Bridging the Research-Practice Gap in Applied Fields

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:

Stream 8: Scholarly Practitioner Research / Learning and Teaching

Submission type: Refereed paper

Submitted for the UFHRD 2015 Conference

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.

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

RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP IN APPLIED FIELDS

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?

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

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 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 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, 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 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 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).