Research–Practice Gap in Applied Fields: An Integrative Literature Review

Ткаченко, Олександр; Hahn, Huh Jung; Peterson, Shari L.

doi:10.1177/1534484317707562

Cited by 36 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 111 publications

(165 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The contributions of this study are novel and useful since, instead of relying on and considering the experience-based opinions mentioned in each of the papers in this area, our MLR collects and synthesizes the opinions from all the sources on this issue and thus it provides a more "holistic" view on the subject. Similar SLRs have been published, each synthesizing the issue in a certain research discipline outside SE, e.g., (Tkachenko et al 2017) reported a SLR of the issue in management and human-resource development, (Carton and Mouricou 2017) reported a systematic analysis of the issue in management science, and (Moeini et al 2019) reported a review of the issue in the Information Systems (IS) community.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…A literature review of the research-practice gap in the fields of management, applied psychology, and human-resource development was reported in (Tkachenko et al 2017). The paper synthesized the community's discussions on the topic across the above three fields into several themes, e.g., the researching practitioner and the practicing researcher, and engaged scholarship.…”

Section: Existing Review Studies On the Issue Of Research Relevance Imentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Practical relevance of software engineering research: synthesizing the community’s voice

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software engineering (SE) research should be relevant to industrial practice. There have been regular discussions in the SE community on this issue since the 1980's, led by pioneers such as Robert Glass. As we recently passed the milestone of "50 years of software engineering", some recent positive efforts have been made in this direction, e.g., establishing "industrial" tracks in several SE conferences. However, many researchers and practitioners believe that we, as a community, are still struggling with research relevance and utility. The goal of this paper is to synthesize the evidence and experience-based opinions shared on this topic so far in the SE community, and to encourage the community to further reflect and act on the research relevance. For this purpose, we have conducted a Multi-vocal Literature Review (MLR) of 54 systematically-selected sources (papers and non peer-reviewed articles). Instead of relying on and considering the individual opinions on research relevance, mentioned in each of the sources, the MLR aims to synthesize and provide the "holistic" view on the topic. The highlights of our MLR findings are as follows. The top three root causes of low relevance, discussed in the community, are: (1) Researchers having simplistic views (or wrong assumptions) about SE in practice; (2) Lack of connection with industry; and (3) Wrong identification of research problems. The top three suggestions for improving research relevance are: (1) Using appropriate research approaches such as action-research; (2) Choosing relevant (practical) research problems; and (3) Collaborating with industry. By synthesizing all the discussions on this important topic so far, this paper aims to encourage further discussions and actions in the community to increase our collective efforts to improve the research relevance. Furthermore, we raise the need for empirically-grounded and rigorous studies on the relevance problem in SE research, as carried out in other fields such as management science.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Existing Review Studies On the Issue Of Research Relevance Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical relevance of software engineering research: synthesizing the community’s voice

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Working in an applied versus academic setting is also likely to influence perceptions of journals-specifically with regard to their usefulness (Ones et al, 2017;Ryan & Ford, 2010). The perceived gap between research and practice in I-O has been well documented (e.g., Anderson et al, 2001;Rynes-Weller, 2012;Tkachenko et al, 2017), and there appears to be two main reasons that many I-O psychologists in practice may not find I-O journals useful:…”

Section: Indices Of Journal Prestigementioning

confidence: 99%

Prestige and relevance of the scholarly journals: Impressions of SIOP members

Highhouse

Zickar

Melick

2020

Ind. Organ. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prestigious journals are widely admired for publishing quality scholarship, yet the primary indicators of journal prestige (i.e., impact factors) do not directly assess audience admiration. Moreover, the publication landscape has changed substantially in the last 20 years, with electronic publishing changing the way we consume scientific research. Given that it has been 18 years since the publication of the last journal prestige survey of SIOP members, the authors conducted a new survey and used these results to reflect on changing practices within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. SIOP members (n = 557) rated the prestige and relevance of I-O and management journals. Responses were analyzed according to job setting, and were compared to a survey conducted by Zickar and Highhouse (2001) in 2000. There was considerable consistency in prestige ratings across settings (i.e., management department vs. psychology department; academic vs. applied), especially among the top journals. There was considerable variance, however, in the perceived usefulness of different journals. Results also suggested considerable consistency across the two time periods, but with some increases in prestige among OB-oriented journals. Changes in the journal landscape are discussed, including the rise of OHP as a topic of concentration in I-O. We suggest that I-O programs will continue to attract the top researchers in talent management and OHP, which should result in the use of a broader set of journals for judging I-O program impact.

show abstract

“…However, one-factor ANOVA results showed that there were no significant differences in any of the variables between the executives and middle managers in the experimental group on the PRE, POST, and FUP assessments. Moreover, previous studies highlighted the need to reinforce the link between research and professional practice, while considering the company or organization's characteristics, preferences, and requirements, in order to implement interventions (Tkachenko et al, 2017;Ortega-Maldonado, 2018).…”

Section: Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coaching-Based Leadership Intervention Program: A Controlled Trial Study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In spite of the potential benefits that coaching-based leadership interventions can bring to organizations, basic questions remain about their impact on developing coaching skills and increasing psychological capital (PsyCap), work engagement and in-and extra-role performance. In a controlled trial study, 41 executives and middle managers (25 in the experimental group and 16 in the waiting-list control group) from an automotive sector company in Spain received pre-assessment feedback, a coaching-based leadership group workshop, and three individual executive coaching sessions over a period of 3 months. The intervention program used a strengths-based approach and the RE-GROW model, and it was conducted by executive coaching psychologists external to the organization. Participants (N = 41) and their supervisors (N = 41) and employees (N = 180) took part in a pre-post-follow up 360-degree assessment during the research period. Quantitative data were analyzed using Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) with a 2 × 2 design, paired-samples t-tests, and univariate analyses between groups. Results indicated that the intervention program was successful in increasing the participants' coaching-based leadership skills, PsyCap, work engagement, and in-and extrarole performance. Qualitative measures were also applied, and results from individual responses provided additional support for the study hypotheses. Regarding practical implications, the results suggest that the Coaching-based Leadership Intervention Program can be valuable as an applied positive intervention to help leaders develop coaching skills and enhance well-being and optimal functioning in organizations.

show abstract

Research–Practice Gap in Applied Fields: An Integrative Literature Review

Cited by 36 publications

References 111 publications

Practical relevance of software engineering research: synthesizing the community’s voice

Practical relevance of software engineering research: synthesizing the community’s voice

Prestige and relevance of the scholarly journals: Impressions of SIOP members

Coaching-Based Leadership Intervention Program: A Controlled Trial Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About