Academic writing is like building a bridge: the whole bridge is only as strong as the weakest link. We need to be careful to avoid introducing - or at least unknowingly introducing - weak links.
While this type of work can be thought-provoking, interesting and useful when thinking about our own practice, when they do not show the sources of their thinking, it is simply opinion. It might be expert practitioner opinion, but it lacks academic weight. In general, this type of work is rarely underpinned by systematic, scientific evidence (and this article is not).
We can cite practitioner work in our academic writing, BUT we need to be careful about how we do that, as we don't want to make it look as if we are using unevidenced work without disclosing the work's weakness as a source; or as if we are ignorant of the lack of evidence that underlies the work.
So. Rather than writing (as this statement provides no evidence to back it up except practitioner opinion):
It is important that organisations align their newly designed structure with their organisational strategy (Perry & Engel, 2009).
We would instead say - reorganising and including 'e.g.' makes the opinion explicit, and provides evidence for the opinion source - the following:
Successful practitioners experienced in managing change recommend that organisations align their newly designed structure with their organisational strategy (e.g. Perry & Engel, 2009).
I hope that helps!
Sam
References:
Perry, R., & Engel, D. (2009, September 24). The 7 principles of a successful restructure. Anthill. https://anthillonline.com/the-7-principles-of-a-successful-restructure/
Allowing the recipient sufficient space and variety of evidence to analyse information might be helpful in several situations. CT
ReplyDeleteYes, you are bang on, as always, Chris!
Delete