Running head: BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Scholar Practitioner Abstract
~Sample Paper~
Please refer to the Research and
Theory Full manuscript sample
paper, as the guidelines remain the
same for this type of manuscript.
Bridging Research and Practice: An Interim Report on 5 Pilot Projects
Saul Carliner
Concordia University
Copyright © 2011 Saul Carliner
1
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
2
Bridging Research and Practice: An Interim Report on 5 Pilot Projects
Problem Statement: Why do practicing professionals in our field continue to resist e-learning,
claiming it is less effective than classroom-based learning? It’s not for a lack of empirical evidence;
several meta-analyses have concluded that e-learning is at least as effective as classroom instruction
and, at times, more effective (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones 2010, Sitzmann, Kraiger,
Stewart & Wisher 2006, Bernard, Abrami, Lou, Borokhovski, Wade, Wozney, Wallet, Fiset, & Huang
2004). One plausible explanation suggests that practicing professionals rely “heavily on their
experiences” (Rowland 1992, p.78).
But an equally plausible explanation is that practicing professionals lack familiarity with
research in their areas of work. For example, Rynes, Colbert, and Brown (2002) found that Human
Resources (HR) professionals’ beliefs about 12 of 35 practices varied from the research findings.
They also found that certain groups of professionals were more likely to be familiar with the research,
including those in higher levels of an organization, those who held professional certification and (not
surprisingly) those who regularly read the research literature.
This lack of familiarity with research has real-world implications for these practicing
professionals and their employers. Ulrich, Brockbank, Yeung, and Lake (1995) found that a lack of
HR knowledge deters the career advancement of HR practitioners. Terpstra and Rozell (1997) found
companies whose HR professionals read the academic literature had higher financial performance than
those who do not.
Practicing professionals’ lack of familiarity with research also has serious real-world
implications for academic researchers. Many of us are supported by publicly funded research councils.
When our work goes unused or is perceived as irrelevant the public withdraws its funding. In
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
3
response to recent budget crises in Canada and the UK, federal governments significantly cut funding
to research in areas related to HRD.
Many researchers have studied this gap between research and practice, and suggest solutions
for bridging it. Deadrick and Gibson’s (2007) are typical: better communication between researchers
and professionals, turning knowledge into action, and articulate and promote a common body of
knowledge. Like most suggestions, Deadrick and Gibson are short on specifics on how to implement
their suggestions and overlook the basic problem that no direct path exists between research and
practice (Havelock 1969). Indeed, and Gibson’s suggestions overlook many road blocks that exist on
the what could be the pathway from research and practice, most of which are rooted in one or more
assumptions, many of which are either false or incompletely thought through.
The first of those false assumptions pertains to the ability of practicing professionals and those
who serve them to make sense of assertions and the evidence supporting them. This is serious because
people make decisions based on what they believe to be credible data, which may or may not meet a
research standard. Consider the reporter for the practitioner-focused HR Magazine who wrote about
the growing importance and credibility of graphology (handwriting analysis) as a technique for
selecting employees. Unfortunately, the empirical evidence refuted these assertions (Rynes, Colbert,
& Brown 2002). The research community further complicates the matter by failing to agree on what
makes evidence credible. Some advocate for only the “gold standard” (Slavin 2008), reports of
randomized experimental studies conducted at several locations and, if possible, replicated several
times. Others take a more pluralistic view. Cochran-Smith (2006) advocates for transferring evidence
from many types of studies, including qualitative ones. King (1995) and McIntyre (2005) favour
evidence from both academic and other sources, such as research from governments and nonprofit
organizations like the American Society for Training and Development (which conducts, among
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
4
others, an annual industry survey) and the Conference Board, which tracks spending on workplace
learning.
The next assumption that academic research is relevant to practicing professionals.
Although experts recommend engagement with practice (Van de Ven 2007), the evidence
suggests dis-engagement. For example, Deadrick and Gibson (2007) found that the topics
covered by the peer-reviewed publications in human resource management (whose primary
audiences are researchers) significantly differed from those published by professional magazines
(whose primary audiences are practicing professionals).
Even if the research is relevant to practice, the report of that research must relevant to
