2007 1381 current commentators in urging future editorial to meaningfully interact across disciplinary bound teams to frequently revisit the mission and prac aries. At present, where cross-disciplinary"inter tices of their journals to make sure that impactful actions"occur at all, they are more likely to be in useful research is being encouraged rather than dis- the form of each discipline presenting its"side"in couraged by their policies. As Hambrick said, "The a debate-type format (see, e.g., Hauser, 2007: Le, greatest acclaim will always go to those who de- Oh, Shaffer, Schmidt, 2007: Ostrander, 2007) relop breakthrough theories. So there is plenty of Such forums, although perhaps interesting or pro- incentive to keep working on theory. But it takes vocative, are not likely to encourage collaboration much more than theory for an academic field to (or even good will)across disciplinary boundaries advance. Indeed, various types of atheoretical or Perhaps more could be gained by forums in pretheoretical work can be instrumental in allow- which each participant first presents a disciplinary ing theory to emerge or develop"(2007: 1351). In perspective on an issue, with the ultimate goal be- other words, there is often a built-in complementa ing that the participants find what is common in rity between theoretical and empirical contribu their positions, beliefs, or evidence. Illumination of tions, rather than a superior to/inferior to common interests, even in the presence of diverg situation ing evidence or foundational assumptions, is likely Beyond research per se, the commentators would to prove more motivational than formats that en like to see academics having more social and non courage sharpening differences(Bartunek, 2007) research-based contact with practitioners (e. g Given the difficulties that most academics face in teaching, consulting, and joint forums). Bartunek trying to keep up with even a single discipline said,"Joint research fosters academic-practitioner such forums would seem more likely to prove en collaboration in some instances but it is not a lightening and stimulating in terms of generating necessary or sufficient means for developing joint new research. In contrast, debates are more likely to relationships in which academics and practitioners entrench each side in its initial position, with little truly learn from each other and share elements of learning (and certainly no collaboration or integra pathos (i.e, emotion). Rather, it is important to tion)occurring as a result extend understandings of academic-practitioner re- lationships more broadly"(2007: 1328) Thus, Bartunek, Pfeffer, and McGrath all sug APPLYING OUR KNOWLEDGE BASE TO OUR OWN SITUATION gested a variety of formats through which academ ics and practitioners might get to know each other Perhaps the most optimistic piece of analysis better as the first step toward creating more d ffered by the commentators is that our accumu- namic research that will have more impact on prac lated research knowledge gives us the tools to deal tice. Pfeffer drew on medicine and medical re- with these challenges, assuming we have the will to search as a model do so. For example, we know a fair amount about how industries and organizations evolve and ma One cannot observe the advance of medical science ture(Agarwal Hoetker; Tsui), the requirement nd knowledge and its implementation in practice for working successfully across boundaries(Bar over the past several decades, including the almost tunek), environmental designs and coworker ar- 50 percent reduction in death rates from heart dis- ease,and not be impressed. The thrust of the evi rangements that facilitate learning(Pfeffer), and dence-based medicine movement was to bring the how to respond to threats of deinstitutionalization best scientific knowledge to the bedside(e. g, Rosen- (McGrath). Thus, the commentators urge us to berg Anna, 1995). As evidence-based medicine shake off our complacency with respect to the cur has grown, the practical issues of treatment, diagno rent state of affairs and put what we know into sis, and the understanding of disease processes have practice within our own discipline. Pfeffer said influenced the research-even the basic science, in some instances-that gets done .. The link be- We know a lot about innovation about the design of tween science and practice is closer [in medicine social and physical environments, about working in as it seems to be in engineering and computer sci teams,about building communities of practice, and ence as well, but I don't see any less academic about a lot of other things that are relevant to doing legitimacy for these fields. If anything, their science research that is both scientifically and profession ally significant. My vision is that we finally use that has advanced at least as vigorously (if not more so) than has ours.