Is it a balance? Or is it a tug-of-war?

Rigor and Relevance

I have been reading the postings for our final class assignment where we have worked in teams to think about a potential research problem that we find interesting, relevant and recent to the field of OD.  The assignment asks us to define a problem and to support and describe both a qualitative and a quantitative approach to research this problem. Additionally, the assignment asks us to be sure to account for the context in which we plan to conduct the study as this will be central to identifying the pros, cons, and values of each approach.  

In reading through the reports, I'm struck by several things.  First is a reaffirmation of the diversity of the field of OD as evidenced in the wide range of research questions and methodology approaches presented by the cohort thus far.  They contain references to the social and behavioral sciences, management studies, industrial/organizational psychology, human resources management, communication sociology and cover a wide range of research settings.  OD is truly a big tent.

I've also been thinking a lot about the concept of a scholar-practitioner and what it means to be a bridge between scholarship and practice. I'm learning that being this bridge isn't as easy as the logic makes it sound and that the idea of a balance between theory and practice sometimes feels more like a plain old tug-of-war.  In reading through the reports, I have found myself locked in my own internal debate over how to evaluate the different approaches.  

Something I found very helpful was in that last line of the assignment; be sure to account for the context in which you plan to conduct the study as this will be central to identifying the pros, cons and values of each approach.  I was reminded that, once again, we are back to having no rights or wrongs, just "it depends".  

Even though it may seem like this complicates the matter, to me it felt just the opposite. With the reminder that context is central the approach, I felt more grounded in my considerations and more attentive to questions like, who or what is being served. I found it particularly helpful at those moments when it felt as if there was an inverse relationship between the methodological rigor and the potential for discovery and usefulness.  Who is being served? Is this adding value?  

I consider this to be a valuable lesson in my development as a scholar-practitioner. We are not bound by rigid scholarly expectations, nor are we simply doing without thinking.  We adapt to situations, take context into consideration, and draw from sound principles and practices in multiple disciplines to guide our work. This, combined with the diversity of settings appropriate for the application of OD reaffirms, for me, how valuable the scholar-practitioner can be to organizations.

I'm interested in knowing how others in the cohort have felt about the assignment. Are there any interesting thoughts you have had from reading the papers that have been posted?