Web viewThis inquiry employed a systematic literature review process to determine the current state...

Running head: RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP IN APPLIED FIELDS

Bridging the Research-Practice Gap in Applied Fields:

A Systematic Review and Implications for HRD

Oleksandr Tkachenko*

PhD Student/University of Minnesota

Huh Jung Hahn

PhD Student/University of Minnesota

Shari Peterson

Associate Professor/University of Minnesota

*Email address: [email protected]

Stream 8: Scholarly Practitioner Research / Learning and Teaching

Submission type: Refereed paper

Submitted for the UFHRD 2015 Conference

Copyright © Oleksandr Tkachenko, Huh Jung Hahn, & Shari Peterson

RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP IN APPLIED FIELDS

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this inquiry was to identify relevant themes, frameworks, practices, and insights

that could enhance HRD scholarship in bridging the research-practice gap by drawing lessons

from other applied fields.

Design/methodology/approach

This inquiry employed a systematic literature review process to determine the current state of

scholarly literature on the research-practice gap in three applied fields: Management, Applied

Psychology, and HRD for the period of 2000-2014.

Findings

The topic of research-practice gap received significant recognition across all three fields. In the

management literature, more attention has been given to conceiving the nature of the gap and

“spotting” the gap. In contrast, the literature in applied psychology and HRD focused more on

investigating the scholar-practitioner phenomenon. Across all fields, scholars emphasized the

importance of collaboration and offered recommendations on how to create linkages between

academic research and industry practice.

Research limitations/implications

Based on the review, the study proposes a preliminary framework of the key components of

HRD theory building activity that are central to tackling the divide between academic research

and industry practice.

Originality/value

The paper identifies lessons for HRD scholars from three applied fields and provides useful

lenses through which to establish new linkages between research and practice.

2


Keywords: research-practice gap, scholar-practitioner, engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research

3


Bridging the Research-Practice Gap in Applied Fields:

A Systematic Review and Implications for HRD

The research-practice gap has been a topic of interest across multiple fields for a

considerable amount of time (e.g., Ruona & Gilley, 2009), and, according to Bartunek (2014)

and Scully-Russ, Lehner, and Shuck (2013), it continues to be so. Therefore, this study examined

the literature on the topic across three distinct, yet intersecting fields: those of Management,

Applied Psychology—including Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology, and Human

Resource Development (HRD). In acknowledgment that relevant publications regarding the

theory-practice gap are present in other applied fields (Short, Keefer, & Stone, 2009), we limited

the scope of investigation to these three selected fields based on our perceptions of their close

association with one another, as well as the length limitations of this manuscript. In addition, it is

important to note that this investigation was limited to the more current state of scholarly

literature regarding the research-practice gap. Thus, the focus of this paper includes scholarly

literature published between 2000-2014.

The general purpose of this inquiry was to gain a more holistic view of the phenomenon:

Bridging the Research-Practice Gap, by a systemic investigation of the literature in the three

applied fields. More specifically, the purpose of this paper was to identify relevant themes,

frameworks, practices, and insights that could enhance HRD scholarship in bridging the

research-practice gap. Thus, the research questions guiding this inquiry were as follows:

1. What scholarly articles on research-practice gap were published in the fields of

Management, Applied Psychology, and HRD from 2000 to 2014?

2. What are the key streams of research in the extant research-practice gap literature?

4


3. Given the review of literature, what are the relevant themes, frameworks, practices,

and insights that could advance HRD scholarship in bridging the gap?

The paper is structured as follows. First, we discuss the method that we undertook to

investigate the targeted literature. Then, we review the key streams of scholarship on the

research-practice gap as identified in scholarly publications from the three fields. In the

following section, we synthesize the literature and suggest a preliminary framework of the key

components of HRD theory building activity pivotal to tackling the divide between academic

research and industry practice in HRD. Finally, we conclude with some recommendations

pertinent to this line of inquiry.

Method

To answer our research questions, we carried out the systematic literature review. The

systematic literature review is increasingly recognized for its methodological rigor (Tranfield,

Denyer, & Smart, 2003) and has been employed in the field of HRD (e.g., Cho & Egan, 2009).

What follows is a brief discussion of the steps that we undertook while conducting the review.

Planning the review

At the planning stage, the review panel, comprised of the authors of the paper, met

several times to define and clarify the problem statement of the inquiry, the scope of the study as

well as the inclusion and exclusion of sources for the review. In particular, during this stage,

separate scoping studies were conducted to assess the relevance and size of the literature in each

of the selected fields. The panel also developed a plan for data search and synthesis as well as for

disseminating the study findings (Tranfield et al., 2003). The plan has served as a useful tool

throughout the study undertaking.

