The Epistemological Basis for Resolving the Rigor-Relevance Debate in Management Research.
Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, there has been a debate over how humans can create valid knowledge about the world in which we operate.
Plato argued that abstract models within human cognition can be considered valid even if there is no corresponding instance of the phenomena observable in the external environment.
Aristotle argued that abstract models must have a corresponding instance of the phenomena they represent that is observable within the external environment.
Subsequently, Euclid was one of the first to use the linguistic frame of math to establish a rigorous correspondence between abstract models and real world evidence in his geometric proofs.
Since then, scientific breakthroughs and knowledge have emerged from the precise and accurate representations of the external environment made possible within the rigorous linguistics of basic math and Aristotle's scientific method.
Today, management research as practiced in accredited business schools has taken sides with Plato, not Aristotle. They operate within their own closed loop of investigation and knowledge generation that is based on abstract models of a theoretic world that is disconnected from the realities of practicing managers. Academics argue that the knowledge they generate is valid because it is "rigorous". Practitioners argue that this "knowledge" is not relevant to the real world in which they operate.
Until now, no one has followed the example of Euclid and expanded the frame of math to establish a more rigorous correspondence between the abstract models and the evidence from the external environment.
Basic Social Math is a new framework that seeks to change that by reconnecting management research to the real world!