The area to explore was how much the academics and practitioners actually relied upon each other for ideas. I believed that the academics were the people who invented the theory and the gurus and practitioners simplified the theory and introduced it into the workplace. However, as the discussion groups went on it was quite apparent this wasn't entirely the case.
There is two major reasons why there is interplay between academics and practitioners. Firstly economic and political factors have changed substantially, this has in turn made the two different groups more receptive to alleying with each other, in order to learn from one another. The second reason is :
"Although many claims continue to be made about the nature of the academic practitioner interface, the vast majority are based on personal predilections and anecdotal evidence rather than solid empirical data."
(Across the Great Divide : Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics: volume 44: Issue 2 : Start page 340 : Academy of management Journal : Briarcliff Manor Apr 2001)
Due to these two changes it has allowed academics and practitioners to collaborate with each other, allowing them to develop from each others ideas. Due to the intense market situation at the moment practitioners must be willing to introduce any ideas that could allow an organisation to be competitive in a fast moving market.
“On the practitioner side, intensified competition in worldwide markets has increased organisational performance pressures and made practitioners more receptive to any ideas, academic or otherwise that make them and their organisation more effective.”
(Across the Great Divide : Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics: volume 44: Issue 2 : Start page 340 : Academy of management Journal : Briarcliff Manor Apr 2001)
As practitioners now need to try and predict what is going to happen in the business market, it is required for these people to take an interest in academic areas. This is being done by gaining working relationships with universities.
"Taken together, these developments have resulted in practitioners becoming more heavily involved in academia and academic research. This involvement has taken the form of increased donations to higher education."
(Across the Great Divide : Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics: volume 44: Issue 2 : Start page 340 : Academy of management Journal : Briarcliff Manor Apr 2001)
Warwick university is an ideal situation in the UK, as this university if required could probably still support itself even if the government reduced or completely took away its funding, purely on business relationships it has built. In the USA development of these relationships have happened on an increased scale, in 1990 approximately $4.12 billion was spent on co-operative research by universities for large organisations. It is quite apparent that this is the way forward for academics and practitioners to interplay with each other as well as business. Using the universities it also allows organisations to interact with students and managers of the future.
It has been argued that since as far back as 1984 by Kaplan that there is not much need for the use of academics in business.
"Academics should spend more time identifying techniques which practitioners found valuable instead of developing irrelevant theory."
(Development in user-friendly accounting research: volume 71 : Issue 7: Start page 40: management accounting: London July/August 1993.)
However, I tend to disagree with this, academics do not appear to be as useful in the everyday working environment as practitioners or gurus, however academics do offer significant insight to the benefits and drawbacks of strategies which practitioners and gurus tend to overlook or do not understand. This is largely due to the difference of language used by the different groups. This tends to hinder the interplay between academics and practitioners, which is obviously a drawback, practitioners will simplify the language and content which academics write, as it will be more susceptible to the average executive or manager of an organisation. The language that gurus use tend to be somewhere in between that of academics and practitioners. They have the ability to understand what academic say, as well as the knowledge to know that it needs to be simplified for their workshops. The reason why the two groups have difference in their language is largely down to what journals each group reads. Academics tend to be interested in long range planning, models and theories. While practitioners tend to read management journals, which offers insight into academic models and theories, but also allows a practitioner to keep up to date about what is happening in the business world. I believe this is another difference between the two groups. Academics do not have to remain informed about what is going on in everyday business life. Whereas a practitioner who is technically in the front line, actually going into organisations and trying to resolve situations within that organisation.
It is also clear that problems the two groups encounter are normally down to differences between academics and practitioners. Problems that practitioners experience are normally failures by academics to:
Provide practical research
Gain practical experience needed to solve practical problems.
React quickly to practitioner feedback on practical problems.
(source A need to bring educators and practitioners together. volume 49, issue 3)
Looking at the third point it is clear that academics and practitioners do communicate and interact with each other. It is also argued by academics that problems they encounter are caused by the lack of interplay with practitioners :
Resistance to innovative ideas
Non recognition of the variables affecting academic promotion and tenure decisions.
Non recognition of insufficient academic resources.
(source A need to bring educators and practitioners together. volume 49, issue 3)
These six points identify the needs that both groups must overcome, in order for complete interaction and co-operation with each other can be achieved. Once this is achieved there would be no reason why the interplay between academics and practitioners could not increase. This in turn would have a positive effect on organisations and business markets.
Looking into economic, political and environmental factors with more detail, it underlines the significant effect these factors have upon practitioners and academics. Economic factors have had the most significant effect, which is offering a better chance of collaboration between practitioners and academics. Due to intensified competition within worldwide markets, there has been an increase in the pressure put on practitioners by organisations to succeed. This has in turn made practitioners more receptive to look at and investigate new ideas, including academic ideas. Many companies have also downsized their research staff, thus creating a void that is being filled by academics and practitioners. This is showing that due to the intense competitiveness of markets and the price of success, academics and practitioners are being forced to use each others ideas and in some cases working together on a project for an organisation. This has in turn led to practitioners taking more interest and using academic theory and ideas more frequently.
Due to the current political turmoil in the world with terrorists and the war in Iraq, organisations are suffering even further in current economic confusion. This is forcing more pressures on gurus and practitioners as companies now need to implement financially successful strategies quickly and effectively. This has led to practitioners overtaking academics as these people can no longer wait for these theories to be tried and tested. It is forcing practitioners to predict what will happen in the global context, meaning creating their own strategies and theories to implement within organisations. Academics are now looking at these theories and elaborating upon them to come up with their new ideas. This shows that practitioners have now assumed the role of academics leading the way with strategic management and theories.
"the data indicate that in some cases, practitioners are actually running ahead of research knowledge of organisational scholars. Practitioners have had to implement strategies as diverse as sustainable development globalisation etc."
(http://users.wbs.ac.uk/ephemera/issue12/david.htm)
In conclusion I do believe that there is some interplay between practitioners and academics, however, there could be more. Obviously due to the intense competition within the workplace both are now being forced to research each others ideas, as economic, political and environmental factors are pushing them closer together. However, these three factors are also, at the same time pulling them further apart as well. It is basically a push pull theory. Gurus appear to be somewhere in between the two groups, gurus seem to use academic theory and strategies, but they use practitioners language and innovation to get their ideas across to managers and executives. I don’t believe there will ever be complete interplay between the two groups as they have to many differences. However, I can see them getting closer and sharing more ideas as the market gets more competitive.
Bibliography and References
http://users.wbs.ac.uk/ephemera/issue12/david.htm
A need to bring educators and practitioners together. volume 49, issue 3
Development in user-friendly accounting research: volume 71 : Issue 7: Start page 40: management accounting: London July/August 1993.
Across the Great Divide : Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics: volume 44: Issue 2 : Start page 340 : Academy of management Journal : Briarcliff Manor Apr 2001
Longman dictionary of the English language: 1991: Clays St Ives
Tennyson on management: Volume 64: Issue 5 : Start page 70: Ivey Business Journal : London, May/June 2000.
One Process, two audiences, On the challenges of management research : Volume 20 : Issue 4 : European Management Journal : London : Aug 2002.