KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION AND KNOWLEDGETRANSFER: CLOSING THE RESEARCH–PRACTICE GAP

CRAIG R. CARTERUniversity of Nevada

Most of us enter academia with the hopes that our re-search will have an impact. Some of us share our researchand knowledge with students who can then act upon our

findings and suggestions as they enter the workplace;others share findings by publishing in managerial jour-nals and through consulting engagements; and almost allof us share the results of our research and the creation of

new ideas by publishing in scholarly, peer-reviewedjournals. It is the last of these means of sharing — pub-lishing research results in scholarly journals — which hasdrawn increased attention and criticism in the field ofmanagement (e.g., Lawler, Mohrman, Mohrman, Led-

ford and Cummings 1985; Mohrman, Gibson and Mo-hrman 2001; Gulati 2007) and more recently marketing(Brown, Webster, Steenkamp, Wilkie, Sheth, Sisodia,Kerin, MacInnis, McAlister, Raju, Bauerly, Johnson, Singh

and Staelin 2005). There is certainly a belief that man-agers often do not implement the direct findings fromacademic research when making strategic and tacticaldecisions (e.g., Abrahamson 1996; Mowday 1997). And

at the same time, researchers often fail to integrate theperspectives of practitioners in developing research de-signs and interpreting research findings (Rynes, Bartunekand Daft 2001). Is the research that we publish relevant

to practice? In other words, is there a chasm or ‘‘gap’’between supply chain management research and prac-tice? And, if so, then how should we address this re-search–practice gap? The authors of the other essays in

this forum believe that there is indeed a gap betweenresearch and practice, and I largely agree.

The relevant question then becomes one of how toaddress the research–practice gap. In order to do so, I

believe that we first must better define the gap. I providemy own perspectives of this definition in the next sectionof the essay. Afterwards, I discuss several of the causes ofthe research–practice gap, followed by some suggestedsolutions. The essay ends with a few caveats and quali-

fiers regarding these proposed solutions.

DEFINING THE GAPThe research–practice gap has been structured as both

a problem of knowledge transfer (e.g., Beyer and Trice1982) and knowledge production (e.g., Pettigrew 2001).The knowledge transfer problem addresses the need to

better translate the findings of scholarly research into

agendas, tools and publication outlets that managerscan use in their work. The knowledge production prob-lem centers upon how to better generate managerially

relevant research to begin with. The results of a surveyconducted by Shapiro, Kirkman and Courtney (2007)of both practitioner and academic members of theAcademy of Management show that there is concern over

both the knowledge transfer and knowledge productionproblems. Thus the research–practice gap appears to be afacet of both of these obstacles. This is an importantpoint, because we will not be able to move forwardunless we effectively address both of these gaps: trans-

ferring the knowledge of research which has little prac-tical relevance to begin with is a difficult task, whilestudying managerially relevant problems without trans-ferring this knowledge to managers will also fail to close

the gap.To further define the research–practice gap, let us con-

sider the terms rigor and relevance. To paraphrase Ve-rmeulen (2007, p. 775), ‘‘Let me make the bold

assumption that academics generally know what deter-mines rigor — namely the criteria we pay attention towhen reviewing papers for academic journals,’’ such asthe Journal of Supply Chain Management. Thus rigor refers

to sound, coherent, logically developed theory, and thevarious dimensions of methodological and analyticalvalidity that are necessary to test theory. Unfortunatelyrigor, as I have informally defined it here, is a necessary

but insufficient criterion to ensure relevance to practice.The term relevance refers to creating knowledge that

managers can use to better understand phenomena re-lating to that which they manage — supply chains in the

case of our field. This knowledge should consist of con-ceptual foundations and fundamental tenets rather thanfads and gimmicks — an idea which I will revisit in moredetail in the next section of this essay. While rigor alone isunlikely to ensure managerial relevance, the business

press and managerial journals often suffer from theproblem of relevance without rigor. These articles areintriguing and appeal to managers, but their authors donot necessarily ensure the validity of their findings. As is

stated in any basic text on research methodology, find-ings that are not validly derived are questionable at best.

Returning now to the point at hand, what are the rea-sons for the research–practice gap, and what can we do to

narrow this rift?

Volume 44, Number 278

CAUSES OF THE GAPSupply chain management is a new field, and thus

many of us feel the need to prove that we are ‘‘scholarly.’’

We use research published in scholarly journals to de-velop our own research, which we in turn publish inscholarly journals. We interact primarily with each otherat annual, scholarly conferences. We collaborate largely

with each other. And we produce new professors whobecome part of this same system. Thus, we suffer fromwhat Vermeulen (2007) refers to as a closed loop. Thisclosed loop causes problems of both knowledge pro-

duction and knowledge transfer.Let us look first at the knowledge production problem.

