This article examines
research in Financial Intermediation amidst a profound transformation
of its core subject, which has redefined the discipline’s
boundaries, as well as the questions, methods, and criteria guiding
research conception and evaluation. In this evolving context, several
tensions emerge: between specialization and systemic perspective, rigor
and relevance, incremental knowledge and new interpretative frameworks,
impact factor and real-world impact, formal correctness and writing as
a mode of thought. The danger is that research may fall short of its
goals – not due to a lack of rigor, but because rigor alone
is insufficient. This highlights the need to reconsider incentives and
evaluation criteria, expand our understanding of scientific quality,
and restore nuanced judgment through careful reading of scholarly work
to evaluate its significance, methods, and genuine contributions.
