Because most fundamental or basic (as opposed to application) research is in a linguistic muddle. Please see brief (800 words) article attached.

Dear Roger K. Thomas , I absolutely agree with your response and analogy. Thank you for the article, which i have downloaded and enjoyed perusing :-). The 'muddling' is surely blurring our vision of application. It eventually comes down to a lot of unnecessary 'semantics' indeed.

Three reasons: 1. most of the research conducted is relatable to 'lab' conditions. That is, unlike the hard sciences (such as physics), soft sciences cannot be recreated on small scales to test so any research findings are only relevant under the lab conditions in which they were researched (not anywhere else). 2. most of the research and published results are for the purposes of being published only. That is, no one was really interested in applying the results, just publishing findings (the old, 'publish or perish' game of needing to be published to be validated as worthy). Thirdly, where there are decent results, there is a significant lack of expertise to translate research insights into real-world application. Papers are published by researchers and researchers have particular skillsets - usually research! The information does not translate to non-research people and there are too few (if any) skilled enough to translate research insights into application. The best we get are 'recommendations', and these are often recommendations for more research (to generate more papers), or for policy changes. Policy is not application. My argument is, no amount of policy or research feeds the homeless, yet we have copious written works about the wicked problem. Essentially, the methodology for the translation of research findings to practical solutions to wicked problems is wrong. I theorised that back-casting may be a more appropriate methodology to addressing wicked problems - that is, how to better apply practical solutions via the research path.

Great answer. It is rare to see someone as openly pessimistic about the future of “scientific” psychology as I. However, the conceptual challenges of scientific psychology are as “hard” as those of physics, less math maybe. Unless and until scientific psychology embraces material reductionism, the scientists among psychology will no longer identify as such but as behavioral neuroscientists.

True. That has always been the problem with psychology as a 'science'. Indeed the areas of quantum physics, epigenetics and neuroscience are better placed to explain the 3D human mind as a physical construct. My belief is that each human being is a unique expression, therefore cannot be 'counted' under the methodology used in the traditional sciences for the purposes of comparison (as each human will react uniquely and thus unpredictably). Human behaviour research and insights is one thing. Application of any 'findings' is another thing all together. At best, what we currently have is a ramped up application of marketing where understanding of human behaviour (and cognition) are applied to control and manipulate behaviour unbeknownst to the individual being manipulated. That's the only effective application I've seen regarding application of psychological research.

I disagree re human uniqueness and unpredictability, but that takes us beyond science and into politics which I won’t pursue in this forum.

Thank you Susan Broomhall , I do agree that the ‘need’ or ‘greed’ to publish can overtake the value to pragmatic implementation of research findings. You make a great point that no amount of ‘theory’ can address poverty and other social ills. Action must hence accompany research and policy. I also agree that perhaps the skills and expertise may be lacking for the proper translation and alignment of research findings to practical solutions.

Thank you All for your wonderful and stimulating views. It is always good to see views from different fields. This is what makes science and research so exciting. Every field has its own contribution to make. I always believe that Science and Research from all fields must serve to benefit all of Humanity (and for the right reasons), otherwise it will be of minimal value. Hence, I hope to see more balance between research theory and practical application. Best wishes.

Agreed, implementation of effective research even with positive findings and successful results still take time to be applied on the ground, the key factors could be the cost, the training updates for the right staff, the key area where to be applied, as it could even involve an update of the codes of practice/regulations etc…

Thank you Mohamed Cherif Benzerari for your valuable insights and points. I highly agree.

Problem with research? Optimism or confirmation bias or publication bias--call it what you want, but if someone conducts a study, they most always find what they want. Negatives and disconfirmation are rare, hence contradictory positions are "proven" daily with the only intent to add to a curriculum vitae and increase someone's h-index.

Add to that, few practitioners read such drivel.

Thank you David Coker I appreciate your honest/frank response and I agree. I always believed that there are no "right or wrong" answers/findings in research. However, it seems to be a regular occurrence where researchers would rather ‘sugar coat’ findings just to satisfy their research objectives rather than report the findings as is. These bias findings may be good for publications and personal/professional elevation, but may not make sense in the practical world. Hence, I do feel that there has to be more collaboration between research and practice to reach a common understanding for proper application.

Thank you ALL, your responses may just convince me to add another discussion thread soon, on ‘There are no right or wrong findings in research’. Thank you

Thank you Samuel Oluwaseun Adeyemo , I am glad you enjoyed the discussion. A further thank you for your detailed explanations and analysis. I think you are surely on point. I couldn’t agree more with each point. Great response.