All aboard? Evidence-based management and the future of management scholarship (original) (raw)
Related papers
Against Evidence-Based Management, for Management Learning
Evidence-based management has been widely advocated in management studies. It has great ambition: All manner of organizational problems are held to be amenable to an evidence-based approach. With such ambition, however, has come a certain narrowness that risks restricting our ability to understand the diversity of problems in management studies. Indeed, in the longer term, such narrowness may limit our capacity to engage with many real life issues in organizations. Having repeatedly heard the case for evidence-based management, we invite readers to weigh the case against. We also set out an alternative direction—one that promotes intellectual pluralism and flexibility, the value of multiple perspectives, openness, dialogue, and the questioning of basic assumptions. These considerations are the antithesis of an evidence-based approach, but central to a fully rounded management education.
Evidence based' management is a popular contemporary account of the relationship between research and practice in management studies. This paper critically examines the implications of this account from the perspective of Formalism: a narratological approach to critique that focuses on how narratives are made compelling, and hence powerful. Compelling narratives deploy devices that establish (i) credibility and (ii) defamiliarization. Using this approach the paper identifies and examines different ideological strands in the nascent literature on evidence based management: pragmatism, progress, systematization, technique, accumulation. These are the means by which advocates of evidence based approaches construct a compelling story about the value of this approach. Prior criticism of the evidence based approach has centred on epistemological and technical issues. The aim here is to use an aesthetic mode of criticism to highlight political and moral implications. These are important given the relationship between claims to knowledge and the use of power; and the interaction between management research, and management as practice.
Rethinking Evidence-Based Management
Philosophy of Management, 2023
Evidence-based management (EBMgt) is a relatively recent approach to management, developed by Denise Rousseau in a series of articles and in a book that she co-uthored with Eric Barends (Barends & Rousseau 2018). It is based on the idea that good-quality management decisions require both critical thinking and use of the best available evi- dence. In this paper we want to contribute to the scholarship on evidence-based management by showing how its central concept – evidence – can and should be defined more strictly. Barends and Rousseau define evidence as a two-place relation between information and a claim that is at stake. Starting from insights from the methodology of the social sciences we argue that evidence is a three-place relation between a method, information and a claim. We offer a guiding principle for adequately characterising what counts as evidence (the inclusion of a procedural component which describes how the information should be collected and reported) and apply it to Barends and Rousseau’s concepts of (i) evidence from practitioners, (ii) evidence from the organization and (iii) evidence from stakeholders. We think that by treating evidence as a three-place relation we can develop an improved account (which we call EBMgt+) of what evidence-based management can and should be.
Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, 2015
Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in what has been described as Evidence Based Management (henceforth, EBM). Its proponents assert that management practice should be based on a better appreciation of 'what works', as determined by the research evidence. This has attracted a varied critique, which suggests that the evidence base on most management issues is uncertain, and constrained by the interests of powerful organizational actors. EBM is depicted as an effort to marginalize more critical perspectives within the field. This article adopts a different approach. Drawing on a critical realist epistemology, it suggests that while research evidence is rarely conclusive it can aspire towards the progressive displacement of ignorance by knowledge. While some advocates of EBM would accept this, it is argued that such acceptance is more rhetorical than substantive, and is undermined by a standpoint which systematically downplays the power saturated organizational contexts in which evidence is assembled and employed in decision making. The key tenets of critical realism as applied to EBM are therefore considered. Critical realism acknowledges epistemological relativism, yet also accepts the need to construct robust causal explanations for social phenomena. Recognizing that organizations are co-created and co-defined by multiple actors, rather than only by managers, it is argued that we should replace the concept of 'Evidence Based Management' with the notion of 'Evidence Oriented Organizing'. Keywords critical realism, evidence based management (EBM), evidence oriented organizing (EOO) EBM has been defined by its key proponents as the systematic use of the best available evidence to improve management practice (e.g.
Evidence-Based Management: Foundations, Development, Controversies and Future
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
We review the recent development of evidence-based management (EBMgt), tracing its origins to longstanding gaps between research and practice, discrepant findings across studies, and the emergence of evidence-based medicine (EBMed). We provide a definition of EBMgt and review four foundational articles advocating its use. We then review categories of articles that comprise the EBMgt canon: advocacy articles, essays or perspectives, teaching-related, empirical, reviews, and critiques and responses. Critiques include political, epistemological, and methodological issues directly pertinent to EBMgt as well as broader concerns about the scholarly research base on which EBMgt depends. Our suggestions for future research emphasize, first and foremost, increasing the production of high-quality empirical studies in EBMgt. Topics of particular interest include research co-creation by academics and practitioners, process and outcome studies of EBMgt implementations, and practitioners’ use of ...
The Narrative of ‘Evidence Based’ Management: A Polemic
Journal of Management Studies, 2008
Evidence based' management is a popular contemporary account of the relationship between research and practice in management studies. This paper critically examines the implications of this account from the perspective of Formalism: a narratological approach to critique that focuses on how narratives are made compelling, and hence powerful. Compelling narratives deploy devices that establish (i) credibility and (ii) defamiliarization. Using this approach the paper identifies and examines different ideological strands in the nascent literature on evidence based management: pragmatism, progress, systematization, technique, accumulation. These are the means by which advocates of evidence based approaches construct a compelling story about the value of this approach. Prior criticism of the evidence based approach has centred on epistemological and technical issues. The aim here is to use an aesthetic mode of criticism to highlight political and moral implications. These are important given the relationship between claims to knowledge and the use of power; and the interaction between management research, and management as practice.
Educating the evidence-based manager: the executive doctorate and its impact on management practice
This paper presents empirical work on the impact of the executive doctorate (DBA) on managerial decision-making and practice. We examine the extent to which DBA graduates can be viewed as evidence-based managers who, through doctorate level study become more critical in thought and action, and successfully 'develop into experts who make organizational decisions informed by social science and organizational research' (Rousseau, 2006; 256). The findings show that the executive doctorate has a profound impact on participants' work practice. In most instances the programme has made them into critical thinkers who require rigorous analysis before decision-making. However, although they are now more critical and their perception of what constitutes 'evidence' has developed, there are challenges to moving beyond what can be labelled as 'internal evidence', a robust and rigorous approach to decision-making, to a perspective in which business strategy and decision-making are underpinned by 'external evidence', evidence that is informed by academic theory and research. We consider implications for the evidence-based practice movement.
Book review and commentary on evidence-based management
2008
The above quote helps capture the central thesis underpinning Pfeffer and Sutton's most recent contribution to the stockpile of practitioner-focused texts. Pfeffer and Sutton argue that too often managerial decisions are determined by hope and fear, imitation, deeply held ideologies and path dependencies. Instead, drawing on the concept of evidence-based management, Pfeffer and Sutton advocate that leaders should 'face hard facts and act on