Butler, Michael J.R.

English

PubMed

Aston Publications Explorer

OPINION ARTICLEpublished: January 2014doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00720Operationalizing interdisciplinary research—a model ofco-production in organizational cognitive neuroscienceMichael J. R. Butler*Work and Organisational Psychology Group, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK*Correspondence: m.j.r.butler@aston.ac.ukEdited by:Sven Braeutigam, University of Oxford, UKKeywords: neurosciences, organizational cognitive neuroscience, organizational behavior, organizational sciences, interdisciplinary communication,co-production researchThere is a biological turn in order tounderstand the underlying processes con-cerningmarkets and organizations. As partof the biological turn, in 2008, I wrotean article for the Journal of ConsumerBehavior about neuromarketing and theperceptions of knowledge (Butler, 2008).The argument put forward in the article isthat there are inter-related and potentiallycompeting perspectives which combine tomake up the biological turn. In orderto conceptualize these varied perspec-tives I introduced a novel NeuromarketingResearch Model. This commentary is con-cerned with updating the Model and usingit to reveal some of the current intersec-tions between society, organizations andthe brain.By taking this approach, I want tosupplement David Waldman’s opin-ion article in this special issue titled“Interdisciplinary research is the key.”Waldman (2013) argues that organiza-tional sciences are rapidly coming togetherwith neuroscience theory and methods toprovide new insights into organizationalphenomena, especially the larger prob-lems facing organizations. I add to thisargument by identifying specific pointsof how organizations and neuroscientistsare coming together, and operationalizeinterdisciplinary research by propos-ing a new Model of Co-Production inOrganizational Cognitive Neuroscience(OCN). OCN is defined as the applica-tion of neuroscientific methods to analyseand understand human behavior withinthe applied setting of organizations, whichmay be at the individual, group, organi-zational, inter-organizational, and societallevels. OCN draws together all the fieldsof business and management in orderto integrate understanding about humanbehavior in organizations and to morefully understand social behavior (Butlerand Senior, 2007).I will re-introduce the purpose of theoriginal Neuromarketing Research Modeland state why it fits with this collectionof papers, then I will briefly describe theModel in more detail. This will be followedby revising the Model to capture develop-ments in OCN since 2008, and by usingthe updated Model to cohere different andfundamental themes and directions at thefrontier of human neuroscience.HUMANMODES OF PERCEPTION INORGANIZATIONAL COGNITIVENEUROSCIENCESThe purpose of connecting neuromarket-ing and the perception of knowledge wasto address the perennial concern aboutthe interconnection between research andpractice, and the different perceptionsabout the development and applicationof knowledge about neuromarketing. Thisconcern is implicit in the theme of society,organizations and the brain. Basic humanneuroscience research in the field of man-agement and organizations is likely to beapplied to practitioners through knowl-edge exchange processes.I used Jacob Bronowski and Kant toconnect neuromarketing and the percep-tion of knowledge. In 1967, Bronowskiprofoundly argued that it is pointless totalk about what the world is like when themodes of perception of the world whichare accessible to us have changed so much(Bronowski, 1978). By the role of per-ception Bronowski (1978) took a Kantianview which argues that our knowledge ofthe outside world depends on our humanmodes of perception.Nearly fifty years on from Bronowski’slecture series, our modes of perceptionhave moved on again—neuroscience asa field of study has emerged. As a con-sequence, a Neuromarketing ResearchModel was proposed. The Model wasdeveloped from the work of Stokes (1997)and Tushman et al. (2007; Tushmanand O’Reilly, 2007). Tushman et al.(2007; Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007)adapted Stokes’ (1997) work to informthe debate about the role of businessschool research. Tushman et al. (2007;Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007) arguethat unlike conventional academic disci-plines which focus on basic disciplinaryresearch (economics, psychology, andsociology) and consulting firms whichfocus on meeting clients’ needs, businessschools are about rigor and relevance.Whilst agreeing with Tushman et al.’s(2007; Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007)argument, their model is problematicbecause it compresses the range of busi-ness school activity into a narrow set ofbehaviors concerning research and itsapplication.In its place, the NeuromarketingResearch Model interconnected differentperceptions of neuromarketing knowl-edge. Basic research reporting satisfiesthe needs of academics and appliedresearch reporting the needs of employers(Doherty, 1994). Media reporting is lessdefinitive because it satisfies the needs ofthe target audience for the publication,which could be academic or practice-based. Similarly, power processes is lessdefinitive because they satisfy the needs ofdominant actors in the networks identifiedhere by knowledge becoming ideologicaland biased in favor of particular actorsthrough a conflictual process (Clegg andPalmer, 1996; Stiles, 2004). Waldman(2013) dedicates a section in his articleto institutional and personal impedimentshindering the application of neuroscienceFrontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org January 2014 | Volume 7 | Article 720 | 1HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE 16Butler Coproduction model—organizational cognitive neuroscienceto his own area of expertise, leadership inorganizations.A MODEL OF CO-PRODUCTION INORGANIZATIONAL COGNITIVENEUROSCIENCEThis commentary proposes a new Modelof Co-Production in OCN because ourmodes of perception have moved on stillfurther (Figure 1). The components ofthe original Model remain in place (inbold text). There are, however, four sub-stantial changes. First, this commentaryemphasizes the rigorous quest for under-standing OCN rather than those whichare less rigorous, in other words, the pre-sentation of OCN work which reassuresreaders that appropriate methods andapproaches have been adopted. Second,the new Model has