Abstract
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 457-465 |
Journal | European Management Journal |
Volume | 34 |
Issue number | 5 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2016 |
MoE publication type | A1 Journal article-refereed |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Relevance of research
- Theory and practice
- Applied research
- Complexity
Cite this
}
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 -