Search and selection of articles

5


Our search process included three steps: (a) the review of leading academic journals in

HRD, Management, and Applied Psychology; (b) the use of the electronic databases: Google

Scholar and our University search engine; and (c) the use of so-called snowball method, in which

the references of the selected publications served as sources for new material.

Specifically, during step one, we reviewed the following academic journals:

HRD:

Advances in Developing Human Resources (ADHR)

Human Resource Development International (HRDI)

Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ)

Human Resource Development Review (HRDR)

Management:

Academy of Management Journal (AMJ);

Academy of Management Review (AMR);

Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE)

Applied Psychology:

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (JABS)

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP)

The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist (IOP)

In our review of the journals, we employed the following keywords: “theory practice,”

“research practice,” “research gap,” “researcher practitioner,” and “scholar-practitioner.” These

keywords were also utilized as part of the advanced electronic search process. While performing

steps 1-2, we selected the literature by conducting an initial review of abstracts (Torraco, 2005).

In particular, as a result of the review of journals, we identified 88 publications. Each paper was

6


printed out and reviewed in-depth with regard to its relevance to the purpose of the inquiry. At

this stage, several articles were eliminated from the list. In particular, with a few exceptions, we

excluded from the list a number of case studies that were positioned by their authors as examples

of usage of theory and research to respond to real-life problems. During this stage, the authors

also paid close attention to the references of the selected publications (step three). As a result of

the selection process, we identified 105 articles. These articles present both peer-reviewed

articles as well as various editorials/opinion type articles that were included due to their

relevance.

Analysis and synthesis of data

To analyze the data, the following three steps were undertaken: (a) analysis of selected

articles in order to identify the key streams of research within and across three fields, (b) analysis

of empirical papers, and (c) identification and synthesis of significant themes, frameworks,

strategies and insights from the literature that could advance HRD scholarship in bridging the

gap.

To define the key streams of research in the selected articles, the first and second author

reviewed each paper individually. This review entailed the analysis of an abstract of each paper

and, in some instances, an in-depth review of papers. Both authors kept separate notes. After

reviewing all the data and each author’s notes, several key streams were conceived, as presented

in the following section.

In addition, all empirical articles (27) identified in the review were reviewed in depth

using the Matrix Method (Garrard, 2011). The Matrix Method provides both a process and a

structure for systematically reviewing literature (Cho & Egan, 2009). In particular, the review

matrix table was created and employed as a structured abstracting form, in which 27 empirical

7


studies were evaluated in ascending chronological order. Specifically, our matrix table entailed

the following ten columns: #, lead author’s name, publication year, journal, study purpose,

conceptual framework, participants, study design, analytic methods, and study findings. The

review matrix table employed in the study can be found in Appendix 1.

Building on the analysis of the literature performed during steps one and two, as

presented above, we synthesized the literature with regard to important themes, frameworks,

strategies and insights that could further enhance HRD scholarship in bridging the gap between

academic research and industry practice.

We present the results of the literature review in the next two sections of the paper.

Literature on research-practice gap in Management, Applied Psychology, and HRD

This section discusses the key findings pertinent to the questions one and two of the

inquiry. Specifically, in this section we (a) discuss the literature identified in our review, and (b)

outline the key streams of research evident in the extant literature. The following section

discusses the key implications for the field of HRD given these findings.

Management

With regard to the field of management, we identified four special issues relevant to the

purpose of our inquiry. The first issue was published in the British Journal of Management in

2001 (Hodgkinson, 2001). The issue contained an abridged version of the Starkey and Madan

report, entitled “Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management

research,” with seven commentaries from distinguished scholars. Two special research forums

(SRF) in the Academy of Management Journal have been also selected as relevant to our inquiry.

The first SRF, “Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners

and academics” comprised five empirical papers on the topic (see Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft,

8


2001). The second SRF on the research-practice gap in human resource management included

the lead article by Rynes, Giluk, and Brown (2007) and seven commentaries on the keynote

article. Also, the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) published a point-counterpoint debate of

several scholars on the rigour vs relevance issue in management research (Fincham & Clark,

2009).

Overall, we identified 48 articles on the topic of bridging the research-practice gap in the

management literature. In addition to empirical papers (13) and conceptual/commentary types of

papers, the list entailed several editorials (e.g., Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001) as well as two

presidential addresses published in Academy of Management Review (i.e., Rousseau 2006;

Cummings 2007).

Applied Psychology

With regard to the literature in applied psychology, two special issues in the Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science (Coghlan & Shani, 2009; Heracleous, 2011) have been published on

the topic of our inquiry. The first special issue (Coghlan & Shani, 2009) focused on the

challenges that scholar-practitioners face. The issue was published to recognize the contribution

of Edgar H. Schien to the field. The second issue (Heracleous, 2011) further discussed the

diverse ways to address the challenges of the research-practice divide.