Why don’t we collaborate more with practitioners informulating problems and even in collecting and ana-

lyzing data? There is still a debate within the larger aca-demic community as to whether research collaborationwith practitioners can help to advance science. Advocatesof such collaboration have argued that practitioners canhelp to identify relevant research questions and develop

new scientific findings and knowledge (Campbell, Daftand Hulin 1982). In addition, an archival analysis offield-based research published in top-tier industrial–or-ganizational psychology and management journals re-

vealed a positive relationship between time spent in thefield on one hand and personal learning by the re-searcher and citation rates of the subsequently publishedpaper on the other (Rynes, McNatt and Bretz 1999).

Conversely, there are concerns that collaboration withpractitioners might focus attention on issues that are toonarrow or short-range, that results might be censured bycorporate partners, and that researchers might be biased

by their corporate sponsors (Beyer and Trice 1982; Ryneset al. 2001).

Markides (2007) notes that several studies which ex-amine the research–practice gap state that managers are

unable to read our journals, but questions whetherscholarly journals are the best vehicle by which to com-municate to managers. Most supply chain managersbarely have the time to read the popular business press,

trade publications, and executive journals such as Har-vard Business Review, let alone scholarly journals. Thus thesuggestions of writing for a managerial audience in peer-reviewed academic journals may not solve the problem athand. Other direct outlets include undergraduate, MBA,

and executive education, speeches at practitioner con-ferences and publication in practitioner journals (moreon all of these later). Additionally, knowledge can beeffectively transferred to practitioners via the textbooks

that students use in their coursework. A review of thefootnotes and references of such supply chain manage-ment texts shows that much of their content is based onscholarly studies appearing in academic, peer reviewed

journals. In addition, Mentzer’s (2008) suggestion ofbetter elaborating on managerial implications whenwriting for an academic audience is certainly very ap-

propriate. This can allow academics who do read ourjournals to better translate the findings to students and tothe managers in organizations with whom they consult,

and even in the textbooks that they write.Markides (2007) further suggests that a reason for the

perceived gap between research and practice is the beliefthat one must write a book or publish in journals such as

the California Management Review in order for one’s re-search to be managerially relevant. Yet certainly researchwhich is integrated into our classroom teaching or sharedwith practitioners through white papers and reports like

CAPS Research focus studies, is directly shared withmanagers. As noted by Markides (2007, p. 765), ‘‘in myown small network of AOM colleagues, I cannot think ofa single person who has not communicated her or his

research findings to students . . . they utilize their findingswhenever they teach things related to what they are re-searching: if you have communicated some of your re-search findings to your students, then by definition youare doing managerially relevant research.’’

Lastly, there may be a mistaken perception concerningthe research–practice gap due to the erroneous belief thatresearch is only relevant when it develops paradigm-shifting concepts that receive wide-spread attention in

the media (e.g., Friedman’s 2005 The World Is Flat orCollins and Porras’ 1994 Built to Last). While such bookscan stimulate thinking and advance knowledge andpractice in the field, I believe that true value is afforded to

managers through conceptual underpinnings and fun-damental ideas which are often developed through in-cremental, rigorous but relevant studies, rather than fadsand flavors of the month. This sentiment has been ex-

pressed by thought-leading practitioners and academicsalike:

MBAs are looking primarily for best practices so thatwhen they leave school and get a job they can ‘‘hitthe street running’’. Executives are experiencedenough to understand that best practices come andgo and that the only thing that really lasts is theconceptual underpinnings to current best practice.This is what they really need and look for. (JerryPorras 2000, p. 3)

What in management research is important formanagement practice? . . . it is not the passing fadsof management gimmicks . . . the primaryusefulness of management research lies in thedevelopment of fundamental ideas that mightshape managerial thinking, not in the solution ofimmediate managerial problems. (James March’sAcademy of Management Address, quoted in Huff2000, pp. 55–6)

BRIDGING THE CHASMAs noted in the Introduction to this forum, I asked

contributors to consider ‘‘reasonable steps’’ that we can

Knowledge Production and Knowledge Transfer: Closing the Research–Practice Gap

April 2008 79

take to close the research–practice gap. In this section ofthe essay I propose solutions that we as individual re-searchers, teachers, and reviewers (e.g., journal editors,

advisory board members, associate editors, members ofreview boards, etc.) can implement. These are probablymore viable proposals than larger, universal changeswhich are much more difficult to effect. In fact such

system-wide changes may not even be necessary, if werecognize that more junior faculty who publish inscholarly journals can still be conducting research that isrelevant to practice. The concern about the research–

practice gap should be a question of the AND rather thanthe OR (Collins and Porras 1994). As stated by Mentzer(2008) in this forum, ‘‘Why would we choose only one?’’Like Gulati (2007, p. 775), I assume ‘‘that most (supply

chain management) professors prefer research to be bothapplicable and exact, relevant and rigorous.’’

