Nawaf Alabduljader
Mohammd AlMarzouq
Research
Relevance
Researchers worldwide,
particularly in the Arab region, have been criticized for producing research that
does not inform or impact managers, policymakers, and decision-makers in the industry
(Banks et al., 2016; O’Boyle et
al., 2024). The research-practice gap
refers to the disconnect between the
“knowledge that academics are producing and the knowledge that practitioners
are consuming” (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008, p. 1062). The research-practice gap has been described as a
grand challenge in academia because it means that practitioners are not
adopting or using the research produced by scholars (Banks et al., 2016). Moreover,
practitioners are increasingly losing faith in the value, relevance, and
credibility of research produced by academia.
The research-practice
gap is no short of a crisis in academia. Business school donations are on a
decline as donors are increasingly questioning the value of their donations and
the impact of the research produced using their donations. Enrollment in higher
education has been in decline for over a decade due to increased skepticism
over the value of higher education (Blake, 2024). Practitioners and industry,
in general, are less receptive and open to engaging with scholars by sharing
knowledge and data due to the perceived lack of value research provides. Ministers,
accreditation institutions, journal editors, authors, and popular press have
all raised concerns over the science-practice gap (Aguinis & Peirce, 2008;
Banks et al., 2021; Glick et al., 2018; Nobek, 2016; Priem & Rosenstein,
2000; Rynes et al., 2000; Schiller, 2011). Times Higher Education noted that "most
business school research lacks real-world relevance" (Basken, 2023). A
publication by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB), which accredits more than 500 universities worldwide, has described
the current state of research in business schools as unsustainable (Glick &
Davis, 2018). Addressing the science-practice gap is a matter of survival for
academia.
Following the
footsteps of Aguinis et al. (2018), we argue that a
key reason for the science-practice gap is the lack of motivation to close the
gap from both stakeholders: scholars and practitioners. From the perspective of
scholars, there is a lack of motivation to produce knowledge that impacts the
industry or translate their knowledge to be consumed by it. From the
perspective of industry practitioners, there is a lack of motivation to
collaborate with scholars to address the challenges they face, and a lack of
motivation to consume knowledge produced by scholars. In what follows, we
discuss some key reasons behind the growing science-practice gap and provide
recommendations for scholars on how to bridge the gap. We argue that the lack
of motivation between both parties to bridge the gap can be resolved if proper reward
systems are in place in academia to encourage scholars to engage with practice
and conduct more impactful work.
The reward systems
at many universities, particularly research-focused institutions, continue to
disproportionately rely on citation metrics of articles published in academic
journals when allocating promotions and financial incentives (Aguinis et al., 2019).
Moreover, accreditation bodies heavily factor in journal citations and
publication counts when ranking business schools. While these metrics may
reflect academic productivity, the tenuous link between citation-based measures
and real societal impact cannot be ignored. In fact, it would be misguided to
assume such metrics would encourage researchers to make meaningful
contributions to society (Kerr, 1975). This narrow focus on citations as the
primary indicator of success has far-reaching consequences on the nature and
direction of scholarly work, often stifling the pursuit of research that
addresses pressing, real-world challenges in favor of research that serves the immediate promotional needs of
researchers.
First, the
pressure to publish a high number of journal articles in top-tier journals has
inadvertently pushed many researchers to produce only incremental knowledge
that speaks only to other scholars (Aguinis et al., 2019). In other words,
obsession over journal citation metrics creates a narrow focus on publishing in
high-impact journals, which often prioritize
theoretical contributions over practical applications. Researchers may feel
pressured to produce work that fits the specific criteria of these journals,
leading to a concentration on incremental, highly specialized studies that do
not necessarily address real-world problems.
The push towards
publishing in top journals, as measured through journal citations, does not
necessarily consider the value, quality, and impact of scholarly work on
different stakeholders other than researchers (Aguinis et al., 2020; Aguinis et
al., 2019). Specifically, the emphasis on metrics such as journal citations does
not consider how scholars impact other stakeholders
such as students, managers, policymakers, and decision-makers (Aguinis et al.,
2019). For example, the reliance on journal citations to evaluate and
distribute rewards discourages researchers from publishing applied research. This
means that incentives in place push scholars to produce work that only speaks
to other scholars, but not other stakeholders.
For example, a
scholarly article may have limited impact in terms of traditional journal
citations, which measure an article's impact on another research. However, the
same article may be highly influential in terms of education, as indicated by
the number of citations the article receives in textbooks used for education
(Aguinis et al., 2019). Similarly, applied research may address a practical
problem and solve it, but not receive many journal citations, or even be rejected
for publication because it is too applied or lacks a strong contribution to
theory (Aguinis & Cronin, 2002; Antonakis, 2017; Kim et al., 2018).