additional elementsto capture the emergent complexities atthe intersection between society, organi-zations, and the brain. The new cellshave dotted line divisions to indicate thatthey are sub-divisions of the four mainquadrants described in the previous sec-tion: Basic Research Reporting, AppliedResearch Reporting, Media Reporting, andPower Processes. Third, because humanneuroscience is being applied more widelyacross management and organizations,going beyond neuromarketing and neu-roeconomics, the examples used in thefollowing sections reflect this expansionof application. Fourth, the term “co-production” is used to describe the model.Co-production is derived from a mode2 approach to researching managementand organizations (Gibbons et al., 1994).FIGURE 1 | Model of Co-Production in Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience.Knowledge is produced in the context ofa real-world problem and the theoreticaldevelopment is co-negotiated with prac-titioners. The Model of Co-Productionin OCN reflects this intersection, high-lighting both rigor and relevance, or thequest for fundamental understanding andthe conditions of use. Indeed, university-organization relationships provide a pro-ductive setting for knowledge exchangeresearch (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007).Waldman (2013) expresses this approachin his article stating he has had muchmore success at connecting with neu-roscientists who combine the scientist-practitioner model, including establishingtheir own firms to produce applications tosuch maladies as attention deficit disorderand sleep apnea.Waldman’s (2013) point fits within theApplied Research Reporting quadrant ofFigure 1, the university spinout cell. Thequadrant as a whole emphasizes that prac-titioners are mindful of the need for sci-entific rigor and ethical considerations inhuman neuroscience work. Commercialsuccess, whether a university spinout oranother type of commercial enterprise,depends on clients having confidence inthe results they are presented with andconfidence comes from rigor and ethicalpractice (Brammer, 2004).My focus is the intersection betweenBasic Research Reporting and PowerProcesses. In my original article, I notedthat most attention is being given to basicresearch reporting because foundationalresearch is currently being undertaken.The debates have become much morenuanced over the last 5 years and the newModel of Co-Production in OCN dividesBasic Research Reporting into two fur-ther cells to take account of the wealth ofconceptual articles and the growing empir-ical research. Conceptual debates are nowappearing in established management andorganization journals like the Journal ofManagement, and the journal web site hasdedicated space to emphasize the emergingconversation about human neurosciencein the context of management (see Beckeret al., 2011; Lee et al., 2012a).In addition, special issues of highlyregarded academic journals like theLeadership Quarterly capture specificthemes at the intersection between organi-zations and the brain. Crucially, this allowsconversations about OCN and leadershipto involve both conceptual and empiricalstudies which include rigorous data col-lection and analysis (see Lee et al., 2012b).An illustrative empirical piece is Boyatziset al. (2012), which examines the neu-ral substrates activated in memories ofexperiences with resonant and dissonantleaders.The intersection between the BasicResearch Reporting and the PowerProcesses quadrants is crucial to thedevelopment of frontier research. As thenumber of published conceptual andempirical studies in the field of OCNgrows, so does the academic critique ofthe OCN perspective. Rigorous and rel-evant debate advances OCN. This avoidsknowledge, including emerging sciencetheories like OCN, becoming ideologicaland biased in favor of particular actorsthrough a conflictual process (Callonet al., 1986; Clegg and Palmer, 1996; Stiles,2004).Edwards (2013) introduces a realist cri-tique of OCN. The argument being thatit is important to consider how men-tal processes interact with “context” toproduce social behavior. The Model ofCo-Production in OCN is one manifesta-tion of the interaction between the microand macro levels. More generally, in thefield of strategy implementation, my workexplicitly acknowledges that different lev-els of change are co-evolving and dynamic(Butler, 2003; Butler and Allen, 2008).Lindebaum and Zundel (2013a) rightlymaintain that without explicit considera-tion of, and solutions to, the challenges ofFrontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org January 2014 | Volume 7 | Article 720 | 2Butler Coproduction model—organizational cognitive neurosciencereductionism, the possibilities to advanceleadership studies theoretically and empir-ically are limited. By reductionism theymean that neuroscientific approachesidentify and analyze basic mechanismsthat are assumed to give rise to higherorder organizational phenomena, forinstance, the way that inspirational lead-ers are identified and developed. In alively exchange, Lindebaum (2012) andCropanzano and Becker (2013) discussthe relative merits of neuro-feedbackprocesses for the purpose of leaderdevelopment and the ethical implications.In terms of the Model of Co-Production in OCN, the previousdiscussion has an important implicationfor Basic Research Reporting—the dan-ger of informing organizational practiceinadequately and perhaps dangerously.As Edwards (2013) indicates, OCN canlend itself to over-interpretation, espe-cially where scholars wish to find a simpleand unique truth.There is a similar implication for MediaReporting. Themainstream press can pop-ularize ideas related to OCN and indoing so over-simplify complex research.Hannaford (2013), though, includes rel-evant research from leading institutionslike the Max Planck Institute to supportthe argument in his newspaper article.Lindebaum and Zundel’s (2013b) recentarticle in the academic magazine TimesHigher Education also helps to re-balancepopular perceptions of OCN.CONCLUDING REMARKSWe are further along the lifecycle of thenew field of study of OCN. Fugate (2007)argues that in order for OCN to becomelegitimized, it would be necessary to con-struct a behavioral model that would pre-dict which stimuli provide the appropriatebrain structure with the material it needsto accomplish its assigned task. We seemsome distance from a behavioral model.Nevertheless, this commentary has cap-tured how research reporting within OCNis advancing, by proposing the Model ofCo-Production in OCN. In particular, dif-ferent themes and directions of researchare found at the intersection between BasicResearch Reporting and Power Processes.These debates, however, are also migrat-ing into Applied Research Reporting andMedia Reporting. This can only advanceOCN. A variety of voices rigorously andrelevantly debating OCN will advance thisparticular frontier in human neurosciencethrough the critique of emergent ideas.REFERENCESBecker, W. J., Cropanzano, R., and Sanfey, A. G.