practicing professionals. That the traditional research report meets that need is the third
assumption. The concepts of user-centered design (Norman & Draper 1988) suggest that
effective reports are tailored for the context of practice. But reward systems in academic
institutions favor reports that are irrelevant to practice. They favour, instead, reporting research
in the traditional 5-part report for publication in peer-reviewed journals. These journals favour
language “so technically complex that they are nearly inaccessible to individuals without a
doctorate degree” (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, p.149) and in formats that are similarly
inaccessible to professionals. That’s because the traditional 5-part research report is written by
researchers for other researchers so that the other researchers can replicate their findings;
practitioners are not a primary audience. No wonder that, a preliminary study of readership of
research journals by practicing professionals by Carliner, Legassie, Belding, Ribiero, Johnston,
MacDonald, and Hehn, (2009) found that overwhelming majority of trainers did not read even
professional magazines, much less research journals. No wonder, too, that Rynes, Colbert and
Brown call for alternative means of dissemination (2002, p.165)
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
5
The fourth assumption is unique to HRD; that researchers can oversee transfer to practice.
In healthcare and primary and secondary education, where the application of evidence-based
practice is most developed, research has assisted with efforts to transfer research to practice
(such as Fixsen, Naoom, Blases, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). But those environments are
regulated ones in which professionals must be licensed and work practices are often closely
governed by oversight agencies, such as health and education ministries. Transfer can be closely
monitored and assessed for fidelity with the actual research-based recommendation. In contrast,
HRD professionals work relatively independently. Changes in work practice cannot be dictated
by statute; practitioners must be persuaded to apply evidence in practice and determine for
themselves the fidelity of their applications.
Because the tenure and promotion system in universities generally does not reward
researchers for their efforts to transfer research to practicing professionals, many try to shift the
responsibility to the practicing professionals, as did Deadrick and Gibson (2007) in response to
their findings of a gap between practicing professionals and researchers. “HR Professionals
should develop knowledge building and sharing activities with the HR Academic community as
a means of developing those same activities within their organizations” (p.137). But the
empirical evidence already reported, suggests that researchers need to take more active measures
if they are to successfully transfer research to practice, because few practicing professionals are
reading peer-reviewed journals, even on a rare basis. Some are responding. For example, Ruth
Clark has worked with various researchers to publish several best-selling books that present
research-validated heuristics that practicing processionals can immediately apply in their work.
Her E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (Clark & Mayer 2007) popularizes much of the
multimedia research conducted by co-author Richard Mayer.
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
6
Theoretical Framework: This project addresses one of the assumptions just described; that
practitioners read research reports. Instead, building on the concept of user-centered design, this
project attempts to design and test alternative formats for reporting research that raise awareness
of research and make it available to practicing professionals in formats that are useful within
their contexts. It specifically applies a design-based approach (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver
2005, Based Research Collective 2003), in which the researcher designs and assesses various
formats for presenting research to practicing professionals that are appropriate to real-world
contexts. All of these formats are being developed and tested with the partnership of a
professional organization, which is responsible for promoting the materials and providing
evaluations.
Research Questions: Specifically, this project explore the question, “How can research be
communicated to practicing professionals in useful and timely ways?” Answering this question
can help researchers strengthen the designs of the interventions and, ideally, expand the use of
evidence-based practice in the field. In the project, various efforts are being designed,
implemented, and evaluated. Each project is an isolated one, developed in conjunction with a
sponsor. This paper provides an opportunity to look at them cohesively.
Formats to Be Assessed: This in-process project explores the effectiveness of the following
interventions aimed at transferring research to practice. Some of these interventions are face-toface or webcast events, whose potential reach is limited but in-depth. Other interventions are
publications (online and in print), whose potential reach is wider, but less in-depth
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

