Search results

Similar to joining comparative education and international education, bridging theory to practice is a hallmark of the field of comparative and international education (CIE). Despite the commonality of citing “theory to practice,” a disconnect exists between comparativists who develop theories and practitioners who supposedly implement them. This article questions the use and meaning of this phrase. Specific questions are posed to explore how “theory to practice” is referenced in CIE publications: What does “theory to practice” mean? Who are theorists? Who are practitioners? Do practitioners know they are practitioners? How do practitioners apply theory? Perspectives from comparativists and practitioners are supplied in response to these guiding questions. These opposing perspectives demonstrate the continued disconnect between and misunderstanding of “theory to practice.” Further research is requested to better understand how these questions are currently represented in the field and how the field should evolve to better reflect theory and practice in the future.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

Borrowing from practice theory to enhance institutional theory has much potential. It may help institutional scholars reconnect with its constructivist, processual origins. Yet previous attempts of borrowing across paradigmatic boundaries – both in organization studies and in institutional theory – teach us that borrowing is not a straightforward adoption. Instead, theories that cross known paradigmatic boundaries go through a process of translation, and may well get lost in the way. In this paper, the author focuses on methodology and points to impediments to the fruitful adoption of a practice-driven approach to institutionalization, and offers ways to overcome them. In particular, the author points to the need to change the focus from process as an outcome to the inner life of the process; capturing action in vivo and in situ; and finding ways to focus on practice yet not lose connection to its institutional context and implications.

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.

The theory–practice relation in professional programs like teacher education should be a fruitful challenge that inspires students to learn through reflecting on practical experiences with theoretically based concepts. However, instead of being a learning-promoting challenge it often is a problem that causes students to consider leaving teacher education.

Universities and colleges have developed different strategies to make the theory–practice relationship easier for students to handle. One of these strategies is to introduce a third learning space between theory at college and practicum experiences. A Danish university college developed a so-called Teaching Lab to establish a laboratory-like relationship between theory at college and practices in schools. Observations and interviews showed that the college managed to realize its goal and bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the debate about the existence and nature of a “gap” between theory and practice in management.

The putative theory/practice “gap” in management is investigated by examining the theory/practice debate in three cognate fields–economics, nursing and marketing.

The relationship between theory and practice is actively debated in all three of the fields. In economics, criticism has been directed at the implicit ontological assumptions made in formal mathematical methods employed by orthodox neoclassical economists. In nursing the debate has centred on the practical issues associated with implementing evidence based practice; in particular identifying and seeking to overcome barriers to implementation. In marketing, managers find most academic theory difficult to read and irrelevant; this may be because the goals of academics and the goals of practitioners are different.

Potentially fruitful topics for further research are identified at the pragmatic, epistemological and ontological levels.

The paper identifies lessons for the field of management research from economics, nursing and marketing. Each of these three areas provides a unique lens through which to view the research/practice “gap” in management.

Information literacy has been consistently undertheorised. The purpose of this paper is to contribute in the ongoing theorisation of information literacy by exploring the meaning and implications of the emergent grounded theory of mitigating risk for information literacy research and practice.

The grounded theory was produced through a qualitative study that was framed by practice theory and the theoretical constructs of cognitive authority and affordance, and employed constructivist grounded theory, semi-structured interviews and photo-elicitation methods to explore the information literacy practices of language-learners overseas.

This paper provides a theoretically rich exploration of language-learner information literacy practices while further identifying the importance of time, affect and information creation within information literacy research and practice as well as the need for the continued theorisation of information literacy concepts.

The paper’s constructivist grounded theorisation of information literacy remains localised and contextualised rather than generalisable.

The paper raises questions and points of reflection that may be used to inform the continued development of information literacy instruction and teaching practices.

This paper contributes to an increasingly sophisticated theoretical conceptualisation of information literacy as well as forming a basis for ongoing theoretical development in the field.

English social housing providers are increasingly turning to social impact measurement to assess their social value. This paper aims to understand the contextual factors causing this rise in the practice, specifically within this sector; the mechanisms that enable it to be effectively implemented within an individual organisation and the outcomes of successful implementation for individual organisations and more widely across the sector and beyond.

A realist theory-based approach is applied to the study of a small number of social housing organisations and leaders within the sector to explore the use of social impact measurement. The paper addresses three questions: Why is social impact measurement being adopted in this sector? How is it successfully implemented? And what happens (outcomes) when it is successfully implemented? Addressing these questions necessitates deeper insight into the contextual pressures that have brought to the fore social impact measurement within the sector and the beneficial outcomes the practice provides (or is anticipated to provide) to social housing providers. The methodological approach of Realist Evaluation (Pawson and Tilley, 1997, 2004) is used to structure and analyse the empirical data and findings into a programme theory for social impact measurement. Realist Evaluation provides a programme theory perspective, seeking to answer the question “what works, for whom and in what circumstances?”. In this research, the “whom” refers to English social housing providers and the circumstances are the contextual conditions experienced by the sector over the past decade. The programme theory aims to set out the links between the contextual drivers for social impact measurement, the mechanisms that bring about its implementation and the outcomes that occur as a result. Within this, greater detail on the implementation perspective is provided by developing an implementation theory using a Theory of Change approach (Connell et al., 1995; Fulbright-Anderson et al., 1998). The implementation theory is then embedded within the wider programme theory so as to bring the two elements together, thereby creating a refinement of the overall theory for social impact measurement. In turn, this paper demonstrates its importance (the outcomes that it can achieve for organisations and the sector) and how it can effectively be implemented to bring about those outcomes.

Social housing providers use social impact measurement both internally, to determine their organisational priorities and externally, to demonstrate their value to local and national governments and cross-sector partners then to shape and influence resource allocation. The practice itself is shown to be an open and active programme, rather than a fixed calculative practice.

The intensive nature of the research means that only a limited number of cases were explored. Further research could test theories developed here against evidence collected from a wider range of cases, e.g. other types of providers or non-adopters.

The research makes a strong contribution to practice in the form of a re-conceptualisation of how social impact measurement can be shown to be effective, based on a deeper understanding of causal mechanisms, how they interact and the outcomes that result. This is of value to the sector as such information could help other organisations both to understand the value of social impact measurement and to provide practical guidance on how to implement it effectively.

As the practice of impact measurement continues to develop, practitioners will need to be aware of any changes to these contextual factors and consider questions such as: is the context still supportive of impact measurement? Does the practice need to be adjusted to meet the needs of the current context? For instance, the recent tragedy at Grenfell Tower has led to a reconsideration of the role of social housing; a new Green Paper is currently being drafted (Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2018). This may have a number of implications for social impact measurement, such as a rebalancing of emphasis on outcomes relating to environmental improvements, towards outcomes relating to the well-being of tenants.

Existing literature is largely limited to technical guides. This paper links theory-based evaluation to practice contributing to social housing practice.