Bridging the gap between academic reserach and practical problems

Some months ago I wrote something on the 'knowledge paradox' (the phenomenon that knowledge created by scientific research does not lead to economic activity in practice). I then said that "transferral will not help us in overcoming the knowledge paradox. It is more productive for science to connect to the developments in practice and to make joint efforts (researchers and practitioners) to reach a state of innovation". A colleague from the University of Twente gave me this interesting article on the subject: Knowledge for theory and practice, written by Andrew van de Ven and Paul Johnson (2006). This well written article on the growing concerns that academic research has become less useful for solving practical problems, offers an appealing perspective on the issue. They state that there are three ways in which the gap between theory and practice has been framed. Traditionally the gap was seen as a knowledge transfer problem (originating in the assumption that practical knowledge derives (at least in part) from research knowledge). A second approach they describe views knowledge of theory and practice as distinct kinds of knowledge. After reviewing the problems and assumptions of these two approaches, they come up with a third: a method of engaged scholarship in which researchers and practitioners coproduce knowledge that can advance theory and practice in a given domain. Van de Ven and Johnson view engaged scholarship as a means of creating the kind of knowledge that is needed to bridge the gap. Past literature has focused on the relevance and use of academic research for practice. The authors of this article however believe that researchers and practitioners should leverage their different perspectives to develop knowledge about a complex problem. How does this kind of problem look like? According to the authors, a good indicator of a big question is "its self evident capability to motivate the attention and enthusiasm of scholars and practitioners alike". So it needs to be something both parties are curious for. Interesting aspect of their argument is that Van de Ven and Johnson do not believe engaged scholarship to cause scholars to conduct more applied than basic research. I was very happy reading this article, I recognise what my colleagues and me try to do in our work. And at the same time I realised that a lot of work needs to be done in order to make this kind of research accepted in academia.

* Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of management review, 31(4), 802-821.