From Actionable Knowledge to Universal Theory in Management Research

[Page 34]There are two complementary questions about the links between actionable knowledge and universal theory in management research. The most frequently addressed is how to make scientific results more actionable. Creating actionable knowledge (Academy of Management Conference, 2004), making theories more actionable, and bridging the gap between theory and practice (Hatchuel, 2005; “Relevance,” 2001) are a few formulations of this problem, among many others. A classical answer to this first question is to draw managerial implications from theoretical conclusions. Managerial implications do constitute a step toward actionability; the researcher makes recommendations about possible applications of the research results in real management situations. By doing so, the researcher targets certain types of management situations and organizational contexts. He or she formulates more or less precise and relevant hypotheses concerning future situations and contexts. Such managerial implications are an interesting but subjective effort to conceive of contextual problems for which the application of the research results would be appropriate.

The second question—how to create universal theories from actionable knowledge—is often understood as “how to generalize from empirical data toward more universal theories.” Inductive inference has long been identified as a means by which general-level propositions can be made from empirical data. Abductive and inductive reasoning (Peirce, 1931) are well known stages of this process of scientific generalization, but constitute only a part of the answer because “empirical data” and “actionable knowledge” are separate notions. That is, data are not necessarily “knowledge,” and empirical knowledge is not necessarily “actionable.” Hence, there is no reason why “actionable knowledge” should necessarily be “empirical.” In management research, as in management practice, moving from actionable knowledge to general, universal theories is not just a matter of generalizing from a representative sample to a larger population. Such a generalization protocol only works at validation stages, not at the discovery or invention stages of the process of management innovation. Instead, we need an alternative process that affords actionable knowledge a more central position and reconsiders the role of management research at the discovery stage, that is, at the very moments when management practices and theories are invented. This chapter aims at proposing such a framework to better understand the contribution of research to the production of actionable knowledge and to the process of moving from actionable knowledge to universal theory. After characterizing management as a practice and defining the concepts of “management model,” “actionable knowledge,” and “universal theory,” we distinguish between the stages of discovery/invention and validation in the design of management models. Examining these two dimensions, discovery/invention and validation in the academy and/or in organizations, in a 2×2 table, we distinguish four types of academic contributions: (1) researchers and actors in the field discover/invent a new management model and create the theory that gives the model its universal value; (2) researchers discover/invent a new management model, within the academy, that could be made actionable in some management contexts; (3) researchers create a theory that gives universal value to a model already discovered/invented by pioneering organizations; and (4) researchers work at commenting on, comparing, testing, or improving a management model that has already been discovered/invented and validated and for which the relevant universal theory has already been formulated. We then go on to analyze why only collaborative research with pioneering organizations permits the joint production of both [Page 35]actionable and universal forms of management models.

...