Rigour versus Relevance in Information Systems Research in South Africa

Rigour versus Relevance in Information Systems Research inSouth Africa

Joshua ChukwuereSam LubbeJan Meyer Rembrandt Klopper

Abstract!!br0ken!!Rigour and relevance division is as aresult of many reasons. The gap between the two haspromoted debate and argument that has lasted foryears. Many believed that IS research is effectiveand others opposed the argument. Others within oroutside the discipline are considering whether ISresearch output is affecting and impacting decisionmaking in the industry. Meanwhile, the debate onrigour and relevance has lasted for decades but inreality, the debate and the gap still persist, inspite of efforts by researchers. Their efforts andhard-work seems ineffective. The study determinedwhether the needs of practitioners through rigourand relevance of IS/academic research and also todetermine whether this lingering debate over thesedecades has worth from an academic viewpoint. There

Alternation 19,X (2012) X - Y ISSN 1023-1757 1

Rigour versus Relevance in Information Systems Research in SouthAfrica

is also an on-going criticism that IS researchlacks rigour, relevance, effective communicationand acceptance in the field as noted in theliterature.

Keywords!!br0ken!!Rigour, Relevance, Debate, InformationSystems (IS), Academia, Collaboration, Research,Academic, Researchers, Practitioners, Applieddiscipline, Research method and Academicresearchers.

IntroductionRigour and relevance in Information Systems (IS)research is a means for quality in research, ratherthan an end (Martensson & Martensson 2007).Rigorous research is research that aims to becredible by being consistent and transparent.Relevant research is presenting meaningful findingsto practitioners (Martensson & Martensson 2007).Rigour and relevance have contributory aspects thatare working together to achieve research quality.

The rigour versus relevance debate on IS hasbeen on-going over decades but it has not yet beensolved (Glass 2009 Martensson & Martensson 2007Gulati 2007 Worrall, Lubbe & Klopper 2007). Thedebate is whether IS researchers and practitionersasking themselves if IS research move from rigour

2

Joshua Chukwuere, Sam Lubbe, Jan Meyer and Rembrandt Klopper

and relevance to reverberating and responsibleresearch that impacts on practitioners’ activitiesand on general society (Desouza, Sawy, Galliers,Loebbecke & Watson 2006.).

Problem StatementIt is important to look at whether knowledgeproduced by IS researchers is applied by ISpractitioners on a daily basis and understandingwhether the problems and challenges faced bypractitioners are addressed by IS research andwhether the report is available to IS practitioners(Recker, Young, Darroch, Marshall & McKay 2009;Kraaijenbrink 2010).

The central objective and aim of ISresearchers is to conduct research that is rigorousand relevant and applicable by practitioners(Mentzer 2008). For a research study to be relevantresearchers and practitioners have to collaborate,the findings must be used by others, it must solvereal-world problems and create and add knowledge toboth the academic and practitioner body (Kieser &Leiner 2007).

The problem to be investigated can thereforebe stated to be: It is presently unknown howrigorous and relevant Information Systems researchin South Africa is to meet Information Systemspractitioners’ expectations.

3


Research QuestionThe research questions that are derived from thisproblem statement can be formulated in one primaryand 3 secondary research questions.

The primary research question is postulatedas: What is a rigorous and relevant research thatmeets Information Systems practitioners’expectations?

The three secondary research questionsstemming from the primary question are:

1. Is IS research output addressing the concernof IS practitioners?

2. Is rigour versus relevance debate necessary inIS research?

3. What can be done to improve the understandingof rigour and relevance in IS research?

Overview of the LiteratureThe gap between IS academics and practitioners isworrying (Fitzgerald 2003). Lately, there has alsobeen a debate on how to increase and improveresearch relevance (Nicolai & Seidl 2010). At thispoint, rigour has a role to play (Vermeulen 2007)and it is important for relevance to be initiatedin research (Huisman & Conradie 2010). Academiceditors have also debated among themselves on theamount of rigour needed in research for it tocontribute to the field of academia (Pasmore et al.,

4


2007). Researchers and practitioners have also beencriticised for conducting research on limited andunproved evidence (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006 Pasmore etal., 2007).

The range of innovation today has placedresearchers and practitioners in a position wherethey are seeking help from academic research tocope with ever-increasing changes. At this point,solutions provided by both are in doubt regardingwhether the challenges faced by them are reallyaddressed through solutions provided and theresearch findings accessible by all (Recker et al.,2009; Kraaijenbrink 2010). The rigour and relevancedebate has been of concern in the academic fieldfor decades now, with little or no solutions toresolve the issue (Straub & Ang 2011/ Glass 2009/Rosemann & Vessey 2008).

The Decline of Academic IS Research over the YearsAccording to Cummings (2007), researchers hardlybelieve that practitioners pay attention toacademic research and if they do, they do not useit in practice. Gill and Bhattacherjee (2009)argued that researchers and the way they informstakeholders, have decreased in the past and thiscontributes to the decrease in practitioners aswell. They advised that researchers should becommitted to publish in practitioners’ outlets. Inthe 1950’s and 60s, the argument that academic

5


management research was becoming relevant wasraised for the first time (Gulati 2007).

The slogan of publish or perish indicates thatresearchers are promoted or rewarded based on thenumber of publications and journals published. Thishas led to an increased number of conferences,journals and publications in the discipline withlittle impact in practice (Moody 2000).

Academic research in research on cross-boundary topics has continued over the decades andits relevancy remains under scrutiny. Havingdebated over the decades on rigour and relevance inacademic research, it state in particular thatpractitioners are not using academic researchfindings in practice (Worrall et al., 2007)In thepast 50 years, academics have been asking questionson how to impact management practice morepositively through research (Bartunek 2007). Thedebate has been tested that the theory layout ofthe IS field has been interrogated and found to besoft (Bakshi & Krishna 2007). Presently, manypractitioners have little interest in academicallypublished research and see no reason to use thisresearch (Mckelvey 2006). These practitioners areworried as IS researchers are allowed to researchin any kind of institution, be it in governmentorganisations, informal groups, online groups andmany more (Lanamäki et al. 2011). The changes andquick innovation in technology have forced new

6


knowledge emerging over the years from dataprocessing research to Information Systems (IS) andalso to Information and Communication Technology(ICT) (Bakshi & Krishna 2007).

The Absence of Theory in Academic IS ResearchFrom inception, the link between IS researchers andpractitioners has been under heavy scrutiny. Untiltoday, the relevance of academic research topractice is still debatable (Lanamäki et al., 2011/Rosemann & Vessey 2008). Many considered conductingresearch that is both rigorous and relevant as aconflict of interest (Rosemann & Vessey 2008).There is a level of conflict and distress regardingthe irrelevance of academic or organisationalstudies and many publications have been publishedto end the debate (Palmer, Dick & Freiburger 2009).

