Search results

Conducting relevant research is a cornerstone of good academic practice. However, considering academics and practitioners’ divergent paradigms and social systems, it is challenging to undertake impactful research. Indeed, the research–practice gap remains an essential issue in human resource management research. There have been several calls for translating research for dissemination, making it more societally relevant, and beginning conversations and activities that move beyond the confines of the academic context. In fact, research on talent management (TM) has been accused of lagging in offering organizations vision and direction. Understanding the perceived causes and potential solutions for relevant problems is a real need to successfully narrow the TM research–practice gap. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to offer an in-depth discussion on the research–practice gap in TM. To do so, we first identify the critical dimensions of research relevance that will help us to ground our discussion regarding the applicability of current academic TM research. By doing this, we seek to understand better what is happening with TM research, which should then help provide insights into how its practical impact can be improved.

Purpose: The current study aims to cast light on the divide between academic research in management accounting and its applicability to practice by examining, from the standpoint of nursing, how this gap is perceived and what challenges may be involved in bridging it.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The current study compares the findings of Tucker and Parker (2014) with both quantitative as well as qualitative evidence from an international sample of nursing academics.

Findings: The findings of this study point to the differing tradition and historical development in framing and addressing the research–practice gap between management accounting and nursing contexts and the rationale for practice engagement as instrumental in explaining disciplinary differences in addressing the research–practice gap.

Research Implications Despite disciplinary differences, we suggest that a closer engagement of academic research in management accounting with practice “can work,” “will work,” and “is worth it.” Central to a closer relationship with practice, however, is the need for management accounting academics to follow their nursing counterparts and understand the incentives that exist in undertaking research of relevance.

Originality/value: The current study is one of the few that has sought to look to the experience of other disciplines in bridging the gap. Moreover, to our knowledge, it is the first study in management accounting to attempt this comparison. In so doing, our findings provide a platform for further considering how management accounting researchers, and management accounting as a discipline might, in the spirit of this study’s title, “Learn from the Experience of Others.”

This paper compares and contrasts practice-based perceptions of the research–practice gap in the United States (US) with those in Australia.

The current study extends the work of Tucker and Lowe (2014) by comparing and contrasting their Australian-based findings with evidence from a questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews with senior representatives of 18 US state and national professional accounting associations.

The extent to which academic research informs practice is perceived to be limited, despite the potential for academic research findings to make a significant contribution to management accounting practice. We find similarities as well as differences in the major obstacles to closer engagement in the US and Australia. This comparison, however, leads us to offer a more fundamental explanation of the divide between academic research and practice framed in terms of the relative benefits and costs of academics engaging with practice.

Rather than following conventional approaches to ‘bridging the gap’ by identifying barriers to the adoption of research, we suggest that only after academics have adequate incentives to speak to practice can barriers to a more effective diffusion of their research findings be surmounted.

This study makes three novel contributions to the “relevance literature” in management accounting. First, it adopts a distinct theoretical vantage point to organize, analyze, and interpret empirical evidence. Second, it captures practice-based views about the nature and extent of the divide between research and practice. Third, it provides a foundational assessment of the generalizability of the gap by examining perceptions of it across two different geographic contexts.

This piece discusses the research–practice gap in comparative and international education, postulating that the gap occurs due to the different operating spheres of the researcher and end user, the lack of accessibility of research, and its unidirectional nature. Only through close linkages across research, policy, and practice can we close the gap and ensure better education outcomes for those around the globe. Research application is not automatic but requires working in partnership with policymakers and practitioners. Drawing on my own experience across the research, policy, and practitioner spheres, I discuss three ways researchers can narrow the research–practice gap by: (1) better understanding the social sphere; (2) producing accessible, engaging content, including by storytelling; and (3) creating more partnerships with end users, such as Communities of Research.

This discussion essay explores the theory–practice nexus in comparative and international education (CIE) from the author’s role as a third space professional and a budding academic-practitioner (Wilson, 1994) providing academic support to offshore international students at a New Zealand university. It engages with two debates related to the research–practice conundrum in CIE: The first debate relates to the boundaries between CIE and raise questions about the identities of theorists and practitioners in CIE. The author argues that regardless of their identities, implicit theories about why things happened and how things will change in the future are often held by practitioners and theorists alike. The second debate relates to the knowledge hierarchy in CIE and raise questions about who decides the value and utility of the kinds of knowledge produced. Drawing on the politics of knowledge production, the author highlights that it may be the implicit theories held by the theorists or practitioners that ultimately determine the knowledge they saw as useful and valuable.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

The growing importance of ‘lived practices’ in entrepreneurship-related studies has sought to pose several questions and challenges for researchers/scholars in the field (Ruona & Gilley, 2009; Short, Keefer, & Stone, 2009). The issue of how current entrepreneurship research practices can become more applied in nature provides the basis for articulating more clearly what we mean by research impact and why it has become a central concern in the research field (Beyer & Trice, 1982; Huggins et al., 2008; Rynes, 2007; Starkey & Tempest, 2005). This debate has drawn specific attention to the need for applied research in entrepreneurial scholarship, which is more reflective of lived practice. The need to reach a balance between practitioners and academics’ expectations in terms of delivering research which is focussed towards achieving academic rigour and application to practice, which is both meaningful and relatable, is significant for both communities (Ram, Edwards, Jones, Kiselinchev, & Muchenje, 2017). This chapter seeks to assist and inspire both existing and future researchers in the field to make more informed choices and offer tangible evidence of good practice, serving as a guide to researchers wishing to develop engaged research. The authors hope that the nature of this chapter would seek to clarify the importance of engaged research in supporting how we understand and respond to the needs of entrepreneurial practice as a means of building trust and confidence in research reported. A key characteristic of the issue will be the different ‘framing’ of questions that can enhance practical knowledge.

This paper proposes to rethink the concepts of relevance and usefulness and their relation to the theory–practice gap in management research.

On the basis of the cognitive-linguistic relevance theory or inferential pragmatics, supplemented by insights from information science, we define relevance as a general conceptual category, while reserving usefulness for the instrumental application in a particular case.

There is no reason to hold onto the difference between theoretical and practical relevance, nor to distinguish between instrumental and conceptual relevance.

This novel approach will help to clarify the confusion in the field and contribute to a better understanding of the added value of management research.

This chapter shares work carried out to use the discipline of Informing Science as a lens to carry out an analysis of the discipline of entrepreneurship. Focusing first at the level of the entrepreneurship discipline itself, recently advanced frameworks for practice-as-entrepreneurial-learning and for the scholarship of teaching and learning for entrepreneurship (SoTLE) are built upon using Gill’s work on academic informing systems to develop a framework that encourages viewing the entrepreneurship discipline as a system that informs entrepreneurial practice. While this may sound self-evident, we will explore how it implies something quite different from the teaching–research–scholarship paradigm to which most of us are accustomed.