(2007: 1343) knowledge--turning our knowing into doing design our own systems, environments, and work Similarly, Agarwal and Hoetker (2007)and practices. (2007: 1343) McGrath(2007)suggested that we become more In order to move forward with this agenda. some creative at finding ways for management scholars of the commentators argue, the leaders and morecurrent commentators in urging future editorial teams to frequently revisit the mission and prac￾tices of their journals to make sure that impactful, useful research is being encouraged rather than dis￾couraged by their policies. As Hambrick said, “The greatest acclaim will always go to those who de￾velop breakthrough theories. So there is plenty of incentive to keep working on theory. But it takes much more than theory for an academic field to advance. Indeed, various types of atheoretical or pretheoretical work can be instrumental in allow￾ing theory to emerge or develop” (2007: 1351). In other words, there is often a built-in complementa￾rity between theoretical and empirical contribu￾tions, rather than a “superior to/inferior to” situation. Beyond research per se, the commentators would like to see academics having more social and non￾research-based contact with practitioners (e.g., teaching, consulting, and joint forums). Bartunek said, “Joint research fosters academic-practitioner collaboration in some instances, but it is not a necessary or sufficient means for developing joint relationships in which academics and practitioners truly learn from each other and share elements of pathos (i.e., emotion). Rather, it is important to extend understandings of academic-practitioner re￾lationships more broadly” (2007: 1328). Thus, Bartunek, Pfeffer, and McGrath all sug￾gested a variety of formats through which academ￾ics and practitioners might get to know each other better as the first step toward creating more dy￾namic research that will have more impact on prac￾tice. Pfeffer drew on medicine and medical re￾search as a model: One cannot observe the advance of medical science and knowledge and its implementation in practice over the past several decades, including the almost 50 percent reduction in death rates from heart dis￾ease, and not be impressed. The thrust of the evi￾dence-based medicine movement was to bring the best scientific knowledge to the bedside (e.g., Rosen￾berg & Anna, 1995). As evidence-based medicine has grown, the practical issues of treatment, diagno￾sis, and the understanding of disease processes have influenced the research— even the basic science, in some instances—that gets done. . . . The link be￾tween science and practice is closer [in medicine], as it seems to be in engineering and computer sci￾ence as well, but I don’t see any less academic legitimacy for these fields. If anything, their science has advanced at least as vigorously (if not more so) than has ours. (2007: 1343) Similarly, Agarwal and Hoetker (2007) and McGrath (2007) suggested that we become more creative at finding ways for management scholars to meaningfully interact across disciplinary bound￾aries. At present, where cross-disciplinary “inter￾actions” occur at all, they are more likely to be in the form of each discipline presenting its “side” in a debate-type format (see, e.g., Hauser, 2007; Le, Oh, Shaffer, & Schmidt, 2007; Ostrander, 2007). Such forums, although perhaps interesting or pro￾vocative, are not likely to encourage collaboration (or even good will) across disciplinary boundaries. Perhaps more could be gained by forums in which each participant first presents a disciplinary perspective on an issue, with the ultimate goal be￾ing that the participants find what is common in their positions, beliefs, or evidence. Illumination of common interests, even in the presence of diverg￾ing evidence or foundational assumptions, is likely to prove more motivational than formats that en￾courage sharpening differences (Bartunek, 2007). Given the difficulties that most academics face in trying to keep up with even a single discipline, such forums would seem more likely to prove en￾lightening and stimulating in terms of generating new research. In contrast, debates are more likely to entrench each side in its initial position, with little learning (and certainly no collaboration or integra￾tion) occurring as a result. APPLYING OUR KNOWLEDGE BASE TO OUR OWN SITUATION Perhaps the most optimistic piece of analysis offered by the commentators is that our accumu￾lated research knowledge gives us the tools to deal with these challenges, assuming we have the will to do so. For example, we know a fair amount about how industries and organizations evolve and ma￾ture (Agarwal & Hoetker; Tsui), the requirements for working successfully across boundaries (Bar￾tunek), environmental designs and coworker ar￾rangements that facilitate learning (Pfeffer), and how to respond to threats of deinstitutionalization (McGrath). Thus, the commentators urge us to shake off our complacency with respect to the cur￾rent state of affairs and put what we know into practice within our own discipline. Pfeffer said: We know a lot about innovation, about the design of social and physical environments, about working in teams, about building communities of practice, and about a lot of other things that are relevant to doing research that is both scientifically and profession￾ally significant. My vision is that we finally use that knowledge—turning our knowing into doing—to design our own systems, environments, and work practices. (2007: 1343) In order to move forward with this agenda, some of the commentators argue, the leaders and more 2007 Rynes 1381