However, our top-tier scholarly journals are orientedtoward knowledge that is derived largely from academia— the closed loop. Thus as a first suggestion, journal

editors and their advisory boards should explicitly solicitmanuscripts which validly employ field-based researchsuch as ethnographies, case studies, and depth inter-views. Editors can attempt to accomplish this by pro-

moting editorial policy statements, developing specialissues and special topic forums, and selecting reviewersand associate editors who recognize the potential valueand complementarities of field-based research.

Second, as noted by Flynn (2008) we as individualscholars can become bilingual. Thus ‘‘doing research’’becomes ‘‘working on projects,’’ managers are presentedwith ‘‘ideas’’ rather than ‘‘hypotheses,’’ and instead of a

‘‘methodology’’ a ‘‘strategy’’ is used to test the ideas(Latham 2007, p. 1029). Results can then be shared withmanagers in executive summaries and practitioner jour-nals through graphs and tables, rather than detailed

discussions of MANOVA or structural equation model-ing, even though these analyses might have been used toderive the graphs and tables.

Third, conferences that are attended by both practitio-

ners and academics can be especially fruitful. Some of thebest feedback that I have recently received during aconference presentation was at the 2007 InternationalConference on Business and Sustainability, which wasorganized by Portland State University and attended by

academics along with managers and executives. Thecomments of managers built on those of academics andvice versa in an integrative and extremely synergisticfashion.

Fourth, authors should more explicitly discuss thetangible managerial implications of their research in thescholarly papers that they write. Even though managersmay not read these papers, academics will be able to

more easily understand the practical implications of theresearch and ‘‘translate’’ and convey the findings in theclassroom and in textbooks. One important type of

managerial relevance that is often missing in supplychain research is an identification of the trade-offs thatexist among variables in a framework, model or theory.

Authors should recognize that their findings might sup-port the implementation of ‘‘A’’ because it constructivelyimpacts ‘‘B,’’ but that ‘‘A’’ may also have a deleteriouseffect on ‘‘C.’’ An identification of such trade-offs, and

mechanisms by which to mitigate the trade-offs, canprovide enormous value to managers.

Fifth, as highlighted above, there can be many advan-tages to involving practitioners in our research. While

managers might not be an intimate and direct part of theresearch team, the use of project advisory boards andsteering committees can be particularly valuable in pro-viding a reality check during the initial design period of a

project as well as during later phases such as the datainterpretation stage. Hutt (2008) notes that such collab-oration can make it, ‘‘more likely that a particular re-search project will relate to the experience andperspective of organizational members, thereby enhanc-

ing their ability to understand and apply conceptually-based research findings,’’ and can allow access to rare,difficult-to-capture data. This practitioner involvement inour research can address the closed loop dilemma by

adding what Vermeulen (2007, p. 754) refers to as a‘‘second loop’’ which can mitigate the knowledge pro-duction problem as well as potentially the knowledgetransfer problem.

Sixth, researchers can involve practitioners in otherways in order to improve their understanding of a phe-nomenon and thus improve the problems of knowledgeproduction and transfer. This interaction can include

conducting interviews (both formal and informal) withmanagers, writing case studies, sharing research findingsand associated insights in the classroom, and involvingstudents (particularly MBA students) in knowledge pro-

duction by describing proposed research designs andasking for feedback in order to validate (or invalidate!)research and especially research ideas and early concep-tualizations.

Finally, we as researchers need to become more in-volved in field-based research. As suggested by Vermeulen(2007, p. 757):

what you can learn about mountain gorillas bysitting in an office is limited. Surely, you can learnsomething about gorilla behavior by runningregressions based on secondary data aboutpopulations, habitat, climate changes, etc., but toreally interpret the results and truly comprehend theanimals’ behavior, you need to understand them ata much more intimate level, which can only begained through close observation or interaction.Hence, in order to truly understand my subject, Ibelieve that every now and then, I have to forcemyself to go into the mountains and smell thebeast.

