What Can We Learn about the Research-to-Practice Gap from Practitioners?

Abstract: Reflecting on the first author’s three-decade-long career as a human resources (HR) leader in the manufacturing sector, she found herself astounded by the gaps in her theoretical and research knowledge as she embarked on her journey as a doctoral student in a higher education institution. As a home-grown HR practitioner, she was nurtured through one-on-one mentorship and internal promotions. The missed chances to use human resource development (HRD) research during her working career have motivated us to delve into the existing body of the literature as to the disconnect between research and practical applications. Our goal is to provide some insights that could potentially help bridge this gap between research and practice in HRD.
Research on the research-to-practice gap underscores the divide between research findings and their applications in real-world contexts (Lawler & Benson, 2022). The disconnect between research and practice is evident in the HRD field, though its common goal is to improve organizational performance through learning and development at the individual, team, and organizational levels (Cho & Zachmeier, 2015). Short (2006) introduced the terms aptly capturing the research-to-practice gap, such as the implementation gap or the research-practice divide. Kroese (2023) argued that the research-to-practice gap arises from misconceptions in defining a practitioners’ role in HRD. Echoing this sentiment, Byrd (2023) pointed out that while the terms HRD practitioners and HRD professionals are commonly used in discussions, those might not reflect actual designations in organizational payrolls. The ambiguity in terminology is further exacerbated by the ongoing discourse comparing human resource management (HRM) with HRD (Alagaraja, 2013; Werner, 2014). Although the two fields converge on the objective of improving organizational performance in the organization, they often operate from differing theoretical standpoints (e.g., managing vs developing the workforce) (Alagaraja, 2013). However, the primary goal for both HRD and HRM remains consistent: the two fields are anchored in advancing organizational performance under the broader umbrella of roles of HR (Werner, 2014). Therefore, we use the term HR practitioners in this study to refer to individuals in their role of organizational performance professionals in the areas of learning and development.
The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the HR practitioners’ experiences in the research-to-practice gap through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Our review of the literature on the topic indicated potential strategies to bridge this gap including: ensuring research relevancy (de Frutos-Belizon et al, 2021), mitigating language barriers (Fisher et al. 2021), and enhancing practitioners' access to research (Vosburgh, 2022). Based on the literature review, we examine if those strategies truly reflect HR practitioners’ needs and will present actionable plans and insights for the future. To that end, we employ a basic qualitative research design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to capture HR practitioners’ lived experiences in their own words.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 HR practitioners (see Appendix A) who were actively engaged in HR practitioner roles and who we selected through the East Texas Human Resource Association (https://goethra.org/). Six interview participants entered the HR field through internal promotions or career advancements. Notably, three participants held HRD-related college degrees, three possessed master's degrees in business administration, and four did not hold a college degree. Participants’ accumulated HR work experience ranged from seven to over 25 years, with an average of 16 years.
From the preliminary analysis of the interview data, three major themes emerged:
• HR practitioner challenges: HR practitioners face a myriad of evolving challenges (e.g., recruitment and retention) in the workplace.
• Resources used for workplace solutions: HR practitioners lean towards resources available at professional organizations for practitioners (e.g., Society of Human Resource Management and Association for Talent Development), bypassing academic research to navigate and solve workplace challenges.
• HR practitioners’ perceptions about research: HR practitioners view research as lacking practicality and were occasionally skeptical as to researchers’ approaches and findings.
This study will shine a light on narrowing the gap between research and practice in HRD. Based on the preliminary findings, we will present implications for HRD research and practice. As HRD grapples with the changing dynamics in the post-COVID era (e.g., hybrid office work), insights from this study will inform HRD education, training programs, and organizational strategies and empower HR practitioners to tackle workplace challenges and complexities with evidence. By cultivating mutual respect, comprehension, and collaboration between academia and practitioners, the HRD field can stand firm to integrate research insights more organically into its applications, hopefully fostering innovation and impactful change in organizations.