(2011). Organizational cognitive neuroscience:taking organizational theory inside the neu-ral black box. J. Manage. 37, 933–961.doi:10.1177/0149206311398955Boyatzis, R. E., Passarelli, A. M., Koenig, K., Lowe,M., Mathew, B., Stoller, J. K., et al. (2012).Examination of the neural substrates activated inmemories of experiences with resonant and dis-sonant leaders. Leadersh. Q. 23, 259–272. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.003Brammer, M. (2004). Correspondence—brain scam?Nat. Neurosci. 7, 1015. doi: 10.1038/nn1004-1015Bronowski, J. (1978). The Origins of Knowledge andImagination. New Haven; London: Yale UniversityPress.Butler, M. J. R. (2003). Managing from the insideout: drawing on “receptivity” to explain varia-tion in strategy implementation. Br. J. Manage. 14,S47–S60. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00392.xButler, M. J. R. (2008). Neuromarketing and theperception of knowledge. J. Consum. Behav. 7,415–419. doi: 10.1002/cb.260Butler, M. J. R., and Allen, P. (2008). Understandingpolicy implementation processes as self-organizingsystems. Public Manage. Rev. 10, 421–440. doi:10.1080/14719030802002923Butler, M. J. R., and Senior, C. (2007). Towardsan organizational cognitive neuroscience.Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1118, 1–17. doi:10.1196/annals.1412.009Callon, M., Law, J., and Rip, A. (eds.) (1986).Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology—Sociology of Science in the Real World. Basingstoke:Macmillan.Clegg, S. R., and Palmer, G. (eds.) (1996). The Politicsof Management Knowledge. London: Sage.Cropanzano, R., and Becker,W. J. (2013). The promiseand peril of organizational neuroscience: todayand tomorrow. J. Manage. Inq. 22, 306–310. doi:10.1177/1056492613478518Doherty, G. (1994). Can we have a unified the-ory of quality? High. Educ. Qual. 48, 240–255.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1994.tb01656.xEdwards, P. (2013). Neuroscience and Reductionism:Some Realist Reflections. Birmingham BusinessSchool, Discussion Paper Series, 2013–2008.Fugate, D. L. (2007). Neuromarketing: a layman’s lookat neuroscience and its potential application tomarketing practice. J. Consum. Mark. 24, 385–394.doi: 10.1108/07363760710834807Gibbons, M. L., Limoges, C., Nowotney, S.,Schwartman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994).The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamicsof Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.London: Sage.Hannaford, A. (2013). Neuromarketing: Can SciencePredict What We’ll Buy? The Telegraph. 13 April.[Accessed: 30 September 2013]. Available onlineat: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9984498/Neuromarketing-can-science-predict-what-well-buy.htmlLee, N. J., Senior, C., and Butler, M. J. R. (2012a).The domain of organizational cognitive neu-roscience: theoretical and empirical challenges.J. Manage. 38, 921–931. doi: 10.1177/0149206312439471Lee, N., Senior, C., and Butler, M. J. R. (2012b).Leadership research and cognitive neuroscience—The state of the union. Leadersh. Q. 23, 213–218.doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.001Lindebaum, D. (2012). I rebel—Therefore we exist:emotional standardization in organizations andthe emotionally intelligent individual. J. Manage.Inq. 21, 262–277. doi: 10.1177/1056492611430125Lindebaum, D., and Zundel, M. (2013a). Not quitea revolution: scrutinizing organizational cognitiveneuroscience in leadership studies.Hum. Relat. 66,857–877. doi: 10.1177/0018726713482151Lindebaum, D., and Zundel, M. (2013b). NeuronFiring and Hiring. Times Higher Education.[Accessed: 30 September 2013]. Available onlineat: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/what-makes-a-good-leader-dont-ask-aneuron-say-dirk-lindebaum-and-mikezundel/2004183.articlePerkmann, M., and Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation:towards a research agenda. Int. J. Manage. Rev.9, 259–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.xStiles, D. R. (2004). Narcissus revisited: the valuesof management academics and their role in busi-ness school strategies in the UK and Canada.Br. J. Manage. 15, 157–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00412.xStokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Scienceand Technological Innovation. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.Tushman, M., and O’Reilly, III. C. (2007). Researchand relevance: implications of Pasteur’s quad-rant for doctoral programs and faculty devel-opment. Acad. Manage. J. 50, 769–774. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279169Tushman, M. L., O’Reilly, C. A., Fenollosa,A., Kleinbaum, A. M., and McGrath, D.(2007). Relevance and rigor: executive edu-cation as a lever in shaping practice andresearch. Acad. Manage. Learn. 6, 345–362.doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2007.26361625Waldman, D. A. (2013). Interdisciplinary researchis the key. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:562. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00562Received: 01 October 2013; accepted: 17 December 2013;published online: January 2014.Citation: Butler MJR (2014) Operationalizing interdis-ciplinary research—a model of co-production in organi-zational cognitive neuroscience. Front. Hum. Neurosci.7:720. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00720This article was submitted to the journal Frontiers inHuman Neuroscience.Copyright © 2014 Butler. This is an open-access articledistributed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution orreproduction in other forums is permitted, provided theoriginal author(s) or licensor are credited and that theoriginal publication in this journal is cited, in accor-dance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribu-tion or reproduction is permitted which does not complywith these terms.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org January 2014 | Volume 7 | Article 720 | 316