Overall, we identified 23 relevant articles in applied psychology, including empirical (10)

and conceptual papers. Consistent with other two fields, six case studies were excluded after the

second screening. In addition, two other studies were found to be irrelevant and were excluded.

Human Resource Development

Two issues of Advances in Developing Human Resources (Short, Kormanik, & Ruona,

2009; Scully-Russ, Lehner, & Shuck, 2013) were identified as relevant to the discussion on

9


bridging the gap in the HRD field. The issue by Short et al. (2009) included articles that

discussed the nature and role of scholar-practitioners. The issue by Scully-Russ et al. (2013),

with the exception of one article (Lombardozzi, 2013), provided cases on how scholar-

practitioners employed HRD theory and research.

Overall, we identified 34 publications in the field of HRD, out of which 19 were peer-

reviewed articles (fifteen conceptual and four empirical studies). The other 15 articles entailed

various non-refereed publications: “soap box” articles (e.g., Kuchinke, 2004), editorials (e.g.,

Gilley, 2006), forum-type articles (e.g., Short, 2006). These articles were included due to their

relevance as well as (perceived) recognition in the field (as was identified by a number of

citations). With the exception of Mavin et al. (2007) and Iles and Yolles (2002), we excluded

several cases studies that showcased the use of theory, research, and practice in HRD as they

have been discussed elsewhere (e.g., Hamlin (2007), Gray, Iles, and Watson (2011), Scully-Russ

et al. (2013)).

Key streams of research in the extant research-practice gap literature

We identified several lines of inquiry in our review of the literature. These lines relate to

scholars’ (a) conceptualization of the nature of the research-practice gap, (b) exploration of the

gap – that is, spotting the divide, (c) examination of various aspects of collaboration, (d)

investigation of the scholar-practitioner phenomenon, and (e) recommendations on tackling the

divide. This section addresses the first four streams of research (a-d). Given the focus of our

inquiry, we review scholars’ recommendations in more details in the following section.

“Why… the gap?”

The review of the publications points to several perspectives on the nature of the gap

between scholarly research and industry practice. In particular, the divide has been often

10


attributed to fundamental ontological and epistemological differences that underpin the domains

of research and practice (Aram & Salipante, 2003; Gray, Iles, & Watson, 2010). The discussion

on the existence of the divide has been also framed within a larger question on the nature and

purpose of social research (Hodgkinson, Herriot, & Anderson, 2001).

In the management literature, the issue of research-practice gap has received significant

attention as illustrated by so-called rigour-relevance debate (Starkey & Madan, 2001, Anderson

et al., 2001; Fincham & Clark, 2009). The “rigour-relevance” debate relates to scholars’

argument whether it is possible to simultaneously achieve high rigour (generalizability) and high

relevance (practical solutions) in the processes of conducting research. There is vast literature

that discussed the issue of rigour and relevance and substantive argumentations on the issue have

been made from both sides (Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011). In particular, Kieser and Leiner

(2009) recently argued that the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable as

researchers and the researched populate separate social systems. In contrast, Hodgkinson and

Rousseau (2009) asserted that whilst there are examples in the areas where the gap is perceived

large, there are also multiple examples of fruitful collaborations that produced high quality

research and outputs. In particular, Hodgkinson and Rousseau (2009) emphasized that

“developing deep partnerships between academics and practitioners, supported by appropriate

training in theory and research methods, can yield outcomes that meet the twin imperatives of

high quality scholarship and social usefulness, to the mutual benefit of both agendas, without

compromising the needs of either party in the relationship” (p. 538).

The gap between theory and practice has also been framed as an issue of knowledge

transfer (see Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001). In particular, this relates to translating and

diffusing knowledge from research into various contexts of practice. An alternative perspective

11


was formulated by Van de Ven and Johnson (2006), who asserted that the problem resides in

knowledge production, i.e. before research gets translated into publications and tools to be used

for practitioners. This perspective suggests that researchers need to engage with practice from the

stage of problem formulation and maintain a high level of engagement with practitioners (and

other stakeholders) during their inquiries. These perspectives have been recognized and have

received the attention of scholars across all three fields, albeit in the management literature in

particular (e.g., Shapiro, Kirkman, & Courtney, 2007).

Mapping the gap: how big is the divide?

Another theme in the literature on research-practice gap that we found consistent through

all three fields was an effort to examine the gap. This relates to various scholars’ attempts to

identify and measure some aspects of the research-practice divide.

Most of studies that fall into this line of research were found in the management field.