Accordingly, scholars have little incentive to pursue work that is targeted at
stakeholders other than other scholars.
In addition, the
narrow measure of impact also limits scholars’ incentive to seek collaboration with
practitioners. Scholars are often accused of living in the ivory tower,
spending time away from real-world problems (Banks et al., 2016; Tucker &
Parker, 2017). The emphasis on journal citations provides little motivation for
researchers to spend time with practitioners to understand and address the
challenges and issues of interest to them (Banks et al., 2016; Rynes et al.,
2001; Shapiro et al., 2007). Academics’ selection of research questions is
often inadequately informed and influenced by practitioners (Bansal et al.,
2012). Therefore, academics often select research topics that are irrelevant to
practitioners or of little importance to decision-makers.
Overall, a narrow
measure of impact by measuring citations in other journals creates a knowledge
production problem. The knowledge produced by scholars is often irrelevant
because scholars have little incentive to understand the issues and challenges
facing practitioners and little incentive to produce work that addresses these
challenges. By failing to consider the impact of research on different
stakeholders, researchers have limited incentive to produce work that
contributes meaningfully to solving real-world challenges. Faculty members’
evaluation and rewards are based on the number of peer-reviewed journals they
publish, while applied research or research that impacts different stakeholders
does not count as much in terms of faculty promotion and tenure. In other
words, working on solving relevant problems has a limited impact on a scholar’s
academic success.
The pressure to
publish in top journals not only leads to less relevant knowledge being
produced but also impacts the credibility, trustworthiness, and usefulness of
the knowledge produced (Aguinis et al., 2018). Specifically,
the pressure to publish in top-journal incentivizes researchers to resort to questionable research practices (QRPs) to increase the likelihood of their research being
accepted for publication (Banks, Rogelberg, Woznyj, Landis, & Rupp, 2016; Banks et al., 2021). The
use of QRPs undermines trust in academic research. There is an increasing
amount of evidence providing justifiable reasons to doubt the trustworthiness
of the research published (Aguinis et al., 2018). For
example, much of the research produced by scholars lacks reproducibility and
replicability (Aguinis et al., 2018). A record number
of retractions in 2023 highlights the credibility crisis (Van Noorden, 2023).
Questions and concerns over the trustworthiness and credibility of research
further reduces motivation from engaging with scholars.
While
research-oriented universities are criticized for their over-reliance on a
narrow measure of impact (publishing in “A-journals”) to distribute faculty
rewards, the reward systems of many universities in the GCC often use deficient
and invalid measures of scholarly impact. Specifically, promotions and tenure decisions in many universities in the
GCC are often based on the quantity of articles published rather than their
relevance or impact. This approach equates high-quality research with
lower-quality work, leading faculty to focus on producing a
large number of articles with minimal impact rather than on impactful
research. This misalignment has also contributed to an increase in QRPs and a
trend toward publishing in low-quality or predatory journals.
Moreover, the reward
systems in many GCC universities encourage faculty towards more teaching rather
than towards higher research productivity. For instance, while
research-oriented universities typically offer incentives such as a reduced
teaching load, allowing faculty more time to focus on research (Beltran et al.,
2024), universities in the Arab region often incentivize faculty to take on
heavier teaching loads by offering monetary rewards for teaching more courses.
This leads faculty members to prioritize teaching more courses over pursuing
research.
Considering the
issues outlined, it is evident that the current reward systems in academia,
particularly those emphasizing citation metrics and high publication volume,
have inadvertently created a landscape that prioritizes incremental knowledge
over meaningful contributions to society. While these systems were initially
designed to incentivize high-quality research, they have, over time, distanced
scholarly work from real-world challenges. However, this critique is not a call
to dismantle the system, but rather a recognition that we are at the cusp of a
new phase in academic growth. As we move forward, it is vital to rethink how
research can be made more impactful, relevant, and beneficial to a broader
range of stakeholders. Staying on the current course risks further isolating
academia from the practical world it seeks to serve. Instead, we offer
recommendations to bridge the science-practice gap. While we do not claim to
have all the answers, we hope this assessment sparks meaningful dialogue and
inspires collective efforts to revitalize academic research, guiding our region
toward a more integrated and impactful future.
To work towards a
solution to improve the situation, we need to better understand the science
practice gap. The science-practice gap is framed as a knowledge production
problem and a knowledge translation problem (Shapiro, Kirkman, & Courtney, 2007).
