Quality Pentagon in Research:
An Approach for Multiple Cycles of Knowledge Construction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v18i4.3593Keywords:
pentágono da qualidade, qualidade intrínseca, qualidade da produção científicaAbstract
Objective: This study aims to shed light on the quality attributes of scientific research—gap, relevance, innovation, contribution, and impact—proposed by Frezatti (2020) in a REPeC editorial and to explore them through a project developed by participants of a research group. This objective addresses the issue of article and project rejection, which often originates from weaknesses at the conception stage, compromising execution and hindering necessary adjustments for publication.
Method: A theoretical-methodological approach was adopted to discuss five essential elements for developing a research project, referred to as the quality pentagon. These interdependent elements are applied throughout the entire research cycle, from conception to execution and publication.
Results: The proposed approach is expected to enhance the design and execution of research with greater intrinsic quality, particularly in the business field, thereby facilitating evaluation and acceptance in
academic journals.
Contributions: This study’s innovation lies in examining the interaction between the elements of the
quality pentagon, a topic rarely explored in the literature. By addressing this interrelationship, we provide
a tool to improve the planning and development of research, strengthen authors’ arguments, and offer
benefits to referees, editors, and advisors.
References
Albu, C. N., & Toader, S. (2012). Bridging the gap between accounting academic research and practice: some conjectures from Romania. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 11(2), 163-173.
Alvesson, M. (2012). Do we have something to say? From re-search to roi-search and back again. Organization, 20(1), 79-90.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.
Boaventura, E. M. (2004). Metodologia da pesquisa: monografia, dissertação, tese. Atlas.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
Colquitt, J. A., & George, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—part 1: topic choice. Academy of management journal, 54(3), 432-435.
Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486
Corley, K. G., & Schinoff, B. S. (2017). Who, me? An inductive study of novice experts in the context of how editors come to understand theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(1), 4-27.
Costa, F. J. D., Machado, M. A. V., & Câmara, S. F. (2022). Por uma orientação ao impacto societal da pós-graduação em administração no Brasil. Cadernos EBAPE. BR, 20(6), 823-835.
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (2008). Rigor and relevance in organization studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolution. Organization Science, 19(1), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0346
Dosi, G. (1988). Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers.
Fagerberg, J. (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
Falaster, C., Ferreira, M. P., & Canela, R. (2016). Motivos de rejeição dos artigos nos periódicos de administração. Organizações & Sociedade, 23(77), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9230776
Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American sociological review, 80(5), 875-908.
Freitag, V. da C., Martins, V. de Q., Ribeiro, S. P., Schuh, C., & Ott, E. (2019). Percepções das Barreiras de Difusão da Pesquisa Gerencial por Pesquisadores e Profissionais. Revista De Educação E Pesquisa Em Contabilidade (REPeC), 13(3). https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v13i3.1986
Frezatti, F. (2020). Pentágono da qualidade na publicação acadêmica: Revista de Educação e Pesquisa em Contabilidade (REPeC), 14(4).
Gil, A. C. (2010). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 5. reimpr. São Paulo: Atlas, 201.
Godoi, C. K., Bandeira-de-Mello, R., & Silva, A. B. (2006). Pesquisa qualitativa em estudos organizacionais: Paradigmas, estratégias e métodos. Saraiva.
Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 775–782. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279170
Klein, A. Z., Silva, L. V., Machado, L., & Azevedo, D. (2015). Metodologia de pesquisa em administração: uma abordagem prática. São Paulo: Atlas.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Lakatos, E. M., & Marconi, M. de A. (2010). Fundamentos de metodologia científica (7ª ed.). Atlas.
McGahan, A. M. (2007). Academic research that matters to managers: On zebras, dogs, lemmings, hammers, and turnips. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 748-753.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2010). That’s relevant! different forms of practical relevance in management science. Organization Studies, 31(9–10), 1257–1285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610374401
Oliveira, J. R. S., & De Andrade Martins, G. (2019). Uma abordagem para avaliação da qualidade do processo de pesquisa em Contabilidade. Revista de Educação e Pesquisa Em Contabilidade (REPeC), 13(4), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v13i4.2480
Oxford University (2024, 17 de julho). Research impact. https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/research-impact
Palmer, D., Dick, B., & Freiburger, N. (2009). Rigor and relevance in organization studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4), 265-272.
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2023). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), 207-245. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2023/17109
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson.
Rapple, C. (2019). Research impact: what it is, why it matters, and how you can increase impact potential. https://blog.growkudos.com/research-mobilization/research-impact-what-why-how.
Reips, U.-D., & Matzat, U. (2013). Article Impact Means Journal Impact. International Journal of Internet Science, 8(1), 1–9.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Rothwell, R., & Gardiner, P. (1985). The role of design in product and process innovation. Design Studies, 6(3), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(85)90033-7
Rynes, S. (2002). From the editors: Some reflections on contribution. Academy of management journal, 45(2), 311-313.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410372151
Stratford, E. (2020). Measuring the impact of research. Geographical Research, 58(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12391
Taylor, C., & Coffey, A. (2009). Qualitative research in action. SAGE Publications.
Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of pasteur’s quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 769–774. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279169
University of York (2024, 17 de julho). What is research impact? https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/research/research-impact/impact-definition/
Vermeulen, F. (2007). “I shall not remain insignificant”: Adding a second loop to matter more. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 754-761.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of management review, 14(4), 490-495.
Wickert, C., Post, C., Doh, J. P., Prescott, J. E., & Prencipe, A. (2021). Management research that makes a difference: Broadening the meaning of impact. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 297-320.
Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2011). The management of confidentiality and anonymity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 417-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701622231
Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Education and Research in Accounting (REPeC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, which allows the sharing of the work and recognition of authorship and its initial publication in this journal. This license allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, or create derivative works, even for commercial purposes, provided credit is given for the original creation.
b)There is no financial compensation to the authors in any capacity, for articles published in RePEc.c) The articles published in RePEc are the sole responsibility of the authors.