For example, Offermann and Spiros (2001) examined the link between the science and practice

of team development. Rynes, Brown, and Colbert (2002) and Rynes, Colbert, and Brown (2002)

examined HR practitioners’ knowledge and beliefs with regard to HR research findings. The

results of the three studies revealed some optimism, yet also raised several areas for concern.

More recently, Deadrick and Gibson (2007) found that there were multiple interest area gaps

between HR professionals and academics. According to the authors, the magnitude of those gaps

varied across various topic areas. Similarly, Rynes et al. (2007) reported that HR practitioner

journals provided little coverage of some of the research findings that HR researchers recognized

as most important.

In the field of HRD, we identified two empirical studies that also fall into this line of

research. In particular, Keefer and Stone (2009) interviewed thirteen practitioners regarding their

12


usage of HRD-related research. The authors found some disconnect in how practitioners and

researchers understood the word “research.” As a result, Keefer and Stone (2009) called for a

more engaging form of exploration, which would entail all parties concerned. In addition,

Hughes et al. (2010) conducted a multiple case study, in which they interviewed seven scholar-

practitioners and discussed their implementation concerns.

Most of the studies in applied psychology, which we found relevant to this line of

research, examined perceptions of researchers and practitioners on various aspects of the gap and

employed surveys or secondary data. These include, for example, the perception differences

regarding the theory-practice gap (Halfhill & Huff, 2003), the value differences between

researchers and practitioners (Brooks et al., 2003), and their differences in evaluating

management knowledge (Nicolai, 2011). In addition, Brice and Waung (2001) examined the

number of collaborations in publications over the past 10 years.

The role of collaboration and partnerships in bridging the gap

Another dominant theme in the literature is the importance of collaborative efforts in

bridging the gap between academic research and industry practice (e.g., Short, 2006; Rousseau,

2007). Such collaborative efforts have been recognized at various levels of analysis: ranging

from examining various individual aspects (e.g., those of researchers’ and practitioners’),

collaboration in teams/groups (Amabile et al., 2001), networks (Alferoff & Knights, 2009), to

partnerships between larger communities/organizations (e.g., Iles & Yolles, 2002; Mavin et al.,

2007).

In the literature, the push for more collaboration between various participants/entities has

been mainly attributed to the emerging form of knowledge production, known as Mode 2

research (Gibbons et al., 1994; MacLean, MacIntosh, & Grant 2002). Discussing the differences

13


between mode 1 and mode 2 forms of knowledge production, Gibbons et al. (1994) pointed out

that “mode 1 problems are set and solved in a context governed by the, largely academic,

interests of a specific community. By contrast, Mode 2 is carried out in the context of

application” (p. 3). “In comparison with Mode 1, Mode 2 is socially accountable and reflexive”

(Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 3). The changing pattern in knowledge production sets a landscape for a

higher degree of cooperation between multiple stake-holders as it requires collaborative efforts

that transcends various activities, disciplines, and types of expertise.

In the field of HRD, the role of partnerships has been recognized as pivotal for bridging

the gap (e.g., Hamline, 2007). Thus, Shindell (2005) underscored the importance of the

partnership between the Academy of HRD and The Association for Talent Development (ATD).

The launch of an award at ATD in 2004 that recognizes excellence in research-to-practice

activities conducted in collaborative partnerships of researchers and practitioners was also

underscored in the HRD literature (Short, Sherlock, & Sugrue, 2004). A practical example of

such a partnership could be seen in Mavin et al.’s (2007) study that examined the collaboration

between the University Forum for HRD (UFHRD) and four UK universities.

The Scholar-Practitioner

One of the themes we found in our review across the three disciplines is the scholar-

practitioner phenomenon. The term scholar-practitioner has been used predominantly in HRD to

describe someone who acts as a connector between theory and practice (Short et al., 2009).

However, there is no unanimity regarding what to call the phenomenon and scholars used

different titles across the literature: e.g., practitioner-researcher (Hodgkinson, 2006), scientist-

practitioner (Rupp & Beal, 2007), and practitioner-scholar (Bartunek, 2008). Despite the

differences, the central idea is common across all titles.

14


Within this theme, several studies have been identified that focused on the definition,

identity, role, and competencies of the scholar-practitioner. In particular, the special issue of

ADHR in 2009 can be considered as a groundwork regarding the conceptualization of the

scholar-practitioner in HRD. Specifically, Short and Shindell (2009) attempted to define the

meaning of HRD scholar-practitioners. Ruona and Gilley (2009) suggested a model for

categorizing four different types of practitioners (atheoretical practitioner, practitioner, reflective

practitioner, and scholar practitioner) based on how they utilize and contribute to research and

practice. In addition, Kormanik, Lehner, and Winnick (2009) identified the general competencies

of HRD scholar-practitioners.