The knowledge production problem refers to the issue of the lack of relevance
of the knowledge produced to practitioners. The knowledge translation problem
refers to the issue of the knowledge being produced not being communicated in a
way that practitioners easily consume.
To address the
science-practice gap, it is imperative for leaders of business schools to
reconsider measures of scholarly impact in a way that incentivizes more
relevant research. Scholarly impact measures should take into consideration how
scholarly work influences different stakeholders (researchers, students, policymakers,
etc..) by considering a more pluralistic measure of impact (Aguinis et al.,
2014). This also means that at the institutional level, "universities
need to measure scholarly impact in line with the university’s strategic goals
and the particular stakeholders to whom it is most interested in transferring
knowledge." (Aguinis et al., 2019). Applied research may have a significant
impact on solving real-world problems, despite limited impact on other research. Similarly, journal editors can encourage
more replication studies, which help increase the credibility and
trustworthiness of prior research and help advance theory (Aguinis et al.,
2017; Schwab et al., 2023). Accordingly, deans and business school leaders
should seriously consider a more pluralistic measure of impact by rewarding
research that has impact for different stakeholders.
The reward structures
at many universities, particularly in the Arab region, need an overhaul to
support impactful research. Current reward systems in the Arab region prioritize
teaching and the quantity of publications over research quality and societal
relevance. To address this misalignment, business schools in the Arab region
should introduce rewards like tenure, promotions, reduced teaching loads, and
funding that is based on research impact, not just volume (Beltran et al.,
2024). Such systems would foster a research environment where faculty are
incentivized to produce high-quality, meaningful work that contributes to
societal advancement, aligning faculty objectives with university goals
(Aguinis et al., 2019). We expect that a good solution will likely be
innovative and not replicate the excessive focus on publishing in top journals.
For example, universities might consider ways in which to reward faculty to
produce research that is based on industry engagement (consultations,
establishing companies, policy formulation, board memberships). Alternatively,
universities might provide incentives for faculty to produce case-studies and
teaching material based on industry collaborations. Another potential avenue to
explore is offering faculty the flexibility to switch between teaching-focused,
industry-focused, or research-focused tracks to guide how they are assessed and
rewarded for the year and to be more aligned with their interests and the stage
they are in their career.
As previously
mentioned, the current reward systems have contributed to a credibility crisis
in academia. Researchers have limited motivation to be transparent in terms of
how they produce the results obtained in their studies (Aguinis
et al., 2018). It is imperative for journal editors, especially in the Arab
region, to implement previous recommendations regarding policies and procedures
that promote transparency, rigor, and ethical research practices (Aguinis et al., 2018; Banks et al., 2021). Similarly,
reviewers must ensure that submitted manuscripts are aligned with best-practice
recommendations related to transparency. This will help rebuild academic
research's credibility and encourage industry collaboration. Moreover,
universities could restructure the criteria of what is valuable research by
placing greater emphasis on journals that adhere to more recent policies
regarding transparency and ethical publication practices.
Strengthening
collaboration between academia and industry is essential to narrowing the
science-practice gap. In the Arab regions specifically, there is limited
appreciation of the role of science in decision-making, which further hampers
data availability and collaboration. Academics should be encouraged to engage with industry
by attending conferences, establishing advisory boards, and inviting
practitioners to collaborate on research initiatives (Banks et al., 2016). By
focusing on real-world challenges and showcasing the practical applications of
their work, scholars can enhance the perceived value of academic research and
contribute to more impactful teaching and research that addresses current
industry needs (Nobel, 2016).
Bridging the
science-practice gap requires scholars to actively translate their research
into formats that are accessible to stakeholders beyond academia (Shapiro et
al., 2007). Too often, the gap between academia and industry is not just one of
relevance but also communication. Scholarly work is laden with complex
methodologies, specialized jargon, and theoretical frameworks that make it
difficult for non-academics, such as practitioners and policymakers, to
understand and apply the findings. This complexity can hinder the practical
impact of research, creating a barrier between academic knowledge and
real-world implementation. Effectively resolving the knowledge communication
problem involves translating academic research into practical tools,
frameworks, and formats that managers and decision-makers can readily utilize
(Shapiro et al., 2007).
Scholars must take
a proactive role in marketing the value of their work to industry stakeholders
and prioritize converting their findings into user-friendly formats that speak
to broader audiences. Specifically, scholars must go
beyond the traditional academic channels and make a concerted effort to
demonstrate the practical utility of their research. This can be done through
producing case studies, industry reports, organizing workshops or seminars
tailored specifically for practitioners, or engaging themselves with the
industry and sharing their knowledge in problem-solving.
