I do not think it is possible to do both types of resaerch symultaneously

Johan, I'm not sure how you're making the distinction; to me many studies can be seen as either. I've done applied studies for a client (in medical education), but I published some of the results in academic journals. 

In my field (education) it seems to me that researchers often choose one of the two. There are academic settings that are doing applied research and other that are doing academic. In a cursory manner I would say that the publications from the applied researchers are often lacking in their theoretical and methodical base whereas the more academic can become very far-fetched and loose contact with the field that they describe.

Your situation in Norway must be very different than mine in the US. I teach in a graduate school of education, and with a few exceptions (e.g., in educational psychology, or strictly methodological papers), none of the research by faculty here is purely academic or purely applied. Even studies using brain imaging have practical implications for teaching, and much of our research gets reported in both academic journals and in publications for teachers and administrators. The split that you describe may be true at the extreme ends of the continuum, but most of the research done here is in the middle. 

I could give you an example from Britain. On the YouTube clip below the Chancellor of research at the University of Brighton introduces Etienne Wenger as a lecturer. He states that the department is "doing only two kinds of research, applied research and yet to be applied research".

I would guess that this differs between different disciplines and institutions, but I’m certain that the split exists. The quality of research and the discussion in the department would I think benefit from the model you describe, Joseph.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn3joQSQm4o

Thank you Omar for pointing out the lack of clarity in the formulation of the question. I have reformulated it with the hope of making it more concise.

Judging from the answers to the question I would say that the relation between applied and basic/academic research differs in the academic fields of research. Are there other disciplines where this split can be perceived to be present?

Hi Johan

The Chancellor of research at the University of Brighton has a clear preference for impact and application.   Strange though. Elite UK universities (among which Brighton  is seldom heard about) are very strong in humanities and many disciplines that are mainly 'basic' or theoretical in essence. Of course, they also do well in exact sciences, as it happens.

Two very 'unvited' personal opinion also related to your earlier posts:

1. I have been in education for some years. I think what J. Maxwell says in this thread applies perfectly in education as well.  I never found convincing the dichotomy between applied and basic research. In fact, I do not care; I do what my gut sense of wonder (aporia) calls me to do, sometimes totally theoretical, and some others, empirical. I guess that I will never apply to Brighton, which is not bright at all to me.

2. I have an issue with Etienne Wenger. He also came to my university some years ago with auras of glory and fame. To be direct, I think he is a sophist, and he hit the term community of practice by chance (in fact, it is a borrowed term from a co-author). I wrote in some papers that Wenger's idea of 'practice' is largely redundant. A community or public (Dewey) is so because of their common problem and practice facing it together. As though there is community without practice!

Johan, I share your frustration.  In short I would say yes.

My reason for saying this is:

it is important to decide on the main focus, the mode of knowledge for any particular study.  (From Fulton et al 2013) Where a Mode 1 knowledge study has: clear academic content; single discipline, is theoretical in nature; is within the control of the individual and their academic peers.  Mode 2 knowledge is: related to the content of the application area; crosses discipline boundaries; is applied, takes account of the political and other contexts; reflects practice and is affected by the complexities of the real world.

I specifically said the 'main focus' because, for me, either study is lacking if it does not take some account of the other.  It is for me an 80:20 split either way.  So, the Mode 2 study is 80% applied but must also address academic and investigate the theoretical aspects.  The Mode 1 study could be almost all theoretical but would benefit from some grounding in application, for example this could be a 100 page study of the factors that influence growth in the small firm, analysing the academic texts and available research, but could then have a single case study of a small firm.

Thank you for your input on the subject.

I also see many weaknesses in Wengers' writing, Jae, especially when it comes to epistemology.

It is liberating to think that "either study is lacking if it does not take some account of the other", Nicholas. This blurs the distinction between the two and opens up what to me seems like a fruitful interpretation of the question.

Do I understand you right, Cecilia that you let the study you are working on decide whether it will be leaning towards theory or a more applied approach? That would make the degree of theory development or practical application in each project a part of the abductive process of the study. This would open up for a very creative process.

Could it be that there is a natural focus on one of the two in periods of a career as a researcher? I started out with a clear preference for applied research. Right now I am in the last year of my ph.d. with a focus and preference towards theoretically driven empirical research. After my dissertation I hope to apply this research to the field and clarify the implications that the accumulated research has for the practice of the folk high school movement.

