Search results

Within the developing exploration of the role of the scholar-practitioner, the situation in which scholar-practitioners engage in the scholarship of practice in their own organizational systems has not received much attention. This chapter adopts the position that scholar-practitioners are not merely practitioners who do research but rather that they integrate scholarship in their practice and generate actionable knowledge, that is, knowledge that is robust for scholars and actionable for practitioners. This chapter explores the phenomenon of scholar-practitioners engaging in the scholarship of practice in their own organizational systems as inside change agents. It discusses how scholar-practitioners engage in inquiry-in-action in first-, second-, and third-person modes of inquiry and practice in the present tense and provides a methodology and methods for such engagement that it be rigorous, reflective, and relevant.

The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate the scholar–practitioner research development scale (SPRDS), an instrument to assess research competencies of students enrolled in professional doctoral programs.

In this instrument development study, an expert panel established the content valid. A factor analysis and internal consistency analysis was used to examine the validity and reliability of the instrument.

An expert panel deemed the scale as content valid. Results of a factor analysis and internal consistency analysis demonstrated that the scale is both valid and reliable, consisting of five subscales.

The current study provides evidence that the scholar–SPRDS is a valid and reliable instrument to assess research characteristics professional doctorate students’ research competencies, which can be used to extend research on the development of doctoral students in professional doctorate programs.

The instrument can be a useful tool to assess and inform the faculty and administrators about their students, the curriculum and program resources.

Equipped with an instrument such as this, faculty and administrators are better armed to assess students’ growth thought out the program, and, in turn, design and deliver research curriculum and mentorship that assists students in developing as scholar–practitioners, which may ultimately lead to success in the program and beyond, impacting the society.

There is not a formal or standardized scale to evaluate if professional doctoral students are progressing and developing as practitioner-scholars through their professional doctoral programs. There is not a standardized or universally adopted assessment to determine if professional doctoral programs are meeting the goals and objectives they have set forth. Thus, the aim of this study was to develop and to determine the validity and reliability of a scale to measure a scholar–practitioner’s research competencies in a professional doctoral program.

This study aims to explore what characteristics contribute to the definition of relevance in business-to-business (B2B) marketing research and how/why different strands of B2B marketing maintain or lose their relevance.

This study is conceptual. It adopts a performative-phenomenal standpoint for B2B marketing research and approaches relevance through the concept of episteme, which is considered pivotal for understanding this phenomenon.

This study proposes four axioms that define the characteristics of relevance in B2B marketing research and discusses their implications for scholars and practitioners. Consequently, an action plan for revitalizing B2B marketing research is developed, comprising learning and temporal dimensions, resulting in nine different relevance types.

The central argument put forward in this study is that different research strands of B2B marketing have deeply rooted epistemic underpinnings that influence their interpretation of relevance. Consequently, fostering dialogue between practitioners and scholars is considered necessary to sustain relevance in B2B marketing research. B2B scholars are urged to think beyond their subspecialized silos and acknowledge how the business environment and the various strands of B2B marketing congruently shape B2B marketing relevance, while also embracing research methods that bring them closer to business practice.

Marketing practitioners and academics continue to drift apart. This study puts forward three recommendations to bring marketing academics and practitioners closer together.

The study contributes to the B2B marketing literature by grappling with the theory-praxis gap and critically exploring what constitutes relevance in B2B marketing research.

Leadership scholar-practitioners seldom need to be sold on the benefits of working together. Rather leadership educators want to know how to teach adult leadership scholar-practitioners how to work together across differences. The aim of this paper is to guide leadership development practitioners on how to nurture leadership that can address the complex problems the changing global arena demand of us today and into the future. We argue when preparing adult leadership scholar-practitioners, using adult learning theories and paying attention to the interdisciplinary roots of the field of leadership might lead to better learning and engagement with real world challenges. In this paper we present a leadership development model we call interdisciplinary leadership. First, we discuss the interdisciplinary roots of leadership. Second, we describe interdisciplinary leadership as a tapestry – an intricate combination of identities, practices, and outcomes used to prepare people to address complex problems. Finally, we describe the mission, structure, curriculum, and instructional strategies that can be used by leadership educators when applying interdisciplinary leadership. This model acknowledges the identity, practices, and outcomes needed to develop scholar-practitioners of leadership and provides practical techniques to help leadership educators prepare leaders to work together across differences to address complex problems.

The persisting tension over the relative importance of theory and practice creates a crevasse between scholars and practitioners. The purpose here is to problematize divisions between cultural norms found among scholars and practitioners.

Both authors, higher education scholars, experienced temporary assignments as public school leaders and reflect on their experiences moving back and forth between school leadership practice and academia. This qualitative and autobiographical work draws on a combination of hermeneutics in the dominant educational leadership literature and the co‐authors' experiences recorded in journals, saved memos and other school data records. These data sets and continuing access to their professional and scholarly colleagues provided the basis for analyses.

Draws on three main points: curricular balance; faculty composition; and research, and, while it strongly encourages faculty to seek ways to connect or reconnect with the field, opines that, if the field's curriculum for development and preparation with research is balanced, then faculty will connect with practice.

Research carried out in the program is of high quality, driven by practice, and useful to practitioners and/or policy makers.