Similarly, in applied psychology, Wasserman and Kram (2009) identified the role of

scholar-practitioner by a qualitative analysis of 25 interviews. Kram, Wasserman, and Yip

(2012) explored their professional identity as scholar-practitioners using the description of

metaphor. In turn, Bartunek (2008) emphasized the role of practitioner-scholar in organization

development (OD) practices which has been traditionally developed on the basis of action

research.

Synthesis of the literature: A holistic perspective on narrowing the research-practice gap

This section addresses the third question of inquiry: Given the review of literature, what

are the relevant themes, frameworks, practices, and insights that could advance HRD scholarship

in bridging the gap?

In our review of the selected publications, we came across various pieces of advice,

suggestions, strategies, and frameworks on how to bridge the divide between academic research

and industry practice (e.g., Short 2006, Latham, 2007; Bartunek 2014). These insights stemmed

from empirical research, theorizing on research-practice gap, and personal experiences from

15


scholar-practitioners. Given the variety of issues that these sources address, we attempted to

synthesize these insights into a holistic framework that would portray the key constituents

pertinent to bridging the gap, in which these insights could be grouped into. What follows is a

discussion of the overarching themes (constituents) that we drew from the identified literature.

Based on the synthesis of the literature, we suggest a preliminary framework that outlines

the key components of HRD theory building activity central to tackling the divide between

academic research and industry practice. The proposed framework (See Figure 1) includes the

following elements: (a) individual aspects pertinent to HRD researchers and practitioners (who?),

(b) process and product of HRD theory-building (how? and what?), and (c) institutional and

organizational aspects that impact the above-mentioned constituents (where?). Stemming from

our review of the literature, these components are intended to serve as important cornerstones to

be considered in bridging the research-practice gap (why?). Since this section is currently under

construction, below we provide only a brief summary of the constructs.

Figure 1. Key components of HRD theory building activity impacting the research-

practice gap.

16


Individual aspects of HRD researchers and practitioners (who?)

In their suggestions for narrowing the research-practice gap various scholars emphasized

strategies for both researchers and practitioners (e.g., Short, 2006; Rynes, 2007). In addition to

the recognized role of scholar-practitioner (Ruona & Gilley, 2009), there is also literature that

underscores the role of academics with practitioner knowledge and experience in “spanning the

divide” (Gray et al., 2011). Given the literature, we considered individual aspects on the side of

both actors (researchers and practitioners) that may impact the creation of linkages between

research and practice.

Individual aspects of HRD researchers

Operating on the edge of science-practice requires certain values (Weiss, 2007) and

mindset (Latham, 2007; Ilgen, 2007), as cited by Rupp and Beal (2007). To engage in theory

building activity, HRD researchers need to possess certain theory building research skills

(Storberg-Walker 2006; Hodgkinson & Rousseau, 2009). To successfully engage in research

with other stakeholders requires collaboration skills as well as certain attitudes and motivation

(Amabile et al., 2001). In addition, building on the results of their study that explored academic-

practitioner engagement, Hughes et al. (2011) asserted that there were three types of academics

in relation to engagement: the willing and able, the theoreticians, and the willing, but

underexposed (p. 49). Thus, exposure to good practices in theory building that link theory and

practice is also an important aspect to be considered.

Individual aspects pertinent to practitioners

While most of the above may be somewhat relevant to practitioners, there is literature

that suggests that they also bring their own aspects to the table with regard to linking research

and practice. In particular, Ruona and Gilley (2009) underscored the type of practice and

17


practitioners’ emphasis on theory in work (“use and advance theory”) as important criteria for

distinguishing four types of practitioners with regard to how they contribute to the scholarship of

HRD. Specifically, Ruona and Gilley (2009) suggested the following four types: atheoretical

practitioner, practitioner, reflective practitioner, and scholar practitioner. In addition Hughes et

al. (2011) discussed three types of practitioners in relation to their academic-practitioner

engagement: the enthusiasts (e.g., involved in academic-practitioner networks), the uncommitted

(open and sympathetic to academic work, yet not maintaining their links on ongoing basis), and

the cynical. The latter group represents practitioners who are closed to academia and its ideas.

Process of HRD theory-building (How?)

Various scholars utilized the process perspective on theory-building activity as important

to bridging the divide between theory and practice (Storberg-Walker, 2003; Van de Ven, 2007).

