Practitioner Perspectives on the Gap Between Research and Practice: What Gap?

Abstract

The problem and the solution. The research-to-practice gap within HRD is an increasingly important focus of research.This study empirically investigates this issue from the perspective of practitioners, who are directly asked about their use of research. Results suggest that practitioners use “research,” though the term is not used in the same way that those who engage in academic and scholarly research use it. This peer-reviewed research is perceived to not be reaching practitioners, who instead turn to their own communities of practice to meet their research needs.

A missing link in the transfer problem? Examining how trainers learn about training transfer

“…The results also suggest, surprisingly, that practitioners see value in interfacing with academics to learn about training transfer and other training practices. This is not a natural conclusion one would derive from current researchpractice gap discussions in the literature (e.g., Keefer & Stone, 2009;Short, 2006). Perhaps trainers merely prefer a different communication medium than what is now predominantly used; that is, they seem to value and prefer talking with academics rather than passively reading their esoteric writings.…”

Comparing the research-practice gap in management accounting

“…In addition to providing a useful classificatory tool to organize diagnoses of why the research-practice gap may prevail, diffusion theory also offers a means to locate solutions advanced in the relevance literature to bridge the gap. For example, the discovery barrier has been argued to be surmountable by clarifying what it is a particular study is trying to accomplish, and the value it can add to practitioners (Nicolai and Seidl, 2010;Shapiro et al, 2007;Bennis and O'Toole, 2005;Trahan and Gitman, 1995); the barrier of translation may be similarly scaled by tailoring the message of a research study to the target audience in terms that are "user-friendly" (Bartunek and Rynes, 2010;Kieser and Leiner, 2009;Keefer and Stone, 2009;Bazerman, 2005;Kelemen and Bansal, 2002); Dissemination can be more effectively achieved by selecting and using existing or new media and distribution channels that are accessible to practitioners (Bansal et al, 2012;van Helden et al, 2012;Brennan, 2008;Pettigrew, 2005); and, negotiation of the barrier of change has been contended to be achievable by research proposing new techniques that meet emerging needs and opportunities facing practitioners, evaluating the effectiveness of existing techniques and approaches used by practitioners, and directing more attention to identifying the conditions necessary for the successful implementation of management accounting techniques (van Helden and Northcott, 2010).…”

In Our Ivory Towers? The Research-Practice Gap in Management Accounting: An Academic Perspective

“…Certainly, beyond the discipline of management accounting, numerous commentators on the researchpractice gap have voiced a range of opinions on how this gap may be bridged. For example, focusing on solving specific practice-based problems (Keefer and Stone, 2009); relying on managerial sensibility to shape research questions (Gulati, 2007); taking sabbaticals in industry (Rynes, et al, 2001); developing consulting relationships with organizations (Mohrman, Gibson, and Mohrman, 2001); confronting questions and anomalies existing in reality, (Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006); practitioners reviewing for academic journals, Cohen (2007); using consultants to bridge the gap (Gopinath and Hoffman, 1995); changing university incentive schemes to enable practitioner-based research to be afforded a higher credibility (Vermeulen, 2005); holding joint symposia, bringing academics and practitioners together (Keefer and Stone, 2009); and, creating awards to recognize those who relate research to practice (Billups, 1997). This is not an exhaustive list of initiatives proposed to bridge the gap.…”