Academic researchers are growing irrelevant,which affects the identity of the discipline(Tushman et al., 2007). Some have argued that academicresearch is having basic problems (McKelvey 2006).To revive IS theory and the advancement ofrelevance, the proposal is to change in businessschools, in leadership settings and in other areasin an option (Kraaijenbrink 2010). Encouragingeditorial board members to be more practical andrelevant minded will be an effort in the rightdirection (Bartunek 2007/ Rynes 2007/ Tushman et al.,2007). All these suggestions and arguments show alack of discipline and theory in the discipline

7


(Kraaijenbrink 2010). IS discipline is at the riskof rigour preference over relevance (Recker et al.,2009). As Markides (2011) puts it, the link betweenresearch and practice is really separated. To dateIS research literatures has appeared irrelevant(Cranefield & Young 2007). The reason for the causeof irrelevance is still being questioned(Cranefield & Young 2007).

The Lack of Discipline in Academic IS ResearchRecker et al., (2009) believe that the IS disciplinewill lose it legitimacy if it fails to conductrelevant research that informs practitioners. Thedebate also relates to the IS status as an academicdiscipline, its operation and its future. Someconcern has been expressed on the methodology usedin IS research, and a comparison between positiveand interpretive approaches, quantitative againstqualitative methods and many more has led to debatein the discipline. The fact remains that all theresearch methods can be suitable in any situationdepending on the prospective research question athand and whether the questions asked will beaddressed by the method (Moody 2000).

This means the discipline should focus onreference to its own research, not only borrowingfrom other disciplines (Bakshi & Krishna 2007). Thelevel of doubt in the on-going debate and argumenton IS research may force it to lose organisational

8


understanding and usability in future and beingunable to generate problem statements and answerquestions from academic practitioners (Vermeulen2007).

Rigour and RelevanceIS research is mandated to achieve this missionthrough its rigorous (figure 1) and relevantresearch (figure 2) and thereby sustaining itslegitimacy and identity as discipline (Raghupathi &Friedman 2009). A paradigm shift has been realisedfrom the mandated mission, when a call was made torefocus from just the rigour and relevance debate(concept) to what Desouza et al., (2006) calledresponsibility and reverberation research. Thiscalled for more focus on societal pressing needsand challenges (Raghupathi & Friedman 2009).

IS research should be more on challengesconfronting practitioners, as this will help topromote IS identity (Huisman & Conradie 2010). ISresearch relevance has three dimensions;importance, accessibility and suitability(applicability) (Rosemann & Vessey 2008/ Klein,Jiang & Saunders 2006). By definition, importanceresearch is research that is manageable and able tosolve or address real-world problem (Rosemann &Vessey 2008).

Secondly, accessibility of a research is basedon whether the research can be readable,understandable and usable by the targeted audience.

9


Lastly, applicability of research to practitionersis a question of whether a research is directiveand providing informative recommendations as needed(Rosemann & Vessey 2008). Relevant research is notpublished in academic journals but inpractitioners’ journals (Lanamäki et al., 2011).

Figure 1: Components of rigorous research (Source:Martensson & Martensson 2007).

According to Vermeulen (2007) rigour is anavenue whereby a theory can be consistent andreliable. Rigorous research can be described as ascientific research study that passes through thereviewer process and makes a contribution topractitioners. To facilitate rigour, applicabilitychecks ensure that academia and practitioners

10


collaborate well on acceptable research (Huisman &Conradie 2010).

Straub and Ang (2008) argue that the rejectionand acceptance of a paper is through readability,because if not readable, it makes no sense inpractice. The lack of readability in a researchrenders it valueless. Some believe that acceptanceand rejection of any research should be based onrigour and relevance and others argue thatrejection of a research paper based on rigour willbe killing and hindering the discipline from newinnovations and ideas but both should also beregarded in a research. Rigorous research withoutrelevance is unimportant. Whitworth (2007) advisedthat IS researchers should not kill the disciplinein the name of rigour. The advancement of ISresearch in the future depends on the compoundingof rigour and relevance. Rigour may be important toshow practical reality and researchers andpractitioners should try to agree on a rigorousstandard and working towards relevance (Vermeulen2007).

11


Figure 1: Components of relevant research (Source:Martensson & Martensson 2007).

Relevance in research ensures that research isreliable, actionable and applicable in solvingreal-world challenges but irrelevant studies causea research finding to lose its identity (Raghupathi& Friedman 2009). So far, practitioners regardacademic research to be out-of-date, over-rigourand increasingly immaterial (Whitworth 2007).Researching rigorous and practical relevanceremains difficult and challenging and many studiessupport the argument that academic research is notbased on practitioners’ expectations (Markides2007/ Tushman & O’Reilly 2007/ Vermeulen 2007).According to Moody (2000) the IS discipline cannotestablish legitimacy through rigorous ortheoretical methods but through practical relevanceand usefulness. Another area of concern is that

12


academic research is divided into applied and basicresearch.

Applied research needs an immediateapplication in practice and basic research is aimedat a long-term application basis (Fitzgerald 2003).Benbasat and Zmud (2003) state that IS research hastried to copy the research rigour of otherdisciplines and losing sight of relevance in theprocess.

Major Challenges Facing Academic IS ResearchThe contract between academics and practitioners isnot properly formed to produce important orrelevant research. Only limited academic researchpresents practitioners’ concerns and only a fewpractitioners read academic articles, thereforethis is a major challenge (Desouza et al., 2006).Shapiro et al., (2007) attribute the growing gapbetween academics and practitioners on the lost inor before translation problem. Markides (2007)defined the existing gap problem as a result ofacademics having concluded that the gap exists,without defining what practitioners expect.

However, attaining the twofold mandate of ISresearch and making contributions is challenging.Academics and practitioners have different areas ofinterest, aspirations, missions and objectives andbalancing all these can be challenging andproblematic (Dooley & Kirk 2007). This could leadto a conflict of interest among the parties. From

13


editorial comments it was realised thatcollaborative research also yields different aimsamong the parties (Pasmore et al., 2007). Moreover,academics are judged on promotion and practitionersare judge on impact (Steinbach & Knight 2006). Tothis point, a professional survey conducted in ISshows the gap between both is rooted, so much sothat practitioners often have no idea of ISresearch findings, maintaining that IS research isout-of-date, difficult to read and insignificant(Serenko & Turel 2010).

