4.7 Article

The research world cafe as method of scientific enquiry: Combining rigor with relevance and speed

期刊

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 280-296

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.075

关键词

Scholar-practitioner collaboration; Collaborative research; Clock-speed; Research method; Focus group; Expert interview; World cafe; Rigor-relevance debate

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper addresses the challenge of speed in joint academic practitioner inquiries and proposes the world cafe method as a technique to accelerate data collection. It illustrates the use of the world cafe method with an example and compares it to alternative methods. Results of a survey show that world cafe research is able to present practitioner results twice as fast as conventional research methods.
Next to rigor and relevance, this paper addresses speed as a third challenge of joint academic practitioner inquiries. Practitioners seek fast and actionable knowledge. However, traditional academic research takes a long time to execute. We propose a data collection method - the world cafe - with the potential to reduce this clock-speed challenge and to close the knowledge production and transfer gap. However, the traditional world cafe needs some amendments in order to be fully applicable as academic data collection method. This paper has the following five objectives: 1) include speed in the discussion of rigor and relevance in management research, 2) suggest the world cafe method as a technique to accelerate data collection in academic practitioner collaborative research, 3) introduce the research world cafe as an academically rigorous data collection method, 4) illustrate the use of the world cafe method with a small example 5) compare it to alternative methods such as expert interviews, focus group or Delphi. Results of a survey on the speed of group research methods is presented, evidencing that world cafe research is able to present practitioner results twice as fast as conventional research methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据