Reframing the relevance of research to practice

Stephen Fox (Corresponding Author), Stefan N. Groesser (Corresponding Author)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We explain that the extant framing of research relevance is skewed because it is centred upon irrelevance of much research knowledge to practitioners, while excluding or under emphasising the irrelevance of much practice knowledge to practitioners. Moreover, the current framing is skewed because the extant literature disregards the very common collaboration between researchers and practitioners. In addition, we explain that the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because theory, practice, and relevance are discussed in vague terms rather than specific terms. Furthermore, the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because there is little reference to theory knowledge. We argue that current skewed and indistinct framing obscures the complexity of relevance. As a result, overly simplistic assertions have been made about how relevance can be increased. We broaden and balance the framing of research relevance. We provide greater specificity in the explanation of factors that contribute to the complexity of relevance. We provide recommendations for addressing the complexity of relevance.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)457-465
JournalEuropean Management Journal
Volume34
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

Factors
Specificity
Practice theory

Keywords

  • Relevance of research
  • Theory and practice
  • Applied research
  • Complexity

Cite this

Fox, Stephen ; Groesser, Stefan N. / Reframing the relevance of research to practice. In: European Management Journal. 2016 ; Vol. 34, No. 5. pp. 457-465.
@article{dba10ecccde44543b0ec94dd11eea868,
title = "Reframing the relevance of research to practice",
abstract = "We explain that the extant framing of research relevance is skewed because it is centred upon irrelevance of much research knowledge to practitioners, while excluding or under emphasising the irrelevance of much practice knowledge to practitioners. Moreover, the current framing is skewed because the extant literature disregards the very common collaboration between researchers and practitioners. In addition, we explain that the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because theory, practice, and relevance are discussed in vague terms rather than specific terms. Furthermore, the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because there is little reference to theory knowledge. We argue that current skewed and indistinct framing obscures the complexity of relevance. As a result, overly simplistic assertions have been made about how relevance can be increased. We broaden and balance the framing of research relevance. We provide greater specificity in the explanation of factors that contribute to the complexity of relevance. We provide recommendations for addressing the complexity of relevance.",
keywords = "Relevance of research, Theory and practice, Applied research, Complexity",
author = "Stephen Fox and Groesser, {Stefan N.}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1016/j.emj.2016.07.005",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "457--465",
journal = "European Management Journal",
issn = "0263-2373",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

Fox, S & Groesser, SN 2016, 'Reframing the relevance of research to practice', European Management Journal, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 457-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.07.005

Reframing the relevance of research to practice. / Fox, Stephen (Corresponding Author); Groesser, Stefan N. (Corresponding Author).

In: European Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2016, p. 457-465.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reframing the relevance of research to practice

AU - Fox, Stephen

AU - Groesser, Stefan N.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - We explain that the extant framing of research relevance is skewed because it is centred upon irrelevance of much research knowledge to practitioners, while excluding or under emphasising the irrelevance of much practice knowledge to practitioners. Moreover, the current framing is skewed because the extant literature disregards the very common collaboration between researchers and practitioners. In addition, we explain that the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because theory, practice, and relevance are discussed in vague terms rather than specific terms. Furthermore, the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because there is little reference to theory knowledge. We argue that current skewed and indistinct framing obscures the complexity of relevance. As a result, overly simplistic assertions have been made about how relevance can be increased. We broaden and balance the framing of research relevance. We provide greater specificity in the explanation of factors that contribute to the complexity of relevance. We provide recommendations for addressing the complexity of relevance.

AB - We explain that the extant framing of research relevance is skewed because it is centred upon irrelevance of much research knowledge to practitioners, while excluding or under emphasising the irrelevance of much practice knowledge to practitioners. Moreover, the current framing is skewed because the extant literature disregards the very common collaboration between researchers and practitioners. In addition, we explain that the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because theory, practice, and relevance are discussed in vague terms rather than specific terms. Furthermore, the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because there is little reference to theory knowledge. We argue that current skewed and indistinct framing obscures the complexity of relevance. As a result, overly simplistic assertions have been made about how relevance can be increased. We broaden and balance the framing of research relevance. We provide greater specificity in the explanation of factors that contribute to the complexity of relevance. We provide recommendations for addressing the complexity of relevance.

KW - Relevance of research

KW - Theory and practice

KW - Applied research

KW - Complexity

U2 - 10.1016/j.emj.2016.07.005

DO - 10.1016/j.emj.2016.07.005

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 457

EP - 465

JO - European Management Journal

JF - European Management Journal

SN - 0263-2373

IS - 5

ER -

Fox S, Groesser SN. Reframing the relevance of research to practice. European Management Journal. 2016;34(5):457-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.07.005

Access to Document