Some continue to debate on whether rigour andrelevance should be combined in one research(Tushman et al., 2007). Disciplines, such asengineering and medicine place less importance onthe rigour and relevance gap (Kieser & Leiner2007). Furthermore, the challenge is thatpractitioners take time to understand academicresearch and researchers take time to interpret itsfindings in a meaningful way to the audience(Kieser & Leiner 2007). Because of the languagebarrier, academic educators find it challenging totransfer knowledge and difficult to analysepractitioners’ problems and concerns.

The changing technological world also poses achallenge to IS research relevance, meaning, thepace at which technologies are changing is farfaster than the speed at which academic research isbeing delivered. Before research problems and

14


questions are formulated and research conducted thebusiness environment has changed and this disablesrelevant research being delivered (Raghupathi &Friedman 2009). The challenge why the gap persistsis that researchers keep talking about it but notmuch has been done to close it (Markides 2011).

Based on the argument of Kieser and Leiner(2009), one can be forced to believe that closingthe gap is impossible. Narrowing the gap is huge tomany, because the way rigour and relevance aremeasured is actually bad (Markides 2011).

The task of being an academic and practitionerresearcher can be laborious, due to the fact thatacademics must publish (Moody 2000). There islittle engagement between the two because each hashis/her own conferences and journals andpractitioners cannot publish in academic journalsbecause of the high rigour requirement andprocedures to attend conferences together and viceversa. The way forward is for academics to publishacademic and non-academic papers (Moody 2000).

Problems of Information SystemsThe present reflection in the IS discipline showsit is facing the challenges of identityestablishment. The IS research rigour standard isin doubt, IS researchers are busy researchingrigorous against relevance research (Bakshi &Krishna 2007). However, the social system ischaracterised as self-referential, so that

15


researchers cannot communicate their findings topractitioners (Kieser & Leiner 2007). They can onlyirritate when interacting (Kieser & Leiner 2007).They are autonomous with a limited communicationlink, distribution of knowledge and problems andacademic make decisions excluding practitioners(Cranefield & Young 2007).

IS researchers are not really working hard tomake their research findings relevant to studentsor practitioners and to other audiences (Fitzgerald2003). Academics and practitioners are all worriedabout practitioners’ challenges but their researchsuggests the opposite and they are operating in aparallel-line. There is no proper engagementbetween academia and practitioners to close the gap(McNatt et al., 2010). Each party has its ownknowledge, questions, different approaches inanswering questions and producing answers withdifferent expectations (McNatt et al., 2010).

Bartunek and Rynes (2007) discovered that 42%of research papers from academics do not presentsignificant results. Practitioners may understandcurrent challenges in the industry and researchersknow theories that can be applied (McNatt et al.,2010). However, research findings are consideredirrelevant and less used in practice and thepublication-time-cycle is problematic, becausepractitioners need immediate solutions to solveimmediate problems (McKelvey 2006).

16


The Engaging Practice between Researchers and PractitionersGovernment and other organisational institutionshave increased dependency on knowledge produced byacademic researchers for them to make policies andto advance productivity (Worrall et al. 2007). Theterm partnership is being used in the study for itencourages balance commitment in research projectsamong practitioners and researchers (Naudé et al.,2009). In the camp of researchers and practitionersthey use different terminology to explain theassociation between them (Naudé et al., 2009).

The level of collaboration and engagementamong researchers and practitioners is what bringsabout the rigour and relevance debate(Kraaijenbrink 2010). Currently, many debate on therigorous standard and others on relevance insolving confronting challenges facing practitioners(Kraaijenbrink 2010). Basically, mutual researchpromotes partnership between academics andpractitioners, but it is not the only way both canlearn from each other, it is also important tostrengthen this relationship and any form ofchallenge will help to smooth the path (Bartunek2007).

Collaborative research can also be seen asresearch that impacts on practice, engaging witheach other and consulting each other to producevital knowledge that can add value to practice(Mohrman & Lawler III 2010). Collaborative research

17


always faces connection difficulties (problems);practitioners do not see themselves as co-researchers (Kieser & Leiner 2011). Collaborativeresearch projects have not really generated resultsthat are simultaneously rigorous and relevant andtheir output reflects the trade-off between rigourand relevance (Kieser & Leiner 2011). Mckelvey(2006) proposed engaged scholarship within theacademic body of fields and departments whereasLanamäki et al., (2011) proposes that academicresearch should be presented in understandablelanguage.

Importantly, knowledge are driven throughinteraction among parties, many advised for animprovement of relevance, they states that for acontinuous closely collaboration between theparties. Delivering relevant research, researchershave to see themselves as belonging in the camp ofpractitioners (Mohrman & Lawler III 2010).

Scholarly research produces ideas thatrestructures and modifies a discipline withimpacting knowledge (Tushman et al., 2007/ Tushman &O’Reilly 2007). The benefit of collaborativeresearch is still numerous in providing informingknowledge to both researchers and practitioners,more benefits of collaborative research is thatpractitioners will know research better vice versaand researchers will understand opportunities thatlie in the discipline (Hodgkinson & Rousseau 2009).

18


Rynes (2007) and Kraaijenbrink (2010) proposethat the way forward, is the restructuring,enhancement, formulation of new kind of journalpublication and distribution, conferences, networkof interaction and new incentive which will empowerrelevance. Generated knowledge from collaborativeresearch should be actionable and implementable inaction and influence operation and claim relevancein practice (Pasmore et al., 2007).

Research MethodologyThis section presents the two main types ofresearch but with emphasis on quantitative researchtype and methodology used in the study. It willalso address the nature of data that will becollected to answer the research questions as wellas the ethical considerations.

Quantitative research is a predeterminedscenario which is standardised (Durrheim & Blanche1999). This study deployed quantitative researchmethodology because the study investigates whetherthe expectations and needs of practitioners are metthrough rigorous and relevant research and also tounderstand whether academic research outputaddressing practitioner’s issues and concerns.

Questionnaires will be used to collect data.The questionnaire essentially covers the fourresearch questions in four sections or parts with

19


the added aspect of demographics as the initialpart or section.

This study’s population is set on academiclecturers attending the South African Institute forComputer Scientists and Information Technologists(SAICSIT 2012) conference and the North-WestUniversity (Mafikeng Campus) academics. Thepopulation size is 90 lecturers/academics.According to Krejcie and Morgan’s theory, 73questionnaires would be sufficient (Krejcie &Morgan 1970).

Analysis of VariablesThe age ranges 18-30 and 31-40 represent themajority of the respondents (55 or 76%). Thisindicates that the majority of the respondents areyoung researchers with potential. The study alsofound that the majority of the participants wheremale (60%).