Operationalizing interdisciplinary research-a model of co-production in organizational cognitive neuroscience

Michael J. R. Butler

Frontiers - Publisher Connector

Operationalizing interdisciplinary research—a model of co-production in organizational cognitive neuroscience

Crossref

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

OPINION ARTICLE
published: January 2014
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00720
Operationalizing interdisciplinary research—a model of
co-production in organizational cognitive neuroscience
Michael J. R. Butler*
Work and Organisational Psychology Group, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
*Correspondence: m.j.r.butler@aston.ac.uk
Edited by:
Sven Braeutigam, University of Oxford, UK
Keywords: neurosciences, organizational cognitive neuroscience, organizational behavior, organizational sciences, interdisciplinary communication,
co-production research
There is a biological turn in order to
understand the underlying processes con-
cerningmarkets and organizations. As part
of the biological turn, in 2008, I wrote
an article for the Journal of Consumer
Behavior about neuromarketing and the
perceptions of knowledge (Butler, 2008).
The argument put forward in the article is
that there are inter-related and potentially
competing perspectives which combine to
make up the biological turn. In order
to conceptualize these varied perspec-
tives I introduced a novel Neuromarketing
Research Model. This commentary is con-
cerned with updating the Model and using
it to reveal some of the current intersec-
tions between society, organizations and
the brain.
By taking this approach, I want to
supplement David Waldman’s opin-
ion article in this special issue titled
“Interdisciplinary research is the key.”
Waldman (2013) argues that organiza-
tional sciences are rapidly coming together
with neuroscience theory and methods to
provide new insights into organizational
phenomena, especially the larger prob-
lems facing organizations. I add to this
argument by identifying specific points
of how organizations and neuroscientists
are coming together, and operationalize
interdisciplinary research by propos-
ing a new Model of Co-Production in
Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience
(OCN). OCN is defined as the applica-
tion of neuroscientific methods to analyse
and understand human behavior within
the applied setting of organizations, which
may be at the individual, group, organi-
zational, inter-organizational, and societal
levels. OCN draws together all the fields
of business and management in order
to integrate understanding about human
behavior in organizations and to more
fully understand social behavior (Butler
and Senior, 2007).
I will re-introduce the purpose of the
original Neuromarketing Research Model
and state why it fits with this collection
of papers, then I will briefly describe the
Model in more detail. This will be followed
by revising the Model to capture develop-
ments in OCN since 2008, and by using
the updated Model to cohere different and
fundamental themes and directions at the
frontier of human neuroscience.
HUMANMODES OF PERCEPTION IN
ORGANIZATIONAL COGNITIVE
NEUROSCIENCES
The purpose of connecting neuromarket-
ing and the perception of knowledge was
to address the perennial concern about
the interconnection between research and
practice, and the different perceptions
about the development and application
of knowledge about neuromarketing. This
concern is implicit in the theme of society,
organizations and the brain. Basic human
neuroscience research in the field of man-
agement and organizations is likely to be
applied to practitioners through knowl-
edge exchange processes.
I used Jacob Bronowski and Kant to
connect neuromarketing and the percep-
tion of knowledge. In 1967, Bronowski
profoundly argued that it is pointless to
talk about what the world is like when the
modes of perception of the world which
are accessible to us have changed so much
(Bronowski, 1978). By the role of per-
ception Bronowski (1978) took a Kantian
view which argues that our knowledge of
the outside world depends on our human
modes of perception.
Nearly fifty years on from Bronowski’s
lecture series, our modes of perception
have moved on again—neuroscience as
a field of study has emerged. As a con-
sequence, a Neuromarketing Research
Model was proposed. The Model was
developed from the work of Stokes (1997)
and Tushman et al. (2007; Tushman
and O’Reilly, 2007). Tushman et al.
(2007; Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007)
adapted Stokes’ (1997) work to inform
the debate about the role of business
school research. Tushman et al. (2007;
Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007) argue
that unlike conventional academic disci-
plines which focus on basic disciplinary
research (economics, psychology, and
sociology) and consulting firms which
focus on meeting clients’ needs, business
schools are about rigor and relevance.
Whilst agreeing with Tushman et al.’s
