Dear Russel,

I use in my course "Strategic Organizational Design" a following task for my graduate students mostly of whom work in different companies --

1) to run a strategic diagnosis of their companies using a special software (Organizational Consultant 9.1 available from Ecomerc.com)

2) to find strategic and organizational misfits using that software;

3) to provide inputs and output of the analysis to their bosses and to discuss with them the results and  possible ways to eliminate (decrease) the number of misfits, that, in general, is beneficial for the firm (see enclosed).

Article Return on Assets Loss from Situational and Contingency Misfits

We should also know that not all research are about companies only. Some are about the public, the society, the country, or the globe at large. Anyway, I believe that each research should add some value to the reader in order to be counted as a research.

Hello Russel,

I can speak from the HRM aspect and the MBA HRM and EMBA HRM I am running. We try to train students in:

 - conducting interviews, focus groups, questionnaires and then analyse results by use of SPSS or other software (analysis are sometimes also presented then to the companies since data are done for one company, or industry or wider)

- doing HR metrics and looking at the companies KPIs, strategy, etc. and connecting the dots.

- we use different simulation to improve their decision making of our students and prepare them for the real world (Capstone, HRManagement, etc.)

- we bring company representatives to present present case dilemmas or past failures so that students can bring new and fresh insights and ideas as well the analysis of the situation

- we take data from companies for different processes (recruitment, selection, performance) and then analyse relationships and present this to HR and Boards.

Hope this helps,

Mirna 

The concern about lack of theoretical foundations to support practice is not new. Indeed, as Bartunck and Rynes (2014) noted, the gap between management researchers and practitioners has generated concern since the 1950s and has increased considerably since 2000 (although the authors noted that most of the articles in this century have been opinion-based rather than empirical in nature). Kompier (2006) referred to this issue as a scientific vacuum, while Starkey and Madan (2001) used the term relevance gap. Kieser and Leiner (2009) described it more specifically, as a rigour-relevance gap, highlighting the challenge of demonstrating scientific rigour while also providing relevant and practical information for practitioners. Although focusing on health services research, Grimshaw, Eccles, Lavis, Hill, and Squires (2009) wrote in terms of lack of knowledge translation of research findings into practice and policy, a concept readily applied to management research.

Kaufman (2012) was considerably harsher, by his own admission, in assessing research-practitioner gaps in the U.S.A. Discussing the degree to which research shifted in the mid-1980s from a focus on prescriptive and technique-based solutions for various business problems to a focus on management science and providing actionable management principles, Kaufman assigned a grade of D to F based on his assessment of three dimensions. Kaufman argued that such research should (a) develop theory that has predictive accuracy and generate strong conclusions, (b) produce actionable, valuable managerial principles, and (c) accurately portray the historical origins of the theory and its development. Kieser and Leiner (2009), who saw the issue as one of translation from researcher language and understanding to practitioner language and understanding, went further yet, deeming the research-practitioner gap as unbridgeable,. It is hard to accept, fully, the opinions expressed by Kieser and Leiner given what appears to be a biased perception of practitioners. For example, the authors state that practitioners “would be scared by such an exposure to the complexities of scientific theories and methods” (p. 525) and “do not read publications in scientific journals” (p. 525), define practitioners as lay researchers, able to overlook available alternatives, as researchers cannot, and state that it is not possible for researchers and practitioners to communicate productively when practitioners “are not familiar with theories and research methods” (p. 529). Such categorical statements, rather than more nuanced assertions, raise concerns about whether other assertions by the authors are equally biased.

Nonetheless, I think the tension between research rigour and practical relevance is real and sometimes difficult to address. Also, researchers often wish to limit the number of variables in a research project, particularly quantitative projects, whereas practitioners need to address multiple and interdependent variables (and often dynamic ones at that). These respective needs need to be part of any discussion in the very early stages of any research project.

Bartunck, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Aademics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1181-1201. doi: 10.1177/0149206314529160

Kaufman, B. E. (2012). Strategic human resource management research in the united states: A failing grade after 30 years? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(2), 12-36. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0037

Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516-533.

Kompier, M. (2006). New systems of work organization and workers' health. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, 32(6), 421-430. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1048

Despite the collection and analysis of staff and company data to investigate various organizational processes,, I still think there is need for some prospective analyses of the how an why with respect to the actions and reactions of (a) subordinate staff (b) line managers and (c) managers-staff interactions via action research in order to do closer examinations of  the information-problem solving intervention-review cycle and the extent to which this procedure yields more and more feedback about any organizational process. 

I address this issue in my advanced HR classes by stressing the importance of staying abreast of best practices in HR that are research-based and verified. I direct them to academic and trade journals for examples of such research. I plan to start asking for article summaries in the next academic term, explaining to students that the ability to summarize HR research in lay people's terms is a skill valued by many managers.

That is a wonderful idea, Jeffrey!  My short stint teaching HR at a university left me very disappointed that we taught tired old traditional HR and were, shall we say, not encouraged to colorectal current research.  I would love to know what response you get from your students.

Quick thought, Jeffrey - refers back to my comments in my original post.  Would it make sense to have your students summarize research in practitioner terms rather than lay person?  These are professionals in their field, just not formal researchers.  And...who knows what my iPad meant when it substituted colorectal for incorporate! :).  Maybe it's Freudian...