In particular, Storberg-Walker (2003) and Gray et al. (2011) discussed two process models for

theory building in HRD as important for both theory building and application: Lynham (2002)

and Van de Ven (2003; 2007). While Lynham’s (2002) model has been widely recognized in the

HRD literature (e.g., Swanson & Chermack, 2013), the diamond model of Van de Ven (2007)

received significant credit in the field of management, and, in our opinion, may serve as useful

framework for HRD scholars. In particular, Gray et al. (2011) acknowledged Van de Ven’s

(2007) approach for not only addressing different paradigms but also for offering explicit steps

for conducting research with various stakeholders. Specifically, Van de Ven (2007) proposed the

following four stages of engaged scholarship: (a) problem formulation; (b) theory building; (c)

research design, and (d) problem solving. Various recommendations on how to conduct rigorous

and useful research, which we identified in the literature, may be seen through the lens of the

diamond model (Van de Ven, 2007). These range from stating a research problem by engaging

18


with those who experience and know it (e.g., Swanson & Chermack, 2013) to various aspects of

communicating and interpreting the findings (the phase of problem solving), such as using blogs

and practitioners magazines (e.g., Bartunek, 2014).

The question How? also relates to the utility of those research methods that are likely to

create greater interest among practitioners (e.g., grounded theory, case analysis, ethnographic

studies), as these methods tend to generate the types of richer stories that resonate with

practitioners (Rynes, 2007; Gray et al., 2011).

Product of HRD theory building (What?)

This component relates to the main output of HRD theory building – knowledge – and

encompasses its various aspects, including (a) rigour and relevance (Starkey & Madan, 2001,

Anderson et al., 2001); (b) various forms of representation, e.g., a blog entry, a story, a

publication, (Boland et al., 2001; Halfhill & Huff, 2003), and (c) methods and information

avenues that the product is disseminated with, e.g., conference presentation, workshop for

practitioners, practitioners journals (Bartunek, 2014). While one may argue the product of

activity derives directly from the process, imagining/considering the final product prior to

engaging into an activity impacts the process. In other words, setting an objective of obtaining

high quality knowledge that is rigorous and practically useful may impact how an inquiry is

undertaken.

Specifically, Boland et al.’s (2001) study revealed that various forms of knowledge

representation had different effects on managers. In particular, the general form of knowledge

representation (an article) was found to be less stimulating for managers’ creativity. The authors

assert that even though some practitioner-oriented journals do offer some more particular

representation for managers, there are vast unrealized opportunities for the writing/publishing of

19


narrative, interpretive, allegorical and metaphorical knowledge. Boland et al.’s (2001) findings

are particularly noteworthy in the light of Halfhill and Huff’s (2003) work. Specifically, Halfhill

and Huff (2003) found that academics preferred the empirical article format only, when offered

to select from seven different formats.

Institutional and organizational aspects (Where?)

Several scholars underscored various institutional and organizational aspects that may

serve as barriers and/or drivers for engaging researchers and practitioners in narrowing the gap

between academic research and industry practice (e.g., DeNisi, Wilson, & Biteman, 2014). In

particular, several suggestions have addressed various institutional/organizational arrangements

to enhance academics’ engagement with practice. For example, academic institutions might (a)

reward research that had an impact on practice (Lathan, 2007), (b) revisit academic publication

practices (Anderson et al., 2001; Rynes, 2007), and provide sustained funding for scholarly

engagement with industry (Gray et al., 2011). The role of professional associations (e.g., AOM,

SIOP, SHRM, etc.) was also recognized as pivotal for fostering socialization between academics

and practitioners (Rynes, 2007).

Limitations, recommendations, and conclusion

While the inquiry covers a large volume of publications, our targeted data present

publications from scholarly journals, whose audience is predominantly academics. In particular,

we did not include practitioner-oriented periodicals as well as other avenues for knowledge

dissemination (e.g., web-sites, online blogs, conference proceedings etc.). Although we saw the

benefit of considering other avenues, given the size of the manuscript we were limited in our

choices. At the same time, it is worth noting that several studies discussed in our review did

20


explore several non-academic sources (e.g., Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007) and may serve as a

starting point for future inquiries on other avenues for knowledge dissemination.

Given the purpose of the study, to shed light on relevant theories, frameworks, and

practices that could advance HRD in bridging the research-practice gap, we attempted to list

those in the previous section (which is still under construction). At the same time, what we found

surprising in our review was a relatively small number of empirical studies on the topic that

represented the field of HRD. While the high number of editorials/opinion type of papers that we

identified suggests that the issue is important and the conversation on bridging the gap is on-

going, it appears that there is an opportunity for HRD scholars for more empirical research. In

particular, empirical studies by Offermann and Spiros (2001), Rynes and her colleagues (2002a,

2002b, 2007) provide good examples on various approaches and methods that could be used in

HRD to examine those areas of practice that are of great interest for practitioners, yet have been

overlooked by HRD researchers.