(2007; Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007)
argument, their model is problematic
because it compresses the range of busi-
ness school activity into a narrow set of
behaviors concerning research and its
application.
In its place, the Neuromarketing
Research Model interconnected different
perceptions of neuromarketing knowl-
edge. Basic research reporting satisfies
the needs of academics and applied
research reporting the needs of employers
(Doherty, 1994). Media reporting is less
definitive because it satisfies the needs of
the target audience for the publication,
which could be academic or practice-
based. Similarly, power processes is less
definitive because they satisfy the needs of
dominant actors in the networks identified
here by knowledge becoming ideological
and biased in favor of particular actors
through a conflictual process (Clegg and
Palmer, 1996; Stiles, 2004). Waldman
(2013) dedicates a section in his article
to institutional and personal impediments
hindering the application of neuroscience
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org January 2014 | Volume 7 | Article 720 | 1
HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE 16
Butler Coproduction model—organizational cognitive neuroscience
to his own area of expertise, leadership in
organizations.
A MODEL OF CO-PRODUCTION IN
ORGANIZATIONAL COGNITIVE
NEUROSCIENCE
This commentary proposes a new Model
of Co-Production in OCN because our
modes of perception have moved on still
further (Figure 1). The components of
the original Model remain in place (in
bold text). There are, however, four sub-
stantial changes. First, this commentary
emphasizes the rigorous quest for under-
standing OCN rather than those which
are less rigorous, in other words, the pre-
sentation of OCN work which reassures
readers that appropriate methods and
approaches have been adopted. Second,
the new Model has additional elements
to capture the emergent complexities at
the intersection between society, organi-
zations, and the brain. The new cells
have dotted line divisions to indicate that
they are sub-divisions of the four main
quadrants described in the previous sec-
tion: Basic Research Reporting, Applied
Research Reporting, Media Reporting, and
Power Processes. Third, because human
neuroscience is being applied more widely
across management and organizations,
going beyond neuromarketing and neu-
roeconomics, the examples used in the
following sections reflect this expansion
of application. Fourth, the term “co-
production” is used to describe the model.
Co-production is derived from a mode
2 approach to researching management
and organizations (Gibbons et al., 1994).
FIGURE 1 | Model of Co-Production in Organizational Cognitive Neuroscience.
Knowledge is produced in the context of
a real-world problem and the theoretical
development is co-negotiated with prac-
titioners. The Model of Co-Production
in OCN reflects this intersection, high-
lighting both rigor and relevance, or the
quest for fundamental understanding and
the conditions of use. Indeed, university-
organization relationships provide a pro-
ductive setting for knowledge exchange
research (Perkmann and Walsh, 2007).
Waldman (2013) expresses this approach
in his article stating he has had much
more success at connecting with neu-
roscientists who combine the scientist-
practitioner model, including establishing
their own firms to produce applications to
such maladies as attention deficit disorder
and sleep apnea.
Waldman’s (2013) point fits within the
Applied Research Reporting quadrant of
Figure 1, the university spinout cell. The
quadrant as a whole emphasizes that prac-
titioners are mindful of the need for sci-
entific rigor and ethical considerations in
human neuroscience work. Commercial
success, whether a university spinout or
another type of commercial enterprise,
depends on clients having confidence in
the results they are presented with and
confidence comes from rigor and ethical
practice (Brammer, 2004).
My focus is the intersection between
Basic Research Reporting and Power
Processes. In my original article, I noted
that most attention is being given to basic
research reporting because foundational
research is currently being undertaken.
The debates have become much more
nuanced over the last 5 years and the new
Model of Co-Production in OCN divides
Basic Research Reporting into two fur-
ther cells to take account of the wealth of
conceptual articles and the growing empir-
ical research. Conceptual debates are now
appearing in established management and
organization journals like the Journal of
Management, and the journal web site has
dedicated space to emphasize the emerging
conversation about human neuroscience
in the context of management (see Becker
et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2012a).
In addition, special issues of highly
regarded academic journals like the
Leadership Quarterly capture specific
themes at the intersection between organi-
