Reply - Nice try, Bill, but... there you go again
成果类型：
Editorial Material
署名作者：
Van de Ven, Andrew H.; Johnson, Paul E.
署名单位：
University of Minnesota System; University of Minnesota Twin Cities
刊物名称：
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW
ISSN/ISSBN：
0363-7425
DOI：
10.5465/AMR.2006.22527455
发表日期：
2006
页码：
830-832
关键词：
摘要：
Bill McKelvey's commentary is provocative. but four points need correction. (1) The purpose of engaged scholarship is not just to advance practice but to create scientific knowledge. (2) Bill's food chain metaphor mistakenly views the gap between science and practice as a knowledge transfer problem. (3) Bill ignores the impact of biases of researchers by only focusing on practitioner bias. (4) He considers differing views of researchers and practitioners as antithetical; we view them as complementary.
来源URL：