In conclusion, as our review suggests, it takes many bridges to narrow the gap between

academic research and industry practice (Anderson et al., 2001). We believe that for tackling the

divide in the HRD field, HRD scholars could build on its core interdisciplinary strengths. In

particular, we anticipate that the presented framework, resulting from the review of literature

from three applied fields – management, applied psychology, and HRD, will contribute to

strengthening existing and also creating new linkages between academic research and industry

practice.

21


References

Alferoff, C., & Knights, D. (2009). Making and mending your nets: managing relevance,

participation and uncertainty in academic–practitioner knowledge networks. British

Journal of Management, 20(1), 125-142.

Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M., & Kramer,

S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of

cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418-431.

Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner‐researcher divide in

Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) psychology: Where are we now, and where

do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4),

391-411.

Aram, J. D., & Salipante, P. F. (2003). Bridging scholarship in management: Epistemological

reflections. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 189-205.

Bartunek, J. M. (2008). You're an organization development practitioner-scholar: Can you

contribute to organizational theory? Organization Management Journal, 5(1), 6-16.

Bartunek, J. M. (2014). Academic–practitioner relationships what NTL started and what

management scholarship keeps developing. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.

50(4), 401-422.

Boland, R. J., Singh, J., Salipante, P., Aram, J. D., Fay, S. Y., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001).

Knowledge representations and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Journal,

44(2), 393-417.

22


Brice, T. S., & Waung, M. (2001). Is the science-practice gap shrinking? Some encouraging

news from an analysis of SIOP programs. The Industrial-Organizational

Psychologist, 38(3), 29-37.

Brooks, M. E., Grauer, E., Thornbury, E. E., & Highhouse, S. (2003). Value differences between

scientists and practitioners: A survey of SIOP members. The Industrial-Organizational

Psychologist, 40(4), 17-23.

Cho, Y., & Egan, T. M. (2009). Action learning research: A systematic review and conceptual

framework. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), 431-462.

Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. R. (2009). The challenges of the scholar—practitioner introduction to

the special issue. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(1), 5-7.

Cohen, D.J. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in

human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging

the gap. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1013-1019.

Cummings, T. G. (2007). Quest for an engaged Academy. Academy of Management

Review, 32(2), 355-360.

Deadrick, D. L., & Gibson, P. A. (2007). An examination of the research–practice gap in HR:

Comparing topics of interest to HR academics and HR professionals. Human Resource

Management Review, 17(2), 131-139.

DeNisi, A. S., Wilson, M. S., & Biteman, J. (2014). Research and practice in HRM: A historical

perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 24(3), 219-231.

Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2009). Introduction: can we bridge the rigour–relevance gap? Journal

of Management Studies, 46(3), 510-515.

23


Garrard, J. (2011). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method. Sudbury,

MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1999). The

new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary

societies. London, English: Sage.

Gilley, J. W. (2006). Research: The bridge between human resource development practitioners

and scholars. Human resource development Quarterly, 17(3), 235-243.

Gray, D. E., Iles, P., & Watson, S. (2011). Spanning the HRD academic-practitioner divide:

Bridging the gap through mode 2 research. Journal of European Industrial Training,

35(3), 247-263.

Halfhill, T., & Huff, J. (2003). The scientist-practitioner gap: Present status and potential utility

of alternative article formats. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 40(4), 25-37.

Hamlin, R. G. (2007). An evidence-based perspective on HRD. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 9(1), 42-57.

Heracleous, L. (2011). Introduction to the special issue on bridging the scholar–practitioner

divide. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1), 5-7.

Hodgkinson, G. P. (Eds.) (2001). Facing the future: the nature and purpose of management

research re-assessed [Special issue]. British Journal of Management, 12 (s1).

Hodgkinson, G. P. (2006). The role of JOOP (and other scientific journals) in bridging the

practitioner‐researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO)

psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 173-178.

24


Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour–relevance gap in

management research: it's already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3),

534-546.

Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starkey, K. (2011). Not simply returning to the same answer over and over

again: reframing relevance. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 355-369.

Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. (2001). Re‐aligning the stakeholders in

management research: lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology.

British journal of Management, 12(s1), 41-48.

Hughes, C., Wang, J., Zheng, W., & McLean, L. (2010). Implementation concerns of scholar-

practitioners: A pilot study of the link between research and practice. International

Journal of Asian Business and Information Management, 1(2), 32-46.

Hughes, T., Bence, D., Grisoni, L., O'regan, N., & Wornham, D. (2011). Scholarship that

matters: Academic–practitioner engagement in business and management. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 40-57.