zations and the brain. Crucially, this allows
conversations about OCN and leadership
to involve both conceptual and empirical
studies which include rigorous data col-
lection and analysis (see Lee et al., 2012b).
An illustrative empirical piece is Boyatzis
et al. (2012), which examines the neu-
ral substrates activated in memories of
experiences with resonant and dissonant
leaders.
The intersection between the Basic
Research Reporting and the Power
Processes quadrants is crucial to the
development of frontier research. As the
number of published conceptual and
empirical studies in the field of OCN
grows, so does the academic critique of
the OCN perspective. Rigorous and rel-
evant debate advances OCN. This avoids
knowledge, including emerging science
theories like OCN, becoming ideological
and biased in favor of particular actors
through a conflictual process (Callon
et al., 1986; Clegg and Palmer, 1996; Stiles,
2004).
Edwards (2013) introduces a realist cri-
tique of OCN. The argument being that
it is important to consider how men-
tal processes interact with “context” to
produce social behavior. The Model of
Co-Production in OCN is one manifesta-
tion of the interaction between the micro
and macro levels. More generally, in the
field of strategy implementation, my work
explicitly acknowledges that different lev-
els of change are co-evolving and dynamic
(Butler, 2003; Butler and Allen, 2008).
Lindebaum and Zundel (2013a) rightly
maintain that without explicit considera-
tion of, and solutions to, the challenges of
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org January 2014 | Volume 7 | Article 720 | 2
Butler Coproduction model—organizational cognitive neuroscience
reductionism, the possibilities to advance
leadership studies theoretically and empir-
ically are limited. By reductionism they
mean that neuroscientific approaches
identify and analyze basic mechanisms
that are assumed to give rise to higher
order organizational phenomena, for
instance, the way that inspirational lead-
ers are identified and developed. In a
lively exchange, Lindebaum (2012) and
Cropanzano and Becker (2013) discuss
the relative merits of neuro-feedback
processes for the purpose of leader
development and the ethical implications.
In terms of the Model of Co-
Production in OCN, the previous
discussion has an important implication
for Basic Research Reporting—the dan-
ger of informing organizational practice
inadequately and perhaps dangerously.
As Edwards (2013) indicates, OCN can
lend itself to over-interpretation, espe-
cially where scholars wish to find a simple
and unique truth.
There is a similar implication for Media
Reporting. Themainstream press can pop-
ularize ideas related to OCN and in
doing so over-simplify complex research.
Hannaford (2013), though, includes rel-
evant research from leading institutions
like the Max Planck Institute to support
the argument in his newspaper article.
Lindebaum and Zundel’s (2013b) recent
article in the academic magazine Times
Higher Education also helps to re-balance
popular perceptions of OCN.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
We are further along the lifecycle of the
new field of study of OCN. Fugate (2007)
argues that in order for OCN to become
legitimized, it would be necessary to con-
struct a behavioral model that would pre-
dict which stimuli provide the appropriate
brain structure with the material it needs
to accomplish its assigned task. We seem
some distance from a behavioral model.
Nevertheless, this commentary has cap-
tured how research reporting within OCN
is advancing, by proposing the Model of
Co-Production in OCN. In particular, dif-
ferent themes and directions of research
are found at the intersection between Basic
Research Reporting and Power Processes.
These debates, however, are also migrat-
ing into Applied Research Reporting and
Media Reporting. This can only advance
OCN. A variety of voices rigorously and
relevantly debating OCN will advance this
particular frontier in human neuroscience
through the critique of emergent ideas.
REFERENCES
Becker, W. J., Cropanzano, R., and Sanfey, A. G.
(2011). Organizational cognitive neuroscience:
taking organizational theory inside the neu-
ral black box. J. Manage. 37, 933–961.doi:
10.1177/0149206311398955
Boyatzis, R. E., Passarelli, A. M., Koenig, K., Lowe,
M., Mathew, B., Stoller, J. K., et al. (2012).
Examination of the neural substrates activated in
memories of experiences with resonant and dis-
sonant leaders. Leadersh. Q. 23, 259–272. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.003
Brammer, M. (2004). Correspondence—brain scam?
Nat. Neurosci. 7, 1015. doi: 10.1038/nn1004-1015
Bronowski, J. (1978). The Origins of Knowledge and
Imagination. New Haven; London: Yale University
Press.
Butler, M. J. R. (2003). Managing from the inside
out: drawing on “receptivity” to explain varia-
tion in strategy implementation. Br. J. Manage. 14,
S47–S60. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00392.x
