Thoughts about Research, Inspirations for Research and Future Research^☆

I have had the benefit of working with a number of excellent people over the years. I would like to begin by acknowledging and thanking my coauthors: Thank you for being such amazing people as well as such stellar research collaborators.

The purpose of this chapter is to write philosophically about what I think is rigorous and relevant research. I will be somewhat autobiographical about my own research and inspirations for my research, as well as then also doing a bit of fortune-telling about what I think are some of the exciting areas of research going forward.

Let’s start with the importance of rigor and relevance, where rigor refers to research that meets high academic standards for research methods and theoretical contribution and relevance refers to research with high pragmatic value for executives and other nonacademics. In our field broadly defined, people tend to think of rigor and relevance as ends of a continuum. Research is either rigorous or relevant, but not both. That was certainly true in my doctoral training at Stanford. I can think of some schools around the world where that point of view still exists. So sometimes when you’re studying something that’s relevant, even if it’s rigorous, it’s perceived to be second class because you as a researcher talked with executives and cared about your insights for them. By contrast, I think that it is possible to have rigorous research which says nothing to managers. It is also possible to have relevant research that is marginal from a rigor point of view. So, I think that they are two different dimensions – i.e., research can be both rigorous and relevant. And moreover, I think that the very best research is both rigorous and relevant. It really is the very best research that is published in an A-level journal and also comes out in HBR or The Economist, or a book that’s relevant to practitioners. I think it’s an easy “cop out” for the rigor police to say, “Well, but, you know, it’s okay to be irrelevant because we’re rigorous.” And, it is really not. I think particularly if you’re sitting in a business or other professional school, it’s part of your job to be relevant. This is something about which I feel very passionate. So when I am given the opportunity to share my ideas, I like to remind scholars that rigor and relevance are two separate dimensions, and that the best research is both rigorous and relevant. Where possible, I try to “walk the talk” – that is, connect these two in my own work, writing in ways that are insightful and accessible to both academics and practitioners (e.g., Bingham & Eisenhardt, 2011; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; Sull & Eisenhardt, 2015).