Iles, P., & Yolles, M. (2002). Across the great divide: HRD, technology translation, and

knowledge migration in bridging the knowledge gap between SMEs and universities.

Human Resource Development International, 5(1), 23-53.

Keefer, J. M., & Stone, S. J. (2009). Practitioner perspectives on the gap between research and

practice: What gap? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(4), 454-471.

Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is

unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516-533.

25


Kormanik, M. B., Lehner, R. D., & Winnick, T. A. (2009). General competencies for the HRD

scholar-practitioner: Perspectives from across the profession. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 11(4), 486-506.

Kram, K. E., Wasserman, I. C., & Yip, J. (2012). Metaphors of identity and professional

practice: Learning from the scholar–practitioner. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 48(3), 304-341.

Lombardozzi, C. (2013). The SMART practice of scholarly practice. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 15(3), 243-251.

Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221-241.

MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R., & Grant, S. (2002). Mode 2 management research. British Journal

of Management, 13(3), 189-207.

Mavin, S., Wilding, P., Stalker, B., Simmonds, D., Rees, C., & Winch, F. (2007). Developing

“new commons” between HRD research and practice: Case studies of UK universities.

Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(1), 4-18.

Nicolai, A. T., Schulz, A. C., & Göbel, M. (2011). Between sweet harmony and a clash of

cultures: Does a joint academic–practitioner review reconcile rigor and relevance? The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1), 53-75.

Offermann, L. R., & Spiros, R. K. (2001). The science and practice of team development:

Improving the link. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 376-392

Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of

Management Review, 31(2), 256-269.

26


Rousseau, D. M. (2007). A sticky, leveraging, and scalable strategy for high-quality connections

between organizational practice and science. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5),

1037-1042.

Ruona, W. E., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). Practitioners in applied professions: A model applied to

human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(4), 438-

453.

Rupp, D. E., & Beal, D. (2007). Checking in with the scientist-practitioner model: How are we

doing. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45(1), 35-40.

Rynes, S. L. (2007). Editor's afterword let's create a tipping point: What academics and

practitioners can do, alone and together. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1046-

1054.

Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation

and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal,

44(2), 340-355.

Rynes, S. L., Brown, K. G., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). Seven common misconceptions about

human resource practices: Research findings versus practitioner beliefs. The Academy of

Management Executive, 16(3), 92-103.

Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective

human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human

Resource Management, 41(2), 149-174.

Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and

practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based

management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 987-1008.

27


Scully-Russ, E., Lehner, R., & Shuck, B. (2013). A Scholar-practitioner case approach

implications for advancing theory and research through informed practice. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 15(3).

Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the

translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2),

249-266.

Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the

translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2),

249-266.

Shindell, T. J. (2005). Seeing it from both sides: Beyond bridges in research to practice. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 153-156.

Short, D. C. (2006). Closing the gap between research and practice in HRD. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 17(3), 343-350.

Short, D. C., & Shindell, T. J. (2009). Defining HRD scholar-practitioners. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 11(4), 472-485.

Short, D. C., Keefer, J., & Stone, S. J. (2009). The link between research and practice:

Experiences of HRD and other professions. Advances in Developing Human Resources.

11(4), 420-437.

Short, D. C, Sherlock, J. J., & Sugrue, B. (2004). Time to recognize those who link research and

practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3), 259–262.

Short, D. C., Kormanik, M. B. & Ruona, W. (Eds.). (2009). Bridging the gap: Scholar-

practitioners in Human Resource Development [Special issue]. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 11 (4). 415-547.

28


Storberg-Walker, J. (2003). Comparison of the Dubin, Lynham, and Van de Ven theory-building

research methods and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review,

2(2), 211-222.

Storberg-Walker, J. (2006). From imagination to application: Making the case for the general

method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Human Resource Development

International, 9(2), 227-259.

Swanson, R. A., & Chermack, T. J. (2013). Theory building in applied disciplines. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human

Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence

informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of

Management, 14(3), 207-222.

UFHRD (2015). Towards evidence based HRD practice: Bridging the gap. Retrieved on

December 29, 2014 from http://ufhrd2015.org

Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of

management review, 31(4), 802-821.

Wasserman, I. C., & Kram, K. E. (2009). Enacting the scholar-practitioner role: An exploration

of narratives. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(1), 12-38.

29


Appendix 1

Table 1

The Review Matrix for research-practice gap literature in Management, Applied Psychology, and HRD from 2000 to 2014

No. Lead Author Year of Publication

Journal Purpose ConceptualFramework

Participants Study Design Methods Key Findings

30

Date post:	06-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungnhu
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

Web viewThis inquiry employed a systematic literature review process to determine the current state...

Documents