Butler, M. J. R. (2008). Neuromarketing and the
perception of knowledge. J. Consum. Behav. 7,
415–419. doi: 10.1002/cb.260
Butler, M. J. R., and Allen, P. (2008). Understanding
policy implementation processes as self-organizing
systems. Public Manage. Rev. 10, 421–440. doi:
10.1080/14719030802002923
Butler, M. J. R., and Senior, C. (2007). Towards
an organizational cognitive neuroscience.
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1118, 1–17. doi:
10.1196/annals.1412.009
Callon, M., Law, J., and Rip, A. (eds.) (1986).
Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology—
Sociology of Science in the Real World. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Clegg, S. R., and Palmer, G. (eds.) (1996). The Politics
of Management Knowledge. London: Sage.
Cropanzano, R., and Becker,W. J. (2013). The promise
and peril of organizational neuroscience: today
and tomorrow. J. Manage. Inq. 22, 306–310. doi:
10.1177/1056492613478518
Doherty, G. (1994). Can we have a unified the-
ory of quality? High. Educ. Qual. 48, 240–255.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1994.tb01656.x
Edwards, P. (2013). Neuroscience and Reductionism:
Some Realist Reflections. Birmingham Business
School, Discussion Paper Series, 2013–2008.
Fugate, D. L. (2007). Neuromarketing: a layman’s look
at neuroscience and its potential application to
marketing practice. J. Consum. Mark. 24, 385–394.
doi: 10.1108/07363760710834807
Gibbons, M. L., Limoges, C., Nowotney, S.,
Schwartman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994).
The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics
of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.
London: Sage.
Hannaford, A. (2013). Neuromarketing: Can Science
Predict What We’ll Buy? The Telegraph. 13 April.
[Accessed: 30 September 2013]. Available online
at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-
news/9984498/Neuromarketing-can-science-
predict-what-well-buy.html
Lee, N. J., Senior, C., and Butler, M. J. R. (2012a).
The domain of organizational cognitive neu-
roscience: theoretical and empirical challenges.
J. Manage. 38, 921–931. doi: 10.1177/0149206312
439471
Lee, N., Senior, C., and Butler, M. J. R. (2012b).
Leadership research and cognitive neuroscience—
The state of the union. Leadersh. Q. 23, 213–218.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.001
Lindebaum, D. (2012). I rebel—Therefore we exist:
emotional standardization in organizations and
the emotionally intelligent individual. J. Manage.
Inq. 21, 262–277. doi: 10.1177/1056492611430125
Lindebaum, D., and Zundel, M. (2013a). Not quite
a revolution: scrutinizing organizational cognitive
neuroscience in leadership studies.Hum. Relat. 66,
857–877. doi: 10.1177/0018726713482151
Lindebaum, D., and Zundel, M. (2013b). Neuron
Firing and Hiring. Times Higher Education.
[Accessed: 30 September 2013]. Available online
at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/what-
makes-a-good-leader-dont-ask-aneuron-say-dirk-
lindebaum-and-mikezundel/2004183.article
Perkmann, M., and Walsh, K. (2007). University–
industry relationships and open innovation:
towards a research agenda. Int. J. Manage. Rev.
9, 259–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.
00225.x
Stiles, D. R. (2004). Narcissus revisited: the values
of management academics and their role in busi-
ness school strategies in the UK and Canada.
Br. J. Manage. 15, 157–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2004.00412.x
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science
and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Tushman, M., and O’Reilly, III. C. (2007). Research
and relevance: implications of Pasteur’s quad-
rant for doctoral programs and faculty devel-
opment. Acad. Manage. J. 50, 769–774. doi:
10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279169
Tushman, M. L., O’Reilly, C. A., Fenollosa,
A., Kleinbaum, A. M., and McGrath, D.
(2007). Relevance and rigor: executive edu-
cation as a lever in shaping practice and
research. Acad. Manage. Learn. 6, 345–362.
doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2007.26361625
Waldman, D. A. (2013). Interdisciplinary research
is the key. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:562. doi:
10.3389/fnhum.2013.00562
Received: 01 October 2013; accepted: 17 December 2013;
published online: January 2014.
Citation: Butler MJR (2014) Operationalizing interdis-
ciplinary research—a model of co-production in organi-
zational cognitive neuroscience. Front. Hum. Neurosci.
7:720. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00720
This article was submitted to the journal Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience.
Copyright © 2014 Butler. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in accor-
dance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribu-
tion or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
with these terms.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org January 2014 | Volume 7 | Article 720 | 3
16