Journal of Supply Chain Management

Volume 44, Number 280

This field-based research might be a study’s primarymethodology and take the form of ethnographies andcase studies, as suggested above. However, even for the

analysis of secondary data, or the use of a survey meth-odology, researchers must ‘‘smell the beast’’ in order tomore effectively generate and transfer knowledge.

CAVEATS AND CONCLUSIONSFirst, I am certainly not advocating that all research

should be performed in the field. There is always theneed for multiple, complementary methodologies toensure internal and external validity, as well as ‘‘ext-

istential realism’’ (McGrath 1982). However the best re-search, both in terms of theory, methodological rigor andrelevance, can occur through pragmatic, field-basedgrounding. As an example, in a recent laboratory exper-

iment which examined electronic reverse auctions (eRAs)(Carter and Stevens 2007), I integrated prior field-basedresearch of buying organizations that use eRAs, alongwith their suppliers that participated in the eRAs and thesoftware and platform providers of these eRAs. This field-

based research allowed us to (1) better identify the keydependent and independent variables to explore in alaboratory setting, (2) write more accurate and realisticscenarios to manipulate the subjects in the experiment

and (3) provide more pragmatic, managerially relevantinterpretations of our findings. In addition, my knowl-edge of eRAs which resulted from the earlier field-basedresearch allowed me to more readily integrate and test

theory from transaction cost economics, which in turnlead to richer results and insights from the experiment.Thus, by ‘‘smelling the beast’’ and delving into the phe-nomenon of eRAs in the field, we were able to improve

the methodological rigor, pragmatic relevance, and the-oretical contributions of our laboratory study.

A second caveat is that there can be a potential reputa-tional risk associated with merging theory and practice.

The tenure, promotion, and merit process in academiavalues rigor (e.g., publishing in top-tier scholarly jour-nals) over direct relevance (books and publications intrade journals). Above and beyond this, there is a risk of

being disparaged by the ‘‘serious scholars’’ tribe andbeing branded as a ‘‘management type’’ (Gulati 2007) ifone does not publish in scholarly journals or even if onepublishes in both academic and practitioner-orientedjournals. Again, we should not be trapped into the fallacy

of the OR but instead we should recognize that the bestresearch combines rigor AND relevance in a synergisticfashion.

As a final point of clarification, readers should not

necessarily interpret this essay as a reproach against therelevance of the extant supply chain management re-search. Instead, this is an opportunity to further improvethe quality of our work by better producing supply chain

research that is rigorous and relevant, and better trans-

lating the findings of that research. Like Dess andMarkoczy (2008), I admit that the thoughts and sug-gestions which are encompassed within this forum may

present ‘‘rubber’’ rather than ‘‘silver bullets.’’ However myhope is that this dialogue will set us along the path to-ward better recognizing and addressing the research–practice gap.

REFERENCESAbrahamson, E. ‘‘Management Fashion,’’ Academy of

Management Review, (21:1), 1996, pp. 254-85.Beyer, J.M. and H.M. Trice. ‘‘The Utilization Process: A

Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of EmpiricalFindings,’’ Administrative Science Quarterly, (27:4),1982, pp. 591-622.

Brown, S.W., F.E. Webster Jr., J.E.M. Steenkamp, W.L.Wilkie, J.N. Sheth, R.S. Sisodia, R.A. Kerin, D.J.MacInnis, L. McAlister, J.S. Raju, R.J. Bauerly, D.T.Johnson, M. Singh and R. Staelin. ‘‘MarketingRenaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives forImproving Marketing Thought, Practice, andInfrastructure,’’ Journal of Marketing, (69:4), 2005,pp. 1-25.

Campbell, J.P., R.L. Daft and C.L. Hulin. What to Study:Generating and Developing Research Questions, Sage,Beverly Hills, CA, 1982.

Carter, C.R. and C.K. Stevens. ‘‘Electronic Reverse AuctionConfiguration and Its Impact on Buyer Price andSupplier Perceptions of Opportunism: A LaboratoryExperiment,’’ Journal of Operations Management,(25:5), 2007, pp. 1035-54.

Collins, J. and J.L. Porras. Built to Last: Successful Habits ofVisionary Companies, HarperCollins, New York, 1994.

Dess, G.G. and L. Markoczy. ‘‘Rather than Searching forThe Silver Bullet, Use Rubber Bullets: A View on theResearch–Practice Gap,’’ Journal of Supply ChainManagement, (44:2), 2008, 57-62.

Flynn, B.B. ‘‘Having It All: Rigor versus Relevance inSupply Chain Management Research,’’ Journal ofSupply Chain Management, (44:2), 2008, pp. 63-67.