Figure 3: Number of years in academia

20


Figure 3 depicts the academic maturity of therespondents. This was aimed to determine how long(years) each participant has been in the academicfield. The bar chart above shows that 32 (44%) ofthe participants have only been in academic arenabetween 0 to 5 years. This illustrates that most ofthe respondents are young academics. Fifty five(75%) of the respondents have published. Thisindicates that many of the participants arepublishers. Drawing inference from the resultsshows that 47 (65%) of the participants havepublished their research paper at conferences.Their publication status and experience will havesome impact on the findings because many thatpublished have an understanding of the survey.

There are three main categories of journals(academic journal, practitioner or professionaljournals and academic-practitioner journals)(Straub & Aug 2008/ Lanamäki et al., 2011). Only 35(49%) of the participants have published between 1to 5 journal papers aimed at academia.

21


Figure 4: Total number of practitioners paperspublished

According to Lanamäki et al., (2011) relevantresearch is not published in academic journals butin practitioner’s journals. Of the three categoriesof journal papers, one of the categories aims onpractitioners specifically. Figure 4 indicates that53 (74%) of the respondents have not published anyjournal paper that focused specifically atpractitioners. Only 11 (15%) of the participantshave published between 1 to 5 journal papers.

This indicates that practitioner’s journalshave been ignored in the discipline. This makesbuilding practitioner interest and drawingpractitioner attentions in reading academicresearch difficult. This finding thus supports thestatement made by Lanamäki et al., (2011).

Rigorous research has been defined differentlyby different researchers. For the sake of thisstudy, the above summarised definition of rigorous

22


research was listed for participants to selecttheir suitable choice. The question helps in thestudy to decide respondent understanding of theresearch topic. Forty (56%) of the respondentschose rigorous research as a scientific research innature. The response shows that practitionershighly value scientific piece of research for itpromotes good research standard (Huisman & Conradie2010).

Figure 5: The definition of relevant research

Recker et al., (2009) defined relevant researchas a research that educate and assist practitionerssolve their problems and challenges. According toHodgkinson and Rousseau (2009) deep collaborativeresearch efforts from the researcher producesrelevant research. Relevant can be defined aspractical and applicable research (Lanamäki et al.,2011). Thirty one respondents (43%) understoodrelevant research to be an applicable piece of workin practice and 30 (42%) understood relevant

23


research to be educating and research on anassisting nature

The findings as reflected in figure 5 confirmsthe argument of Vermeulen (2007) and Huisman andConradie (2010) that relevant research should beresearch that users and practitioners can apply inpractice in decision making at any given time.

The response to the question reflected infigure 6, aims to understand participants’ view onthe rigour and relevance debate. Ideally, therigour and relevance debate ought to encourage moreresearch output that will meet (internal andexternal) needs and expectations of thepractitioners. The opposite is the case. 33 (46%)of the respondents still believes that the on-goingdebate will help in producing rigorous and relevantresearch that practitioners at all levels will beof benefit. But the benefits of rigour andrelevance in a research is yet to be seen (Serenko& Turel 2010).

.Figure 6: Solving challenges facing practitioners

24


Practitioners argued that academic research isnot informative in a real world setting and totheir needs but researchers are mandated toresearch on informative knowledge that haspractical relevance (Recker et al., 2009). Theresponse from figure 6 expressed 33 (46%) of theparticipants believed that practitioners aregetting assistance and a further 9 (12%) stronglysupport this notion. This indicates that ISresearch outputs have a significant impact in theindustry..

Figure 7: The root cause of rigour and relevancedebate

According to Shapiro et al., (2007) the gap onthe IS rigour and relevance debate is rooted intranslation and communications and lost beforetranslation. Worrall et al., (2007) state that theroot cause (gap) is as a result of the knowledgedistribution problem. According to Martensson andMartensson (2007) researchers in the academicdiscipline, including IS, have two basic problems,

25


one lack of practical relevance and the gap betweenacademics and practices. Rigorous research in ISlays on theoretical relevance and methodologies butdiffer in practical relevance. Furthermore, ISresearch topics are selected based on academicideas and not on practitioner’s ideas (Martensson &Martensson 2007).

The question as reflected in Figure 7 tries tounderstand the participants’ view on the cause ofthe rigour vs. relevance debate. Figure 7 suggestedthat only 22 (31%) of the response believed thatlack of understanding between researchers andpractitioners have caused the debate to linger allthese years. This is possible because both partiesview their environment dependently from each otherand both are working parallel from each in contrastto other discipline like medical discipline.

According to Worrall et al., (2007) IS researchlack relevance. This can be traced because of alack of incentive and motivation from top academiato conduct relevant research (Rosemann & Vessey2008). The question seeks to determine howrespondents categorised IS/academic research.McNatt et al., (2010) argued that researchers areencouraged to be relevant in their research output.

26


Figure 8: The classification of IS/academicresearch

Looking at the results (figure 8), relevantand important represent 53 (74%) of the respondentswho still believe that IS/academic is relevant andimportant to the practitioners and industry. Thissuggests that the debate has not stopped thepractitioners from using the academics’ researchwork. The response contradict some researchers’view on irrelevance of IS research output.

Researchers like Moody (2000)/ Serenko andTurel (2010) see the slogan “publish or perish” as ahindrance toward publishing impacting academicresearch. The indication from the above chartstates that merely 31 (43%) believed thatresearchers across the discipline publish to gainpromotion for their self-reward and benefits.

27


Figure 9: The consequences of publish or perishslogan on IS/academic

According to Kieser and Leiner (2009) therigour-relevance gap cannot close. The parties areresearching on different interest, (Hodgkinson &Rousseau 2009). They strongly believe that nomatter any kind of effort, approach or methoddeplored, rigour and relevance cannot coexist. Thissuggest that researchers will continue to researchfor their self-interest in future as is depicted infigure 9.

Researchers have said a lot regarding theimpact of IS/academic research. To investigatethis, the question seeks to understand theinformative standard of IS research on thestakeholders. The results found that 43 (60%) ofthe respondents agreed/strongly agreed that ISresearch output is informing and impacting enough

28


for different stakeholders. Informative researchmakes different for stakeholders. Respondent viewsread together with the findings reflected in Figure8, support the notion that academic researchers beactive in conducting informative research thatbenefits different stakeholders (Pasmore et al.,2007).

Figure 10: Practitioners benefits on IS/academic

Because there are different kinds of journalpapers, each audience has a specific place wherethey access their research. The benefit of researchcan only be seen when targeted audiences access it.In contrast to multiple arguments on irrelevance ofIS research, the results (as depicted in figure 10)show that 32 (46%) of the respondents stronglybelieved that IS/academic research are benefitingpractitioners. This shows that research findingsand outputs are really used in practice bypractitioners.

