Many of the human resource managers/practitioners admit (and some quite openly do so) that most of their decisions are not research based whereas each day new research findings are piling up. If these findings do not make way to the policy makers/practitioners etc. what is the point then? How can we as a researcher make the research relevant for practitioners or make the research more understandable for them?
The volume of research greatly exceeds its application in practice. Researchers must pay greater attention to the production of their research findings in a flexible range of formats in recognition of the varied needs of consumers: Linking Research to Practice, available at Article Linking Research to Practice
, elaborates.
I agree with Olivier that access to research precedes relevance, but I would like to suggest two additional ideas: (a) We must educate future practitioners to embrace life-long learning with an emphasis on evidence-based practice. Part of the problem is that practitioners do not bother to consult the literature. (b) Professional associations must do more to promote translation of research in accessible formats. In psychology, for example, Current Directions in Psychological Science provides the latest research in a format specifically designed for high school teachers of psychology. More disciplines need journals dedicated to translation of research.
Thank you Olivier & Peter. I agree that translation of research findings into accessible formats is important just like system analyst sit between programmers and users of the software. In addition, many of the practitioners informally admit that are also legal complications in using the findings. Many times, findings contradict the employment laws of the state. I think this area need to be explored further.
The failure of researchers to link evidence to policy and practice produces evidence that no one uses, impedes innovation, and leads to mediocre or even detrimental development policies. To help improve the definition, design, and implementation of policy research, researchers should adopt a strategic outcome-oriented approach. Enriching Policy with Research, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254583216_Enriching_Policy_with_Research, elaborates.
Include research on simulations of business transactions i.e. Hands on ERP transactions, business simulations like ERPSim etc.
I found in my own research that even the outcome of the research conducted by HR practitioners themselves does not get translated to practice. The reason why HRM practitioners don't act on the basis of sound evidence or analysis is threefold: 1) HRM practitioners do not have the knowledge and skills to handle the methodological challanges of practitioner research 2)HRM researchers conduct research that does not fit the unique local context of the practitioner and do not adress the problems HR practitioners have to overcome to implement HRM knowledge (they dependend on management for desicionmaking and implementation), 3) HRM practitioners and managers are not incentivised to be critical of the HR practices in their organisation, because performance is only measured short term, while the effectiveness of HR practices are usually only visible in the long term and acting on sound analysis interferes with the freedom and creativity of the manager to decide whatever he/she wants.
The research can be more relevant to practitioners by involving and collaborating them in research projects.
You should put special efforts to promote your research results in executive-oriented journals and magazines. For example, Harvard Business Review has many national editions and it devotes in such editions some space for locally-oriented research outcomes.
However, be aware that practitioners will not believe in your results unless you demonstrate a real example of the effective use of your theory. There is a nice journal - Global Business and Organizational Excellence - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/19322062
which presents such examples.
P.S. I was talking only about HRM, strategy and organizational design; I do not know how to promote good new theories in OR, finances, marketing etc.
The question is highly relevant. Many of the previous commentators have correctly noted the issue of (a) access - much academic research stays just that ... academic, and not available in outlets easily accessible or found by practitioners. At the same time, accessible means that the canons of "normal" academic publishing remain largely impenetrable to practitioners (e.g. the language, the sophisticated methodologies, and the theory). The research is typically not written in a user-friendly way. (b) disconnect between what practitioners want to know and how quickly, and many academics who study things of interest to them.
If researchers started by asking what do practitioners in their field want to know then that is a terrific start. At the same time, as others have already noted, communicating or diffusing the work in short bite-sized chunks in industry and other business / engineering etc outlets then the work can certainly begin to reach their intended audience.
Finally, and for what it's worth what about the conjecture that the image of "scientists" broadly defined (including social scientists) in the Western press/film etc does appear to be a little problematic? Scientists are typically presented in white lab coats, bespectacled, a little socially awkward, clumsy and even "mad". Apart from Indiana Jones which provides some sort of "dashing heroism" image, we have the Nutty Professor (the name says it all) and Emmett "Doc" Brown in the Back to the Future trilogy. In other words, does research and science have an image problem emanating, at least in part, from how it is frequently depicted?
Igor Gurkov Chris William Callaghan
As HR practitioner, I can say that, unfortunately, no one of my colleagues reads articles or theory, they do not see any valuable aim to spend their time. And that is understandable as working with people takes a lot of time and energy. It is easier and safer, and more efficient in short-term, to follow current policy/instructions than change it. So I think the main enemies of research culture in companies are current policy and total lack of time. Prosaically. I am talking about large production enterprise not Google or Amazon, of cause.HR also can be trained to think critically and research-oriented if this is the policy of company