7
Research-to-Practice conferences included on the programs of national and international
conferences for HRD practitioners. These events—all of which are at least 1 day long—have
taken a few forms. Some have been peer-reviewed, others have been invitational. Some
have primarily involved the presentation of research; others have included activities to
promote transfer of the findings presented. Evidence suggests that invitational research
events generate stronger attendance and evaluations from participants.

Research-to-Practice events, which are similar to the Research-to-Practice conferences, but
intended to draw local audiences while taking advantage of the opportunity to meet with
visiting researchers. Evidence suggests that these events generate positive evaluations from
participants, although they are not as satisfying for some researchers.

Articles for professional publications, which present research findings for practicing
professionals, using a style and language appropriate to their needs. As of now, reaction to
these articles has not been evaluated but another one is scheduled for 2011 and reaction will
be assessed.

Press conference with editors of trade publications (intended to address reporting in trade
press that contradicts the research, an issue raised by Rynes, Colbert and Brown (2002)).
Many of the editors of trade publications have their primary professional expertise in
journalism and communications and may not have a strong familiarity with the research in
the field. This press conference—an activity that is currently under design—is intended to
familiarize editors with potential sources and raise their awareness of situations in which the
empirical evidence is at odds with the prevailing advice for practice. The pilot press
conference is scheduled for August 2011.
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

8
A website with research-based heuristics about various aspect of HRD that practitioners can
consult when making decisions about their work. The website also “rates” the quality of the
research evidence supporting the heuristic. This in-process project in Canada is adapted from
a concept used by the US Department of Health and Human Services for its website of
heuristics for effective web development. Usage statistics for the US HHS site suggests this
can be an effective dissemination tool.
Contributions to Human Resource Development
Among the items named in the mission of the Academy are “to foster research-practice
linkages” and “to disseminate knowledge of human resource development theories, processes,
and techniques.” So, at the least, this project is aimed at achieving the mission of the Academy.
More fundamentally, however, this project is aimed at demonstrating that alternatives to
the traditional research conference and peer-reviewed publication can be effective at transferring
research to practice, because these methods raise awareness of the research and provide it to
practicing professionals at the time of need in a context that is useful to them. That, in turn,
should facilitate wider dissemination of the results and greater application of them.
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
9
References
Bernard, R. M., P. C. Abrami, Y. Lou, E. Borokhovski, A. Wade, L. Wozney, P.A. Wallet, M.
Fiset, and B. Huang. (2004.) How does distance education compare with classroom
instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research,
74(3), 379–439.
Borman, G. D. (2002). Experiments for educational evaluation and improvement. Peabody
Journal of Education, 77(4), 7–27.
Carliner, S., Legassie, R., Belding, S., Ribiero, O, Johnston, L, MacDonald, J. & Hehn, H.
(2009.) How research moves into practice: A preliminary study of what training
professionals read, hear, and perceive. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology.
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2007.) E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2nd ed.) San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Taking stock in 2006: Evidence, evidence everywhere. Journal of
Teacher Education, 57(1), 6-12.
Deadrick, D. L, & Gibson, P. A. (2007.) An examination of the research–practice gap in HR:
Comparing topics of interest to HR academics and HR professionals. Human Resource
Management Review, 17(2), 131-139.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003.) Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for
educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32 1), 5–8.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blases, K.A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005.)
Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: National
Implementation Research Network.
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
10
Havelock, R. G. (1969). Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of
knowledge. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific
Knowledge.
Johnson, R. R. (1998.) User-Centered Technology: A Rhetorical Theory for Computers and
Other Mundane Artifacts. New York, NY: SUNY Press.
Louis, K.S. (1996). Reconnecting knowledge utilisation and school improvement: two steps
forward, one step back. In Hargreaves, A., Fullan, M., Hopkins, D. (Eds), International
Handbook on School Improvement, Cassell, London.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010.) Evaluation of EvidenceBased Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning
Studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible
approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 16(2), 96-115.
Rowland, G. (1992.) What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of
expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86.
Rynes, S.L, Colbert, A. E. & Brown, K.G. (2002.) HR professionals' beliefs about effective
human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice, Human
Resource Management, 41 (2), 149–174.
Sitzmann, T., K. Kraiger, D. Stewart, and R. Wisher. (2006.) The comparative effectiveness of
Web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623–
664.
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
11
Slavin, R. E. (2008.) What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations.
Educational Researcher, 37(1)m 5–14
Terpstra, D.E., & Rozell, E.J. (1997). Sources of human resource information and the link to
organizational profitability. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(1), 66–83.
Torrence, V. (2002). Principals’ use of data: A national perspective. Unpublished PhD
dissertation. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Yeung, A.K., & Lake, D.G. (1995). Human resource competencies:
Am empirical assessment. Human Resource Management, 34(4), 473–495.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007.) Engaged Scholarship:A Guide for Organizational and Social
Research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA.