over the past decades is found in theriseofevidence-basedman-

agement (Luthans, 2011; McHenry, 2007; Murphy & Saal, 1990;

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21911

Hum Resour Manage. 2018;57:1371–1383. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1371