This calls for
providing the necessary training, incentives, and resources to encourage the
dissemination of research through various channels, including blogs, videos,
popular press articles, and industry reports. Many universities and journals
are already adopting diverse communication strategies to simplify complex
research for wider audiences. By embracing these methods, scholars can ensure
their work is not only read by other academics but also understood and applied
by practitioners, thus maximizing the real-world impact of their research.
Expanding communication efforts in this way enhances the likelihood that
academic work will resonate with and influence decision-makers and
practitioners, making research more impactful and relevant to societal needs.
Bridging the
science-practice gap is essential for the future of academia. Ensuring that
research remains relevant and impactful will safeguard the value that higher
education brings to students, decision-makers, and society at large. Failure to
do so risks diminishing the role of business schools in attracting funding and
improving educational quality.
Addressing this
challenge requires a holistic approach. By refining research metrics,
simplifying complex work, fostering collaboration, and promoting evidence-based
decision-making, scholars can produce research that has a real-world impact.
Aligning academic efforts with pressing societal challenges and effectively
communicating findings can further bridge the gap between theory and practice.
Moving forward, it
is crucial for researchers, academic institutions, and industry practitioners
to collaborate more closely. Together, we can create a culture of engagement
that not only advances academic knowledge but also drives positive change,
ensuring that scholarly work continues to solve real-world problems and enrich
society.
Aguinis, H., Cascio, W. F.,
& Ramani, R. S. (2017). Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis:
International business is not immune. Journal of International Business
Studies, 48(6), 653-663.
Aguinis, H., &
Cronin, M. A. (2022). It’s the Theory, Stupid. Organizational Psychology Review.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221080629
Aguinis,
H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational
behavior by embracing performance management research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational
and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29(1), 139-145.
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2018). What you
see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management
research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 83-110.
Aguinis, H.,
Ramani, R. S., Alabduljader, N., Bailey, J. R., & Lee, J. (2019). A
pluralist conceptualization of scholarly impact in management education:
Students as stakeholders. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(1), 11-42.
Aguinis,
H., Shapiro, D. L., Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Cummings, T. G. (2014).
Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 13(4), 623-639
Banks, G. C., Barnes, C. M.,
& Jiang, K. (2021). Changing the conversation on the science–practice gap:
An adherence-based approach. Journal of Management, 47(6),
1347-1356.
Banks, G.
C., Pollack, J. M., Bochantin, J. E., Kirkman, B. L., Whelpley, C. E., &
O’Boyle, E. H. (2016). Management’s science–practice gap: A grand challenge for
all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6),
2205-2231.
Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S.
G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., & Rupp, D. E. (2016). Evidence on
questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 31, 323-338.
Bansal, P.,
Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O'Brien, J. (2012). Bridging
the research–practice gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1),
73-92
Beltran, J.
R., Aguinis, H., Shuumarjav, Y., & Mercado, M. (2024). Putting Scholarly
Impact in Context: Implications for Policymaking and Practice. Academy of
Management Perspectives, doi: 10.5465/amp.2023.0198
Blake, J. (2024). Doubts
About Value are Deterring College Enrollment. Inside
Higher Ed.
Glick, W. H., Tsui, A., &
Davis, G. F. (2018). The moral dilemma of business research. BizEd, 17(3),
32-38.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly
of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management journal, 18(4),
769-783.
Kim, P. H., Ployhart, R. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2018).
Editors’ comments: Is organizational behavior overtheorized?. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 541-545.
Nobel, C. (2016). Why isn't
business research more relevant to business practitioners. Harvard
Business School Working Knowledge, 19.
O’Boyle, E.
H., Götz, M., & Zivic, D. C. (2024). Increasing the practical relevance of
management research: In honor of Timothy T. Baldwin. Business
Horizons, 67(2), 161-171.
Priem, R. L.,
& Rosenstein, J. (2000). Is organization theory obvious to practitioners? A
test of one established theory. Organization Science, 11(5),
509–524.
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.
Schiller, B. (2011). Academia
strives for relevance. Financial Times, 25, 13.
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.
Schwab, A., Aguinis, H.,
Bamberger, P., Hodgkinson, G. P., Shapiro, D. L., Starbuck, W. H., & Tsui,
A. S. (2023). How replication studies can improve doctoral student
education. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(1),
18-41.
Tucker, B.,
& Parker, L. (2017). In our ivory towers? The research-practice gap in
management accounting. In The Societal Relevance of Management Accounting (pp. 32-71). Routledge.
Van Noorden, R. (2023). More
than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023—a new record. Nature, 624(7992),
479-481.