The research-practice relevance gap (RPRG) issue in the management field: a brief note

The research-practice relevance gap (RPRG) issue in the management field:  a brief note

Prepared by Joseph, K.K. Ho Dated: January 1, 2018

1. The basic nature of the research-practice relevance gap (RPRG) issue

From the outset, management study, as Vicari (2013) reminds us, was "undoubtedly linked to managerial practices". This is buttressed by the assumption that "using scientific findings is a good thing for managerial problem-solving and decision-making" (Vermeylen, 2014). However, in the management field, there has been a recurring topic on "limited application of research by practice" (Fox and Groesser, 2016). This topic points to the research-practice relevance gap (RPRG). The RPRG issue has been haunting the management field. Specifically, academic research works can be criticised as "difficult, partial and limited in use, fragmented, and unapproachable" (Vanderlinde and van Braak, 2010). In the same vein, Wilkerson (1999) says that research content "frequently does not mirror the things managers do, read, and talk about, and the stilted style of much academic writing is rather foreign to many practitioners more accustomed to reading popular business press books and magazines". In this regard, the nature of the research-practice relevance gap issue (including management research, which is the main focus on this article)  can be viewed from two perspectives:

Firstly, from the practitioners' standpoint, the issue is not simply that "findings from ..... academic .... studies are not useful for practitioners" (Vicari, 2013), but that (i) "academic management research, under scientific pretense, actually diffuses theories that are not only irrelevant but also have a negative effect on good management practices and on society" (Vicari, 2013) and (ii) "scholars have not done enough to assist organizations improve their management practices" (Fox and Groesser, 2016). This is underlined by the observation that "the percentage of managers and consultants who regularly read academic literature is somewhat limited" (Vicari, 2013).

Secondly, from the academic researchers' perspective, the main concern is "how to increase the actual and perceived relevance of their research to managers and practitioners while, at the same time, not sacrificing their work's rigor and breadth" (Wilkerson, 1999).

2. The underling contributing factors to the research-practice relevance gap (RPRG) issue

The nature of the research-practice relevance gap concern is explicated by the following four contributing factors originating from the practitioner and academic worlds:

I. From the practitioner world

a.      Practitioners do not have the skills to use research results (Vanderlinde and van Braak, 2010);

II. From the academic world

b.      Researchers' preferred views on knowledge and theory to be pursued are different from that of practitioners (Vanderlinde and van Braak, 2010). Echoing this observation, Vermeylen (2014) notes that researchers and practitioners "belong to separate discourse communities with very different perspectives and ideologies and these differences impede utilization";

c.       Researchers' priority in allocation of resources and time on research topics and issues is different from that of practitioners (Vanderlinde and van Braak, 2010); for examples, "once research has been published in a prestigious academic journal, its authors move on to the next study" (Vanderlinde and van Braak, 2010) and researchers "handle too few questions of practical relevance" (Vanderlinde and van Braak, 2010). More specifically, "the academic system is also closed, dominated by the mechanism of publishing in high prestige journals demanding theory and facts, which necessarily have a conservative approach, mechanisms of promotion and remuneration based on publishing in high-ranking journals and on the number and quality of citations" (Vicari, 2013);

d.     The production of scientific knowledge, including that in social sciences, e.g., business management, "requires that the researcher’s sole objective is precisely knowledge and nothing else" (Vicari, 2013). However, it contributes to the problem that "research and related curricula are long on theory and rigor but short on information directly applicable to managerial success" (Wilkerson, 1999).

3. Some recommendations to cope with the research-practice relevance gap (RPRG) issue

a.      It has been suggested that researchers should "increase engagement more with practitioners" and "be more proactive in their choices of research topics" (Fox and Groesser, 2016);

b.      For practitioners to conduct applied business research to address real-world management problems, they are advised to be more agile in their literature review practices by adopting the agile literature review approach (ALRA) (Ho, 2018).

References

Fox, S. and S.N. Groesser. 2016. "Reframing the relevance of research to practice" European Management Journal 34: 457-465.

Ho J.K.K. 2018. "On the agile literature review approach for practising managers: a proposal" Systems Research and Behavioral Science Wiley [to be published].

Vanderlinde, R. and J. van Braak. 2010. "The gap between educational research and practice: views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers" British Educational Research Journal 36(2) Routledge: 99–316.

Vermeylen, S. 2014. "The Theory–Practice Gap: Redefining Relevance" In A Focused Issue on Building New Competences in Dynamic Environments. Published online: 29: 271-335 [https://doi.org/10.1108/S1744-211720140000007010].

Vicari, S. 2013. "Is the Problem Only Ours? A Question of Relevance in Management Research" European Management Review 10: 173–181.

Vicari, S. 2013. "Is the Problem Only Ours? A Question of Relevance in Management Research" European Management Review 10: 173–181.

Wilkerson, J.M. 1999. "On research relevance, professors’ “real world” experience, and management development: are we closing the gap?" Journal of Management Development 18(7): 598-613 [https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719910284459].