Johan, I agree with your suggestion (and Cecilia's) that whether the study is "applied" or "academic" isn't something you decide at the beginning of your research, but something that emerges, as part of the abductive process, from the particular problem that you select. Some people may be drawn more to theorietical problems, and some to practical ones, but how this actually plays out can't always be predicted. My research on physician's learning from participating in hospital peer review committees, which had an initially very practical focus on how to make these committees more educational, led to a more theoretical emphasis on how to combine qualitative and quantitative methods. Conversely, my historical research on Plains Indian social organization before 1850 led to a practical investigation of the value of diversity for supporting community and social solidarity. I've attached an unpublished talk I gave on the latter.

Hi Johan, I agree to what you said. My understanding of the term "Basic Academic research" is something fundamental that could eventual come up with a new theory or something which eventually could facilitate for an or future application of the results of the research. What could be an item that could be overlooked is that academicians should look beyond those theories or possible novel applications. I would say that "Basic Academic Research" could also be directed to what practitioners in your field of specialisations want. I am in the field of Medical imaging. And recently I had a chat with an ex Director General of Health Malaysia who argued that present day research by academicians tend to look into something novel that practitioners in the services could not appreciate. There should be a balance. A research can be "basic" yet "applied" at the same time. I think Joseph's research involvement will describe the synergy between the two.

Thank you, Joseph for allowing us to continue your provocative dialogue about diversity. I think the understanding of diversity that you present is vital in research, as well as in society at large. It captures the initial frustration that prompted this question as it calls for open diversity in the research community.

But how we handle diversity also becomes essential in society at large. With the flow of refugees through Europe the challenge of diversity is increasingly critical to our society. Here the greatest threat I can see is that we suppress diversity and try to fit all cultures and beliefs into one "right" mould.

And thank you Zainul for the example from Malaysia. I often hear the frustration that the ex Director General of Health voiced about research. I would say that the ideal of balance could be problematic as there are areas where a more theoretical (or more practical) approach is necessary.

Hi Johan,

I believe that your problem and purpose statement drive the type of approach and research design that you use.  As a consultant and educator, I did a great deal of applied research; mostly action research.  Now as a doctoral advisor, the research designs are more formal academic research.  Some of the qualitative research designs lend themselves to evolve into practical applied research if the student chooses to take  his or her research into further implementation using the results.

Donna Brown

Hello Johan, 

I understand your situation as my research group also has similar experience. I believe in many cases there is no clear line to separate applied and basic/academic research. I would say our research roadmap  and interest will guide us to do the required applied and or basic/academic research. A multi-year social/educational multidisciplinary research project may combine basic/academic research, experimental research, applied research, and even community service activities.

Tjibeng Jap

Good to hear of the openness in your research communities, Donna and Tjibeng for projects to combine or change between basic/academic research, experimental research, applied research, and even community service activities. My situation is different. It would be hard, if not impossible to get funding for such an open-ended project in my institution.

Johan,

Overall, I always want the results of my research to have a direct impact on classroom practice. However, teachers do not read the mainstream research journals in science education. Teachers read journals that are designed for classroom practitioners. I publish in both, but it is a problem in the U.S. because different universities may value applied research and theoretical research differently when it comes to decisions for promotion and tenure. So, from my perspective I think we are obligated to do both because the ultimate aim is to improve teaching and learning. From a practical standpoint, it depends how your university values each.

I think there are two ends of this spectrum, between basic and applied, and I think that, as always happens, most research will be somewhere between the two extremes.

There are at least these two factors that have to be considered, I believe.

1. The organization in which the research is conducted. Which means, who is paying the bills, in short.

2. The aptitude of the specific researcher(s). Some are just better at one end of that spectrum than the other. That's just human nature.

It is more difficult for a business to agree to fund truly basic research. That often requires government grants. And on the other side of that coin, governments may not feel compelled to fund research that will result in immediately marketable products. The taxpayer does not need to fund such endeavors, just to subsidize a particular business or industry, except in cases where the government is the only customer for that industry.

If we are talking about the university environment, the types of grants they manage to attract will most likely determine what that university values most. But no matter what, you'd expect more of a basic research trend.