Friedman, T.L. The World Is Flat, Farrar, Strauss andGiroux, New York, 2005.

Gulati, R. ‘‘Tent Poles, Tribalism, and BoundarySpanning: The Rigor-Relevance Debate inManagement Research,’’ Academy of ManagementJournal, (50:4), 2007, pp. 775-82.

Huff, A.S. ‘‘Citigroup’s John Reed and Stanford’s JamesMarch on Management Research and Practice,’’Academy of Management Executive, (14:1), 2000, pp.52-64.

Hutt, M.D. ‘‘Engaging Corporate Partners to Bridge theTheory–Practice Gap,’’ Journal of Supply ChainManagement, (44:2), 2008, pp. 68-71.

Latham, G.P.‘‘A Speculative Perspective on the Transfer ofBehavioral Science Findings to the Workplace: ‘TheTimes They Are A-Changin’,’’ Academy of ManagementJournal, (50:5), 2007, pp. 1027-32.

Lawler, E.E., A.M. Jr. Mohrman, S.A. Mohrman, G.E.Ledford Jr. and T.G. Cummings. Doing Research that

Knowledge Production and Knowledge Transfer: Closing the Research–Practice Gap

April 2008 81

Is Useful for Theory and Practice, Lexington Books,New York, 1985.

Markides, C. ‘‘In Search of Ambidextrous Professors,’’Academy of Management Journal, (50:4), 2007, pp.762-68.

McGrath, J.E. ‘‘Dilemmatics: The Study of ResearchChoices and Dilemmas.’’ In J.E. McGrath, J. Martinand R.A. Kulka (Eds.), Judgement Calls in Research,Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1982, pp. 69-102.

Mentzer, J.T. ‘‘Rigor versus Relevance: Why Would WeChoose Only One?,’’ Journal of Supply ChainManagement, (44:2), 2008, pp. 72-77.

Mohrman, S.A., C.B. Gibson and A.M. Mohrman Jr..‘‘Doing Research that Is Useful to Practice: A Modeland Empirical Exploration,’’ Academy of ManagementJournal, (44:2), 2001, pp. 357-75.

Mowday, R.T. ‘‘Presidential Address: Reaffirming OurScholarly Values,’’ Academy of Management Review,(22:2), 1997, pp. 335-45.

Pettigrew, A.M. ‘‘Management Research AfterModernism,’’ British Journal of Management,(12:Special Issue), 2001, pp. S61-S70.

Porras, J.I. ‘‘The Business School of the Future: SomePersonal Reflections,’’ Academy of Management,Organization Development and Change DivisionNewsletter, (Winter) 2000, pp. 1-5.

Rynes, S.L., J.M. Bartunek and R.L. Daft. ‘‘Across the GreatDivide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer betweenPractitioners and Academics,’’ Academy ofManagement Journal, (44:2), 2001, pp. 340-55.

Rynes, S.L., D.B. McNatt and R.D. Bretz. ‘‘AcademicResearch Inside Organizations: Inputs, Processes,and Outcomes,’’ Personnel Psychology, (52:4), 1999,pp. 869-98.

Shapiro, D.L., B.L. Kirkman and H.G. Courtney.‘‘Perceived Causes and Solutions of the Translation

Problem in Management Research,’’ Academy ofManagement Journal, (50:2), 2007, pp. 249-66.

Vermeulen, F. ‘‘ ‘I Shall Not Remain Insignificant’: Addinga Second Loop to Matter More,’’ Academy ofManagement Journal, (50:4), 2007, pp. 754-61.

Craig R. Carter (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is a

professor of supply chain management at the Universityof Nevada. His primary research stream focuses on thesocially responsible management of the supply chain.This research stream encompasses ethical issues in buyer-

supplier relationships, environmental supply manage-ment, diversity sourcing, perceptions of opportunismsurrounding electronic reverse auctions, and the broader,integrative concepts of social responsibility and sustain-

ability. A secondary and often intersecting area ofresearch examines international and cross-cultural supplychain management issues. A third, emerging stream ofresearch considers and analyzes the status and evolution

of research in the field of supply chain management, andprovides guidance and thought leadership regardingfuture research directions in the field. He is a member ofthe editorial review boards of several journals, and theCo-Editor of the Journal of Supply Chain Management. His

research has appeared in numerous supply chain man-agement journals including Decision Sciences, Interna-tional Journal of Physical Distribution and LogisticsManagement, Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of

Operations Management, Journal of Supply Chain Manage-ment, Transportation Journal, and Transportation Research E.

Journal of Supply Chain Management

Volume 44, Number 282