Some results regard the on-going debate as awaste of time. The rigour and relevance debate

29


means something to people in a discipline, tounderstand the stand point of view of theparticipants in this study. At present only 36(51%) of the respondents believe that the on-goingdebate is necessary. This implies that the debatecan help the balancing of rigour and relevance inIS research and achieving a research that meet apractitioner’s expectation and needs applicable.The worth of rigour and relevance debate indicatesthe continuity of debate. The summary makes rigourand relevance worth debating but the implementationof ideas from the debate is vital. The resultssuggest that 43 (61%) of the respondents would liketo see the debate going on because it’s worth it.The present debate can aid researchers andpractitioners to close the rigour and relevanceseparation (Hodgkinson & Rousseau 2009).

Figure 11: The contribution of the debate to otherdiscipline.

30


Based on Benbasat and Zmud’s (2003) opinionsand views, discipline is balanced when otherdisciplines use its research in their respectivefields. This can help to bridge the gap in bringingout the best from IS research that can benefitothers outside the discipline. The results (asdepicted in figure 11) show the 45 (64%) of therespondents believed that on-going debate in thediscipline can help other external disciplines seeka contribution from IS research.

The continued debate on whether rigour andrelevance should be combined in one research hasheated up (Glass 2009). The results support theargument of these researchers that both should becombined in any piece of research. Thirty two (46%)of the respondents agreed on the combination ofrigour and relevance. This will help in producingimpacting research on real world setting.Thirty six (51%) of the respondents agreed on co-existence of rigour and relevance in researchbecause of the benefits. According to Bakshi andKrishna (2007) the academic management rigour-relevance gap cannot close because parties areresearching different interests (Hodgkinson &Rousseau 2009). They believe that no approach ofrigour and relevance can coexist. The response isthat the view is in contrast with Kieser and Leinerand Hodgkinson and Rousseau.

The lack of readability in research renders itvalueless. Some believe that acceptance and

31


rejection of any research should be based on rigourand relevance. The results show that 52 (74%)respondents indicated that rejection or acceptanceof a research paper by editorial reviewingcommittee for publication should be based on thepresence of both rigour and relevance..

Figure 12: Number of years working in practitionersindustry

To suggest a solution in bridging the gapbetween the researchers and practitioners, someresearchers in academia believe that IS disciplineshould copy the footprint of medical disciplinethat encourages academia to work partly in industryand academy (Moody 2000). To gain insight on thatargument, the question aimed to determine theviewpoint of respondents in the study depicted infigure 12 which shows that 23 (32%) of therespondents have not as practiced in industry. Only12 (17%) of the respondents have engaged in

32


industry practice. This indicates that researchershave seen the need to be involved in the industry.

According to Pasmore et al., (2007) researchersand practitioners should co-operate and work at thesame field in following the footstep of medicaldiscipline where people are allowed to work partlyon both (Moody 2000). The research found that 31(43%) of the respondents have engaged on bothindustry and practice simultaneously (mirroring themedical profession). The collaboration andengagement among the both is missing.

Figure 13: Partnering with practitioners

Depicted in Figure 13 is the question onwhether the researchers consult with practitionerswhen engaging in research. From the listed options,however, only 20 (28%) of the respondents consultwith the practitioners at the level of researchquestion formulation and 31 (43%) of therespondents have not consulted with thepractitioners in any form when carrying out

33


research in the industry. This shows that both areindependent thinkers and doing things differently.

Figure 14: Communicating to practitioners

According to Huisman and Conradie (2010) self-referential as characterised to social research,means that researchers cannot communicate theirfindings to practitioners effectively. Researchpapers have to be communicated to targetedaudiences through the right channel and availableto them. The literature review study shows thatit’s difficult for researchers and practitioners topublish journal papers in the same publication. Thequestion as reflected in Figure 14 seeks to augmentthe argument. The bar chat shows that 39 (54%) ofrespondents have communicated their research outputthrough research paper publication. Thesepublications are available on the internet.Conference publications are the second highestmethod of communication (21 respondents (28%)). In

34


contrast to the findings of Gill and Bhattacherjee(2009), researchers have managed to communicatetheir research findings to stakeholders usingdifferent channels as seen in the chart.

Researchers and practitioners collaboratingwell will produce acceptable research in practice(Huisman & Conradie 2010). However, researchers andpractitioners in IS discipline are living apart(Markides 2011) resulting in little knowledgetransfer between them (Moody 2000). To confirm theindependence of both parties, 35 (49%) of therespondents have not collaborated withpractitioners when conducting research. The surveyconfirms that researchers are not mindful inworking with practitioners in any way..

Figure 15: The principle that guides academicdiscipline

According to Rosemann and Vessey (2008)/ Kleinet al., (2006)/ Huisman and Conradie (2010) ISresearch relevance has three dimensions;

35


importance, accessibility and (suitability)applicability. Applicability in IS research that isdirective and informative in recommendation isreflected in question depicted in Figure 15. Thisfigure shows that only 25 (35%) of the respondentsbelieve that IS researchers are focusing on journalimportance while publishing research papers. Thesecond and third sets, 19 (26%) and 18 (25%) ofrespondents are also a concern for researchers. Therespondents confirm that the researchers areworking toward rigour and relevance.

Vermeulen (2007) argued that collaborativeresearch is conducted with audiences to learn aparticular problem. Collaborative research can alsobe seen as a research that impacts on practice,engaging with each and consulting each other toproduce knowledge that can add value to practice(Mohrman & Lawler III 2010).

Furthermore, bridging the gap, practitionerscan be trained to become researchers andundertaking collaborative research (Moody 2000).The research found that 42 (58%) of the respondentsagreed that the collaborative approach will be theplatform to be used to achieve research that isboth rigour and relevance, because researchers andpractitioners will work with one aim and objectivein collaborative research.

According to Bartunek (2007) the establishmentof equal researchers needed to establish equal an

36


association with audiences (practitioners) andpractitioners that remain appreciative of academicresearch knowledge and practitioners and otheroutside the discipline are the source of academicidea and aspirations in the world. To ascertain thelevel of confidence other disciplines have on ISresearch, the question was designed to determinethe level. Only 32 (44%) of the respondents acceptthat practitioners and other discipline are usingIS research. They response as depicted agree withBartunek who believes that practitioners and otherdiscipline still believe in IS research.

Statistical Analysis: Chi-SquareTable 1 was used to test the degrees of freedombetween published papers and the number of year’sacademics has been in the academic field.

Table 1: Published and number of years inacademia.Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 8.795a 4 .066Likelihood Ratio 10.668 4 .031Linear-by-LinearAssociation 6.069 1 .014

N of Valid Cases 72H0: Academia must publish.H1: Academia do not have to publish.