So, given the above, it seems to me that researchers have to choose which avenue to follow in their careers, depending on their personal interests and aptitudes.

Thank you Norman and Albert.

The one who pays the bills is an important perspective. The personality aspect is also interesting. It would open some doors, at least in my field, if we could see that the difference between research approaches are at times based on personality differences. I know some senior representatives in the field of action-research were I am sure that personality has played a significant role in their choice of approach. This could probably be said of some  more high profile basic research academics as well. 

 Hi Johan

I hope you will find these things useful:

"There are two kinds of research—applied research and not-yet-applied research." ~Nobel laureate Lord Porter, former president of the Royal Society.

I have found a very interesting BBC lecture all about research and innovation (by Lord Broers. who was President of the Royal Academy of Engineering), which I find very useful to understand the differences between fundamental research and applied research (I am sorry if the link only works in UK I hope it is worldwide).    

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gm3k0

Hi Johan

Basic/Fundamental/Academic research would; (i) "show that a rocket is a viable form of propulsion" and (ii) "elucidate the mechanisms of combustion".  

Applied research would "put a man on the moon".  

Both are equally worthwhile occupations; however, there are 5 to 20 jobs in applied research for every one in Basic/Fundamental/Academic research (depending on discipline).  

Thank you Michael. Few can compete with Lord Broers' insight into the development of research and technology. The job market for researchers in the two disciplines gives a sobering perspective. If I understand Lord Broers right he sees an interdependence and a need for contact between the two. 

Johan

So in technology the ideal seems to be that fundamental and applied research go hand in hand.  Sometimes being done by the same researcher and sometimes by different researchers working together.  Sometimes simply by applied researchers reading papers written on basic research and reusing part or all in their own work.  

Perhaps in other disciplines the ideal model for fundamental and applied research is different.  There are certainly fields of science where possible applications are many centuries away.  For example we have been studying the movement of the stars for 1000s of years and nuclear fusion is always the same distance off, whereas it took only a few years for transistors to become commonplace.  Therefore, there must be some disciplines where only basic/fundamental research is conducted and other disciplines where most of the research is applied.   

What is it like in your own field of research?  

Hi Michael.

One of the interesting aspects of the answers that have been presented to this question is that they show the divergence between different fields of research. I work with the interdisciplinary area of learning theory, which means I read material from many of the humanities, such as pedagogy, theology, psychology and sociology. The areas I relate to mostly are educational research and religious sociology.

In educational research as well as religious studies there are specific groups of practitioners who constitute both the field of research, and who to a certain degree will become the readers of the published material. There is a tension in both these disciplines between what is seen as useful by the practitioners in the field, and the theoretical interests of the researchers.

There are institutions and researchers in my field that are highly profiled towards either theory or practice. My picture is that a doctoral project that is accepted in one institution, will not be considered by another, because of the focus in the project design towards either theory or practice. But this is also related to the theoretical framework and the applied methods of the projects. For example, I would say that a project using action research will be more easily accepted by an institution with a focus on practice.

Johan,

I am in total agreement with you when you said "a doctoral project that is accepted in one institution would not be considered by another because of the focus on theory or practice." My Ph.D study was about Islamisation and Medical imaging. During my pre-Viva session one of the professors raised his concern when he remarked something like :"You are going to face problems if your assessor is not into Islamisation and / or Medical imaging".  The inclination towards one side, which ever way that might be, is all about level of individual acceptance and subjectivity. It is also no different when we apply for grants. What is dear to us might not be interpreted as "dear" by the assessors. But eventually, I think we are the best person to say "this is what I want to do or study", irrespective how others would think of the outcome. (Easier said than done..eh.....I am sure this will not be shared by those looking for a qualification)  The inconsistencies in demarcating what is fundamental and what is applied will still loom, until eternity. Let us not let that deter us. Let's just go on contributing something to promote and enhance knowledge in our area of interest, while others in theirs.

Hi Zainul.

One of the aspects of Researchgate that really intrigues me is the contact it gives with collegues in different parts of the world who are related to other scientific disciplines and connected to other kinds of academic institutions. It is fascinating to see that we meet so many of the same challenges. I agree with you that the limitation that institutional (and the assessors personal) biases can put on a project is frustrating. In the end I see that many of these frustrations has served to enrich my project as they have forced me to widen my competence as a researcher.