Michael JR Butler

Directory of Open Access Journals

Operationalizing interdisciplinary research – a model of co-production in organizational cognitive neuroscience

Available online at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/sciencenews/9984498/Neuromarketing-can-sciencepredict-what-well-buy.html

Available online at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/whatmakes-a-good-leader-dont-ask-aneuron-say-dirklindebaum-and-mikezundel/2004183.article

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org

Leadership research and cognitive neuroscience— The state of the union.

Managing from the inside out: drawing on “receptivity” to explain variation in strategy implementation.

Neuromarketing: alayman’slook at neuroscience and its potential application to marketing practice.

Neuromarketing: Can Science Predict What We’ll Buy? The Telegraph.1 3A p r i l .

Operationalizing interdisciplinary research—a model of co-production in organizational cognitive neuroscience.

Organizational cognitive neuroscience: taking organizational theory inside the neural black box.

Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation.W a s h i n g t o n ,D C :

Relevance and rigor: executive education as a lever in shaping practice and research.

Research and relevance: implications of Pasteur’s quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development.

The Politics of Management Knowledge. London: Sage. Cropanzano,R.,andBecker,W.J.(2013).Thepromise and peril of organizational neuroscience: today and tomorrow.

https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/22869/1/Operationalizing_interdisciplinary_research_a_model_of_co_production.pdf

Operationalizing interdisciplinary research-a model of co-production in organizational cognitive neuroscience

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aston Publications Explorer

Frontiers - Publisher Connector

Crossref

Frontiers - Publisher Connector

Directory of Open Access Journals