37


The Chi-square statistic is (x2 = 8.785),predetermined alpha level of significance of(0.025) and the degrees of freedom (df = 4).Arriving at the Chi-square distribution table with4 degree of freedom and reading along the row atthe value of x2 to be 8.785. The alpha level ofsignificance is 0.025 at the proposed probabilitylevels. That means that the p-value is above 0.025(0.066). Since the p-value of 0.066 is greater thanthe accepted significance level of 0.025 (i.e. p >0.025) fails to reject the null hypothesis. Thereis no statistically significance that academicsshould publish research papers.

Table 2 tested the degrees of freedom betweenpublish or perish slogan on IS/academic researchand the total number of academic papers published.

Table 2: Consequences of publish or perishslogan. Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 33.495a 25 .119Likelihood Ratio 31.851 25 .162Linear-by-LinearAssociation .000 1 .987

N of Valid Cases 72

38


H0: Publish or perish slogan is not an issue foracademia.H1: Publish or perish slogan is an issue foracademic.

The Chi-square statistic is (x2 = 33.495), apredetermined alpha level of significance of(0.025), and the degrees of freedom (df = 25).Arriving at the Chi-square distribution table with25 degree of freedom along the row with the valueof x2 at 33.495 value. The probability is 0.025 atthe acceptable probability levels. That means thatthe p-value is above 0.025 (0.199). Since the p-value of 0.199 is greater than the acceptedsignificance level of 0.025 (i.e. p > 0.025) thestudy fails to reject the null hypothesis. In otherwords, there is no statistically significantdifference in the proposition of publish or perishslogan.

Table 3 tested the degrees of freedom andrelationships between the consequences of publishor perish slogan and the worth of the rigour andrelevance debate.

Table 3: The consequences of publish or perishand the worth of the debate.

Value df Asymp. Sig.(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 21.449a 20 .371

39


Likelihood Ratio 23.107 20 .284Linear-by-LinearAssociation 2.521 1 .112

N of Valid Cases 72H0: There is a need for rigour and relevance debate.H1: No need for the rigour and relevance debate.

Table 4 depicts the Chi-square statistic is (x2 =21.449), and the predetermined alpha level ofsignificance of 0.025, and the degrees of freedom(df = 20). Arriving at the Chi-square distributiontable with 20 degree of freedom and reading alongthe row at the value of x2 to be 21.499. The alphalevel of significance is 0.025 probability levels.That means that the p-value is above 0.025 (0.371).Since the p-value of 0.371 is greater than theaccepted significance level of 0.025 (i.e. p >0.025) the study fail to reject the nullhypothesis. In other words, there is nostatistically significance of the need on rigourand relevance debate.

The tested the degrees of freedom betweentotal number of academic papers published and itscontributions to other discipline.

40


Table 4: Number of academic papers publishedand the contribution of the debate to other

discipline.Value df Asymp. Sig.


N of Valid Cases 72H0: IS/academic research papers are contributing toother disciplines.H1: IS/academic research papers are not contributingto other disciplines.

The Chi-square statistic is x2 = 22.070 whichin the predetermined alpha level of significance of0.025, and the degrees of freedom (df = 25).Arriving at the Chi-square distribution table with25 degree of freedom and reading along the row thevalue of x2 to be 33.495. The probability is 0.025which in the probability levels. That means thatthe p-value is above 0.025 (0.337). Since the p-value of 0.337 is greater than the usually acceptedsignificance level of 0.025 (ie p > 0.025) thestudy fails to reject the null hypothesis. In otherwords, there is no statistically significance thatacademic research papers are contributing to otherdisciplines.

41


Table 5 tested the degrees of freedom andrelationship between published papers and thenumber of practitioners’ papers published bypractitioners.

Figure 5: Published and number ofpractitioner’s papers published.

Value Df Asymp. Sig.(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 7.418a 7 .387Likelihood Ratio 11.431 7 .121Linear-by-LinearAssociation 5.257 1 .022

N of Valid Cases 72H0: Academia’s must publish practitioner’s papers.H1: Academia’s are not publishing practitionerpapers.

The Chi-square statistic is x2 = 7.418 on thepredetermined alpha level of significance of 0.025and the degrees of freedom (df = 7). Entering atthe Chi-square distribution table with 7 degree offreedom and reading along the row of x2 at the 7.418level. The alpha level of significance is 0.025probability levels. That means that the p-value isabove 0.025 (0.387). Since the p-value of 0.387 isgreater than the conventionally acceptedsignificance level of 0.025 (i.e. p > 0.025) the

42


study fails to reject the null hypothesis. In otherwords, there is no statistically significance thatacademic should publish practitioner papers.

Table 6 showed the degrees of freedom andrelationship between the number of practitioner’spaper published and practitioners’ addressing theirchallenges through the use of academic researchpapers.

Table 6: The number of practitioner’s paperspublished and solving challenges facing

practitioners.Value df Asymp. Sig.


N of Valid Cases 72H0: Practitioner papers are solving practitioners’challenges.H1: Practitioner papers are not solving thechallenges of practitioners.

The Chi-square statistic is x2 = 21.617 on thepredetermined alpha level of significance of 0.025,and the degrees of freedom (df = 12). Arriving atthe Chi-square distribution table with 12 degree offreedom and reading along the row at value of x2 to

43


be 21.617. The probability is at the 0.025probability level. That means that the p-value isabove 0.025 (0.042). Since the p-value of 0.042 isgreater than the conventionally acceptedsignificance level of 0.025 (ie p > 0.025) thestudy fail to reject the null hypothesis. In otherwords, there is no statistically significance thatpractitioner papers are solving practitioner’sproblem.

Table 7 depicts the degrees of freedom andrelationship between the coexistence of rigour andrelevance and the separation of rigour andrelevance in a research.

Table 7: The coexistence of rigour andrelevance and the separation of rigour and

relevance in a research.Value Df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 44.347a 12 .000Likelihood Ratio 48.408 12 .000Linear-by-LinearAssociation 6.534 1 .011

N of Valid Cases 72H0: Rigour and relevance are separated in ISresearch.H1: Rigour and relevance are not separated in ISresearch.

44


The Chi-square statistic is x2 = 44.347 at thepredetermined alpha level of significance of 0.025,and the degrees of freedom (df = 12). Arriving atthe Chi-square distribution table with 12 degree offreedom and reading along the row at value of x2 tobe 44.347. The p-value is below 0.025 (actually at0.000). Since the p-value of 0.000 is less than theconservatively accepted significance level of 0.025(i.e. p > 0.025) supports the null hypothesis. Thisshows there is a statistically significantdifference in the proposition of separation ofrigour and relevance.