While holistic studies devoted to the information behavior of humanist scholars have begun to appear more frequently in the literature, there has been, until quite recently, a persistent tendency to consolidate humanists rather than attend to the variant gestalts, material working conditions, and values that might distinguish one from another. This chapter is a response to recent calls for more finely granulated descriptions of specific humanist disciplinary practices. It offers a close examination of the information behavior of theatre researchers, both academics and practitioners. For reasons that the chapter explores, theatre researchers constitute a user group that has been profoundly neglected. Using both quantitative and qualitative data obtained through a survey of listserv members of the American Society for Theatrical Research and the Theatre Library Association, the chapter examines the impact of theatre culture on theatre research practices. Moreover, inspired by Brenda Dervin's “Sense-Making Methodology,” this chapter offers the embedded perspective of a researcher who is herself a theatre scholar as well as a practicing librarian. The chapter ranges widely, illustrating its findings with, for example, published rehearsal memoirs, statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor, white papers produced by the National Endowment of the Arts, performance theory texts. Topics covered include the history of theatre studies as an academic discipline, the multiple job-holding/unemployment culture of practitioners such as actors and directors, the differences in focus and methodology that distinguish practitioners from scholars, the marginalized status of dramatic literature in university English departments. Several themes that emerged through analysis of qualitative data are discussed: the contrast between scholarly rigor and the tendency of the practitioner to “satisfice,” the conflicting claims of text and artifact, the impact of geography and teaching-intensive institutional affiliation on researchers’ access to resources. The author concludes that it is not only inadvisable and inaccurate to generalize behaviors across humanistic disciplines; it is equally inaccurate to assume that all researchers within the same discipline will manifest the same characteristics, or even that the same researcher will apply the same strategies to all projects. The only generalization about the information behavior of the theatre researcher that can be made is that it is highly task and context dependent.

The purpose of this paper is to deal with the widely acknowledged gap between place branding theory and practice. It makes a direct attempt to address fundamental questions regarding the relationship between place branding scholars and practitioners. The article reports on the special session “Theory meets Practice” that was organised at the Institute of Place Management Conference in Poznan, Poland, in May 2015.

The article raises and attempts to answer questions such as whether the two groups of place branding scholars and practitioners engage with each other’s work, whether they share an understanding of place branding and whether they set the same set of priorities for the advancement of the field. Both academic views and practitioners’ approaches are elaborated upon. Furthermore, the example of a project where both academics and practitioners worked together is used to illustrate the discussion.

The article provides a series of answers regarding the current relationship between place branding theoreticians and practitioners. It also provides an assessment of the motivations and benefits of working more closely together. In this way, the article initiates a discussion that might help place branding theory and practice come closer together.

Despite the importance of the issue raised in the article for the development of place branding as a discipline, this is one of the first attempts to directly handle this topic. Another novelty of the article is that it is written in cooperation with both academics and practitioners, thus being a direct result of the relationship discussed.

The concept of interestingness has been investigated in several management disciplines but studies mobilizing such concept in supply chain management (SCM) to develop strategies for the field's advancement are relatively scarce. This research paper aims to investigate how SCM scholars rank attributes of interestingness and the strategies to harness interestingness in the field of SCM.

The authors adopt a mixed methods research design in which a survey on SCM researchers' ranking of interestingness' attributes and qualitative interviews with selected academics are conducted.

The findings highlight the importance given by SCM scholars to attributes such as rigor, relevance, novelty and communication and how they are interrelated. Also, other interestingness attributes are underlined by scholars during the qualitative interviews including inquisitiveness, engaging the reader, imaginativeness and entertainment. Furthermore, a research agenda to synthesize the propositions to develop interesting research is also proposed.

Interestingness attributes such as rigor, relevance and novelty are discussed. Recommendations for interesting research are suggested which can be useful to scholars and journal editors. The findings of this research are also relevant for practitioners for a better understanding of academic/practice relationships to develop high impact collaboration.

This paper is among the few studies that focus on interestingness in SCM research from the perspective of scholars. In doing so, the authors seek to contribute to the classic debate in SCM field about “relevance-rigour” duality by providing a broader outlook based on interestingness and proposing a research agenda for prospective studies in the field.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that abductive reasoning is a typical but usually unrecognised process used by HRD scholars and practitioners alike.

This is a conceptual paper that explores recent criticism of traditional views of theory‐building, based on the privileging of scientific theorising, which has led to a relevance gap between scholars and practitioners. The work of Charles Sanders Peirce and the varieties of an abductive reasoning process are considered.

Abductive reasoning, which precedes induction and deduction, provide a potential connection with HRD practitioners who face difficult problems. Two types of abductive reasoning are explored – existential and analogic. Both offer possibilities for theorising with HRD practitioners. A range of methods for allowing abduction to become more evident with practitioners are presented. The authors consider how abduction can be used in engaged and participative research strategies.

While this is a conceptual paper, it does suggest implications for engagement and participation in theorising with HRD practitioners.

Abductive reasoning adds to the repertoire of HRD scholars and practitioners.

The paper elucidates the value of abductive reasoning and points to how it can become an integral element of theory building in HRD.

The primary objective of this paper is to understand the extent to which Australian industrial relations academics took up the different heuristic frameworks from USA and U.K. from the 1960s to the 1980s. A second objective is to begin to understand why, and in what ways ideas are transmitted in academic disciplines drawing on a “market model” for ideas. It is shown that in the years between 1960s and 1980s a modified U.S. (Dunlopian) model of interpreting industrial relations became more influential in Australia than that of U.K. scholarship, as exemplified by the British Oxford School. In part this reflects the breadth, flexibility and absence of an overt normative tenor in Dunlop’s model which thus offered lower transaction costs for scholars in an emergent discipline seeking recognition and approval from academia, practitioners and policy-makers. Despite frequent and wide-ranging criticism of Dunlop’s model, it proved a far more enduring transfer to Australian academic industrial relations than the British model, albeit in a distorted form. The market model for the diffusion of ideas illuminates the ways in which a variety of local contextual factors influenced the choices taken by Australian industrial relations academics.