Answer To The Research QuestionsThe research questions postulated at the onset ofthis paper was a primary and 3 secondary question.The primary research question was postulated as:What is a rigorous and relevant research that meetspractitioners’ expectations?

Secondary research questions stemming from theprimary question are:

1. Is IS research output addressing the concernof IS practitioners?

2. Is rigour versus relevance debate necessary inIS research?

3. What can be done to improve the understandingof rigour and relevance in IS research?

45


With regards to the primary question, thisquestion needed to understand that rigour andrelevance in research meets the needs, support andexpectations of practitioners. According to theinformation gathered, respondents indicated thatIS/academic research that meets practitioners’needs should be scientific research in nature sothat it can be applicable in real-world setting.

In accordance to multiple opinions from otherresearchers like Huisman and Conradie (2010)/Vermeulen (2007) on the way to move IS researchforward, whom also recommend that researchersshould be scientific on any chosen research topic.Researchers should base their research on whatpractitioners need to know and use. Researchersshould also partner with practitioners on everystep in conducting research.

With regards the first secondary researchquestion, this research question aimed tounderstand whether IS research is relevant andimpact practice. Although the response was positivemany of the respondents had varied viewpoints. Mostof the respondents agreed that academics onaddressing the needs and expectations ofpractitioners, in contrast to some opinion ofothers in the study, it shows that practitionersare benefiting from research outputs. Challengesare that many believed that “publish or perish”slogan hindering the success of academic research.

46


Many agreed that researchers engage in research togain academic promotions and self-rewards forresearch and attending conferences. Furthermore,the slogan of “publish or perish” might behindering the rigour and relevance of academicresearch in general. IS and academic researchersshould produce research papers that deals withpractitioner needs and expectations and thepublications should balance between rigour andrelevance.

The second secondary research question was todetermine if IS research debate on rigour andrelevance has value. Many have argued that ISshould be rigorous, some stated relevance andothers stood on balancing both in research. Thishas been issue of concern all these years inacademia.Respondents argued that the debate should continueand was worth debating. They believed that rigourand relevance should coexist in research and not beseparated as it helps in identifying some gap inthe discipline. Their response demonstrates thatthe debate is generally to the advantage of thediscipline and that the lack of rigour andrelevance should be a base on accepting orrejecting academic research during review forpublication. Considering the final secondary research question,the findings was for the IS/academic research tomove forward pushing for progression of the

47


discipline. The overall feedback from participantis that communicating of research to practitionersshould be through a channel acceptable topractitioners. Collaborative research betweenresearchers and practitioners is recommended asthis improves the final outcome in terms ofusability and applicability.

It can be suggested that researchers andpractitioners should collaborate in formulatingresearch problem statement and research questions.This might lead to the correct research problemsbeing addressed.

Managerial GuidelinesIt is recommended that:

Researchers publish research papers directedspecifically to practitioners. Academicresearchers are not publishing practitioner’sresearch papers.

Researchers and practitioners should engage indebate at conferences.

Researchers should engage practitioners whendrafting research problem statement andquestionnaires.

Both parties should regard themselves as co-authors and researchers.

IS academics should be allowed to combinepart-time work in teaching and practicing inthe industry as well.

48


The combination of rigour and relevance inresearch is essential.

Researchers should be able to inform andcommunicate to practitioners whenever researchpapers are published.

A website should be created wherepractitioners can post their problems andchallenges in the industry and researchersshould have access to these.

Both parties should advocate one goal, visionand objectives when conducting research so asto benefit both parties.

There should be a dedicated research journalfor practitioner and one for researchers and acombined journal for common interests.

Final ConclusionThe four research questions were answered andanalysed. The result shows that four of them wereanswered in the questionnaires distributed. Theoverall result findings indicate from theparticipant that IS research is making impact inthe industry in contrast to multiple views ofothers in literature review, to determine onwhether academic research are making impact in theindustry, the similar should conducted aroundpractitioners in the industry.

49


ReferencesBakshi S & S Krishna 2007. Crisis in the

Information Systems Discipline: A Reflection.Australasian Conference on Information Systems Vol. 18:132-141.

Bartunek JM & SL Rynes 2010. The Construction andContributions of “Implications for Practice”:What’s in a Theme and What Might They Offer?Academy if Management Learning & Education Vol. 9.No. 1: 100-117.

Bartunek JM 2007. Academic-practitionercollaboration need not require joint orrelevant research: toward a relationalscholarship of integration. Academy ofManagement Journal Vol. 50. No. 6: 1323-1333.

Benbasat I & RW Zmud 2003. The identity crisiswithin the IS discipline: Defining andcommunicating the discipline’s coreproperties. MIS Quarterly Vol. 27. No. 2: 183-194.

Cranefield J & P Young 2007. To whom shouldinformation systems research be relevant? Thecase for an ecological perspective. Proceedingsof the 15th European Conference on Information Systems(ECIS 2007) No. 17: 1313-1324.

Cummings TG 2007 'Quest for an engagedscholarship'. Academy of Management Review Vol.32: 355-360.

50


Deadrick DL & PA Gibson 2007. An examination of theresearch – practice gap in HR: Comparingtopics of interest to HR academics and HRprofessionals. Human Resource Management ReviewVol. 17. No. 2: 131-139.

Desouza KC, 0A El-Sawy, RD Galliers, C Loebbecke &RT Watson 2006. Beyond rigor and relevancetoward responsibility and reverberation:Information systems research that reallymatters. Communications of the Association forInformation Systems Vol. 16. No. 16: 340-353.

Dipboye RL 2007. Eight outrageous statements aboutHR science. Human Resource Management Review Vol.17: 96-106.

Dooley L & D Kirk 2007. University-industrycollaboration: Grafting the entrepreneurialparadigm onto academic structures. EuropeanJournal of Innovation Management Vol. 10: 316-332.

Durrheim K & MT Blanche 1999. Research in practice:Applied methods for the social sciences. CapeTown: University of Cape Town Press.

Fitzgerald B 2003. Informing Each Other: Bridgingthe Gap between Researcher and Practitioners.Informing Science Vol. 6: 13-19.

Gill G & A Bhattacherjee 2009. Whom are weinforming? Issues and recommendations for MISresearch from an informing sciencesperspective1. MIS Quarterly Vol. 33. No. 2: 217-235.

51


Glass RL 2009. Making more relevant while notdiminishing its rigor. The IEEE Computer Society94-96.

Gulati R 2007. Tent poles, Tribalism, and Boundaryspanning: The rigour-relevance debate inmanagement research. Academy of Management JournalVol. 50. No. 4: 775-782.

Hodgkinson GP & DM Rousseau 2009. Bridging theRigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research:It’s Already Happening! Journal of ManagementStudies Vol. 46. No. 3: 534-546.

Huisman M & P Conradie 2010. The Practice ofApplicability Checks in Information SystemsResearch: An Empirical Confirmation. ProceedingACS'10 Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS internationalconference on Applied computer science: 263-268.

Kieser A & L Leiner 2011. Collaborate WithPractitioners: But Beware of CollaborativeResearch. Journal of Management Inquiry XX(X) 1-15.

Klein G, JJ Jiang & C Saunders 2006. Leading thehorse to water. Communications of AIS Vol. 20.Article 13: 2-29.

Kraaijenbrink J 2010. Rigor and Relevance underUncertainty: Toward Frameworks as Theories forPractice. Working paper. [Online]. Accessed on6 October 2011 from philosophyofbusiness.org.

Krejcie RV & D Morgan 1970. Determining sample sizefor research activities. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 30, 608.

52


Lanamäki A, K Stendal & D Thapa 2011. MutualInforming Between IS Academia and Practice:Insights from KIWISR-5. Communications of theAssociation for Information Systems Vol. 29. No. 7:123-132.

Markides C 2007. In search of ambidextrousprofessors. Academy of Management Journal Vol. 50.No. 4: 762-768.

Markides C 2011. Crossing the Chasm: How to ConvertRelevant Research Into Managerially UsefulResearch. The Journal of Applied Behavioural ScienceVol. 47. No. 1: 121-234.

Martensson A & P Martensson 2007. Extending rigourand relevance; Towards credible, contributoryand communicable research. European Conference onInformation Systems No. 124: 1325-1333.

Mathiassen L & PA Nielsen 2008. Engaged Scholarshipin IS Research-The Scandinavian Case.Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems Vol. 20.No. 2: 3-20.

McKelvey B 2006. Response Van de Ven and Johnson’s“engaged Scholarship”: nice try, but . . .Academic of Management Review Vol. 31: 822-829.

McNatt DB, M Glassman & AM Glassman 2010. The GreatAcademic-Practitioner Divide: A Tale of TwoParadigms. Global Education Journal Vol. 23: 6-22.

Mentzer JT 2008. Rigor versus relevance: why wouldwe choose only one? Journal of Supply ChainManagement Vol. 44(2).

53


Mohrman SA & E Lawler III 2010. Useful Research:Advance for theory and Practice. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. [Online]. Accessed on 15October 2011 fromhttp://www.bkconnection.com/static/Useful_Research_EXCERPT.pdf

Moody DL 2000. Building links between is researchand professional practice: improving therelevance and impact of is research. ICIS ’00Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference onInformation Systems: 351-360.

Naudé M, M Nowak, G Thomas & AL Rowe 2009. Managingindustry-academia partnerships. InternationalJournal of Management Education Vol. 8 No. 3.

Nicolai A & D Seidl 2010. That's Relevant!Different Forms of Practical Relevance inManagement Science. Organisational Studies31(09&10): 1257-1285.

Palmer D, B Dick & N Freiburger 2009. Rigor andRelevance in Organization Studies.Journal ofManagement Inquiry Vol. 18. No. 4: 265-272.

Pasmore WA, B Stymne, ABR Shani, SA Mohrman & NAdler 2007. The Promise of CollaborativeManagement Research. Handbook of CollaborativeManagement Research. (eds.): 7-31.

Pfeffer J & RI Sutton 2006. Hard facts, dangeroushalf-truths and total nonsense: Profiting fromevidence-based management. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Publishing.

54


Raghupathi V & LW Friedman 2009. A Framework forInformation Systems Metaresearch: The Questfor Identity. Communications of the Association forInformation Systems Vol. 24. No. 1: 333-350.

Recker J, R Young, F Darroch, P Marshall & J McKay2009. ACIS 2007 Panel Report: Lack ofRelevance in IS Research. Communications of theAssociation for Information Systems Vol. 24. No. 18:303-314.

Rosemann M & I Vessey 2008. Toward Improving theRelevance of Information Systems Research toPractice: The Role of Applicability Checks1.MIS Quarterly Vol. 32. No. 1: 1-22.

Rynes SL 2007. Editor’s forward: Tackling the'Great Divide' between Research Production andDissemination in Human Resource Management.Academy of Management Journal Vol. 50. No. 5: 985-986.

Serenko A & O Turel 2010. ‘Rigor and relevance:Application of the critical incident techniqueto investigate email usage’, Journal ofOrganizational Computing and Electronic Commerce. vol.20. No. 2. pp. 182-207.

Shapiro DL, BL Kirkman & HG Courtney 2007.Perceived causes and solutions of thetranslation problem in management research.Academy of Management Journal Vol. 50: 249-266.

Steinbach TA & LV Knight 2006. The relevance ofinformation systems research: Informing the ISpractitioners community informing ourselves.

55


Proceedings of the 2006 Informing Science and IT EducationJoint Conference: 287-298.

Straub D & S Ang 2008. Editor’s Comment:Readability and the Relevance versus RigorDebate. MIS Quarterly Vol. 32. No. 4: iii-xiii.

Straub D & S Ang 2011. Editor’s Comment: Rigor andrelevance in IS research: Redefining thedebate and a call for future research” MISQuarterly Vol. 35. No. 1: iii-xi.

Tushman ML, CA O'Reilly, A Fenollosa, AM Kleinbaum& D McGrath 2007. Relevance and Rigor:Executive Education as a Lever in ShapingPractice and Research. Academy of ManagementLearning and Education Vol. 6. No. 3: 345-362.

Vermeulen F 2007. “I shall not remaininsignificant”: Adding a second loop to mattermore. Academy of Management Journal Vol. 50. No.4: 754-761.

Whitworth B 2007. Combining rigor and relevance:The open electronic archive option. 18thAustralasian Conference on Information Systems: 1-10.

Worrall L, S Lubbe & R Klopper 2007. AcademicResearch and Management Practice: Is theRelevance Gap Closing? Alternation Vol. 14: 292-316.

56


Joshua ChukwuereStudent: Department of Information Systems

North West University, Mafikeng, South [email protected]

Sam Lubbe Faculty of Commerce, Administration & Law

University of ZululandSouth Africa

[email protected]

Jan MeyerGraduate School of Business & Government Leadership

North West University, Mafikeng, South [email protected]

Rembrandt KlopperDepartment of Communication Science

Faculty of ArtsUniversity of Zululand

South [email protected]

57

Rigour versus Relevance in Information Systems Research in South Africa

Documents

Transcript of Rigour versus Relevance in Information Systems Research in South Africa