bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners
TRANSCRIPT
Bridging the gap in knowledgetransfer between academia
and practitionersRajat Gera
Institute of Management Technology Marketing, Rajnagar, India
Abstract
Purpose – The paper intends to identify the causes or gaps in transfer of managerial knowledgebetween academia and practitioners and to develop a framework that overcomes the gaps throughknowledge management, information technology and human resource practices. The paper aims tosuggest a strategic approach based on the knowledge transfer cycle.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents the development of a conceptual modelbased on existing research findings and conceptual models in the literature combined with theexperience of academicians.
Findings – There has been very little transfer of research knowledge due to the inherent barriers inits creation, diffusion, adoption and utilization by practitioners. By enhancing the industry orientationof academicians and adopting systematic processes of review and dissemination, early adopters(practitioners) can experiment and learn to apply theoretical knowledge, which, when supported byinstitutional mechanisms, of human resource management, information technology and knowledgemanagement (KM), can minimize or eliminate knowledge transfer gaps, leading to improvedcompetitiveness and performance of the firm.
Research limitations/implications – The framework has been developed from concepts of KMand transfer and learning and needs to be validated empirically.
Practical implications – The framework developed can guide researchers in their approach towardknowledge creation so that their output is adopted by industry and thus has value. Practitionerindustries can develop practices based on the framework to enhance their ability to leverage academicknowledge for competitive advantage.
Social implications – The paper would enable the framing of policies by higher educationinstitutions and industry to facilitate more effective and efficient transfer of knowledge betweenresearchers and practitioners, leading to enhanced organizational competitive advantage, which wouldbenefit society.
Originality/value – The paper provides a framework based on the knowledge transfer cycle modelfor enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of research knowledge adoption and utilization.
Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge organizations, Higher education institutions,Knowledge transfer barriers, Knowledge transfer cycle, Information and communication technologies,Human resource management
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. IntroductionHigher education institutions (HEIs) are responsible for managerial knowledgecreation and dissemination in society. However, research-based knowledge has, notbeen very successful in guiding management policy and practice (Department of Tradeand Industry, 2001). HEIs produce professionals for industry with requisite knowledgeand skills. These professionals are supposed to create, transform, translate and apply
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm
IJEM26,3
252
Received 8 March 2011Revised 8 August 2011Accepted 10 August 2011
International Journal of EducationalManagementVol. 26 No. 3, 2012pp. 252-273q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0951-354XDOI 10.1108/09513541211213336
new and existing knowledge to the production of knowledge workers with the requisitecapabilities to enhance organizational performance. However, the managerialknowledge produced in academia has been criticized as being too ambiguous,abstract and incoherent to industry practitioners for decision making (Aram andSalipante, 2000; Berry, 1995; Hodgkinson et al., 2001; Pettigrew, 1997; Pfeffer andSutton, 1999; Starkey and Madan, 2001; Tranfield and Starkey, 1998; Van Aken, 2001;Van de Ven, 1998; Whitley, 1984a, b; Wind and Nueno, 1998). Researchers haveattributed the same to academic writing conventions, abstract research orientation andthe different world views and incentives which guide academicians. Kelemen andBansal (2002) proposed that academic writing conventions are difficult forpractitioners to follow and make sense of. Van Aken (2001) held that managementresearch is too focused on theoretical relationships which is descriptive knowledge andthus unable to provide practical solutions or prescriptions for practitioners. Nutley et al.(2002, p. 6) suggested that “[. . .] researchers and practitioners exist in different worlds:they operate on different time-scales, use different languages, have different needs andrespond to different incentive systems”. Thus the varied perspectives and needs ofacademicians and practitioners have been held to be the primary cause of ineffectiveknowledge transfer (KT) by researchers. Other reasons cited concern the approach tomanagerial decisions, which are usually undertaken with very little empirical supportand likely to be based on intuition, experience and managerial judgment and thuslimits the applicability of academic knowledge which is primarily descriptive in nature.Another reason given is the different timescales in which managers and academiciansoperate, i.e. managers are focused on short-term decisions while researchers andacademicians tend to take a long-term view which enables construction of conceptualmodels amenable to empirical testing and validation so that they may becomegeneralizeable to various managerial contexts.
However, corporations and social and government organizations need to create andaccess new knowledge in order to survive and grow in an unpredictable world. Leadersand managers in industry require tacit knowledge (Goldberg, 2005), that is, knowledgethat cannot be fully shared through communication and is not part of one’s ordinaryconsciousness (Polanyi, 1958) for organizational competitiveness. Most of theknowledge created and disseminated by academia, consultancies, companies andpublic agencies is of the explicit or codified form i.e. produced, documented anddisseminated in the form of research papers, research dissertations, text books andopinion-based articles i.e. which needs translation and absorption and thus is of limitedpractical utility to trainee managers (students) and practitioner. Thus there is astructural gap in the way knowledge is created in academia and utilized in industrythat needs to be bridged.
Within the HEIs, the commonly employed pedagogical techniques of lecturing, casemethod and simulation in delivery and transmission of academic knowledge are oflittle practical use unless the learning produced is absorbed and utilized by recipients.Tacit knowledge that exists within individual academicians is communicated asinformation or explicit knowledge when transmitted to students or practitioners. Inorder for it to become useable, it has to be incorporated by the recipients into theirexisting knowledge structures. Thus KT would only happen when the recipients usethe new knowledge to generate new ideas and concepts that would require theapplication of both procedural and contextual knowledge skills. Thus without
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
253
adequate opportunity to internalize and contextualize the knowledge gained in HEIs,trainee managers and students would find little use of the information transmittedthrough various pedagogical mechanisms which would thus results in failure of HEIsin creating skilled managers and knowledge workers capable of taking managerialdecisions based on acquired knowledge.
Tranfield et al. (2004) in their paper suggested a “co-production model of knowledgecreation and transfer” based on the KT cycle and recommended specific practices fordissemination of research knowledge known as “evidence based policy and practice”.The paper, however, did not suggest any remedies to the barrier of de-codification andapplication of research knowledge by practitioners which are essential for successfultransfer of knowledge. Non linear models of knowledge sharing between HEIs andindustry practitioners known as “open innovation” or “collaborative innovation”(Chesbrough, 2003; NESTA, 2006; Bessant et al., 2007) have also been propagated andadopted as policy measures especially in UK (Johnston et al., 2010). Herein HEIs areperceived as “knowledge-hubs” (Youtie and Shapira, 2008) or “knowledge clusters”(Evers, 2008, p. 4) with an entrepreneurial mindset with high internal and externalnetworking and knowledge sharing capabilities so that they drive innovations andcreate new industries (Evers, 2008). However, as pointed out by Johnston et al. (2010),knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) promotes uncertainty and confusion amongstdifferent stakeholders due to difficulty of language and perceptions. Mitton et al. (2007,pp. 730-1) identified eight inhibitors affecting exchanges of researchers involved withKTE activities which were: misfit of timing between research cycle and real-worldrequirements; lack of relationships between researchers and decision makers; poorjustification with traditional academic performance expectations; a perceived lack ofknowledge of the research process; the academic language of communication ofresearch findings; relevance of research to practice-based issues; lack of timely results;lack of time and resources to participate in KTE. They highlighted the importance ofsocial processes in overcoming these barriers and emphasized the importance ofinterpersonal contact between researchers and decision makers. However communitiesof practice (CoP) have a difficulty is in identifying, and then capturing the exactknowledge to be exchanged (Mitton et al., 2007). There is therefore a need for creatingthe appropriate infrastructure to facilitate the effective capture and exchange of tacitknowledge (Bessant et al., 2007). This paper attempts to address this gap.
Thus, the existing frameworks and procedures available in literature are partiallysuccessful in transcending the gap in KT between HEIs and industry. The purpose ofthis paper is to identify and understand the sources of barriers to academic knowledgecreation and transfer based on review of literature of existing conceptual models ofknowledge types and KT. The KT cycle framework is then adopted to identify barriersto transfer of knowledge and to develop a framework for creation, transfer, utilizationand adoption of relevant knowledge produced by academia (HEIs) for practitioners(industry). Recommendations of strategic and tactical nature for both academiciansand practitioners are then derived from existing literature of individual andorganizational knowledge creation and transfer for more effective and efficient transferof management knowledge. The paper intrudes the concepts of knowledge,organizational competitiveness, knowledge creation, KT and knowledgemanagement (KM) to conceptualize the problem and develop the framework so thatappropriate and actionable suggestions can be derived. There have been previous
IJEM26,3
254
studies and conceptual papers which have identified the barriers to knowledge creationand transfer between academia and practitioners and made recommendations for thesame (Tranfield et al., 2004; Johnston et al., 2010). These papers have partiallyaddressed the barriers in KT as they do not make recommendations related toknowledge assimilation and application by practitioners. Thus, by leveraging theexisting conceptual models of KT cycle and knowledge types (Nonaka and Takeuchi,1991, 1995) and meta analysis of existing literature, strategic and tacticalrecommendations are derived to enhance the effectiveness of knowledge creation,transfer, utilization and adoption of knowledge produced in HEIs for enhancedindustrial competitiveness.
2. Knowledge and organizational competitiveness:Knowledge enables an organization to make better decisions and compete effectively(DeFillippi et al., 2006). Knowledge creates competitive advantage and is instrumentalin enhancing organizational performance. Hamel and Prahalad (1990) found embeddedknowledge and core competencies to be key factors for competitive advantage. Chen(1996) discovered that organizations with inferior knowledge resources are unable tooutperform competitors. However, knowledge creates competitive advantage onlywhen it is used to make decisions, solve problems, and produce effective performance.Thus, successful application of knowledge requires not only the transfer of knowledgebut effective adoption and utilization of knowledge as well. Thus, it is the processesthrough which organizations develop, organize, and share knowledge – KM – that canlead to sustainable competitive advantage (Hatch and Dyer, 2004) for firms. Knowledgeby itself cannot create competitive advantage for an organization except in extremelyknowledge-intensive businesses such as consulting firms and law firms. Therefore,unless firms integrate the knowledge capability with other strategic capabilities(Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000), it will not help the firm.
In today’s fast changing business context, it’s imperative for organizations to sourceall possible sources of knowledge (whether generated internally or externally) andemploy the same strategically for creating and sustaining competitive advantage.While knowledge is created within organizations by a process of explication, scrutinyand transformation of “collective tacit knowledge” into a prototype process, product orservice (Von Krogh et al., 2001), HEI’s and other research institutions are an importantsource of “learning from the outside” (Von Krogh et al., 2001, p. 426).
However most organizations are unable to source and use knowledge from externalsources such as HEIs. Of the two forms of knowledge identified in literature, explicitknowledge is available and transferred in the form of formalized transfer mechanismssuch as publications, operating manuals, software, patents, informal discussions,collaborative research and the movement of people (Schartinger et al., 2002). However,transfer of tacit knowledge which forms the basis of firm-specific advantage (Grant,1996) involves a process of demonstration and learning by doing (Roberts, 2000;Arrow, 1974) and thus is more sticky and difficult to transfer.
Therefore, in order for organizations to be able to employ knowledge strategically,they must be able to create the context for relevant knowledge to be accessible,transferable and usable also known as setting the right context (Nonaka and Konno,1998) or shared space or common place (virtual, physical, mental). Thus context isconsidered essential for developing relationships through which both tacit and explicit
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
255
knowledge can be created, developed and shared. As per Scarbrough et al. (1999),organizations would have to examine social and cultural values, motivations andwillingness to share knowledge through individual and team behaviors also known asthe “Human environment” in order to facilitate trust and sharing (Davenport, 1995) forstrategically leveraging knowledge. Goh (2002) emphasized the need for training andeducational programs for skill and competence development of employees for effectiveKT. Thus, organizations need to provide the appropriate human and structural contextfor effective knowledge acquisition and utilization from external sources like HEIs.
2.1 KnowledgeAlthough there are various definitions and perspectives of knowledge, this paperadopts the functional perspective wherein knowledge is the capacity (potential oractual) to take effective action in varied and uncertain situations (Bennet and Bennet,2004). Knowledge is thus a product of the human mind i.e. its constructed reality basedon associative patterning in the brain. Knowledge is instrumental for learning and isdefined as the creation or acquisition of the ability for people to take action. It involvesidentifying and deriving meaning from information and the external environment andintegration with existing knowledge to understand, interpret and make sense of thepossible consequences of alternative decision options (Brauner and Becker, 2006).
Knowledge can be classified as knowledge (informing) and knowledge (proceeding)or “knowing that” and “knowing how” (Ryle, 1949). knowledge (informing), or KnI, isthe information part of knowledge which is implicit, explicit, tacit or any combinationof these and can be in the form of insights, meaning, understanding, expectations,theories and principles. Knowledge (proceeding), KnP, represents the process ofselecting and associating information (KnI) which can guide specific actions ordecisions. A part of KnP is implicit or tacit knowledge which involves the processemployed by individuals to find, create and semantically mix the information needed totake effective action. Kolb (1984) in his theory of experiential learning suggested thatknowledge retrieval, creation and application requires conceptualization of knowledgeas a process and not as a product. This paper adopts the perspective of knowledge as aprocess.
Knowledge can also be classified as tacit and explicit knowledge based on itscharacteristics. Tacit knowledge is “intuitive and unarticulated knowledge” (Polanyi,1962) within the human brain. It cannot be easily captured, codified or transferred(Wong and Radcliffe, 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1991; McAdam and McCreedy,1999). It is stored in memory of which individuals are unaware and is only accessiblewhen triggered (associated) through questions, dialogue, reflective thought, or becauseof an external event. Once this knowledge is accessed, the individual may or may notbe able to adequately describe and transfer it to another individual and thus the “whyand how” may remain as tacit knowledge. (Bennet and Bennet, 2008). Thus researchoutcomes of HEIs may only be information to practitioners unless they apply thoughtor reasoning to it and incorporate it within their existing knowledge networks (Beesleyand Cooper, 2008). On the contrary, explicit knowledge can be articulated and codifiedin formal language and is easily diffused amongst individuals (Koulopoulos andFrappaolo, 1999). It is available in the form of books (Pederson, 2003) and can berecorded in documents or computer systems (Public Sector Benchmarking Service,2003).
IJEM26,3
256
2.2 Knowledge creationCreation of knowledge is the process that emanates from tacit knowledge withinindividuals (in the unconscious) and results in an outward expression (that driveseffective action):
We start from the fact that we can know more than we can tell (Polanyi, 1967, p. 108).
Polanyi (1958) called this pre-logical phase of knowing tacit knowledge, that is,knowledge that cannot be articulated (Polanyi, 1958). Thus, any new knowledge withinacademia or the industry has its origin as tacit knowledge within individuals whichwhen articulated and codified in some form becomes information. This information isdiffused to other individuals which when associated with recipient’s existingknowledge structure has the potential of becoming useable knowledge which guidesaction. The same can be illustrated by the development that occurs when we learn todrive a car. Initially, each action is slow which when learned through practice (trial anderror) becomes automatic. Thus, initially knowledge is in the form of informationwhich with learning through practice, becomes natural which has its basis in implicitknowledge. Over a period of time most of the driving experience is then driven by tacitknowledge, i.e. the corners, signal lights, traffic patterns are imbibed and exist as tacitknowledge. However, driving which is based on tacit knowledge can instantly becomeexplicit when an unexpected event occurs. (Bennet and Bennet, 2008). Thus, tacit andexplicit knowledge exist as a continuum.
2.3 KTKT is the conveyance of knowledge from one place, person or ownership to another.This paper adopts the concept and process of KT in-general from Christensen (2003):
Knowledge transfer is about identifying (accessible) knowledge that already exists, acquiringit and subsequently applying this knowledge to develop new ideas or enhance the existingideas to make a process/action faster, better or safer than they would have otherwise been.
Thus KT involves acquisition, internalization and utilization acquire to take moreefficient and effective actions.
Knowledge can be accessed by reading written materials, listening to others, andthrough trial and error (experimentation). The two forms of knowledge i.e. explicit andtacit knowledge often act together (DeFillippi et al., 2006), or coexist, and individualscreate and use varying amounts of both explicit and tacit knowledge in theirdecision-making and behaviors (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). However, althoughexplicit knowledge is easily expressible and can be easily shared, tacit knowledgecannot be easily accessed, expressed and shared (Polanyi, 1967), and is the dominantshare of knowledge possessed by individuals (Badaracco, 1991).
Individuals create and acquire tacit knowledge by continuous use and application oflearned explicit knowledge such as during routine activities until it evolves intosub-conscious knowledge of which the individual becomes unaware (Cohen et al., 1996).Thus, for example, by regularly practicing swimming which is initially learnedthrough explicit codified manuals, the learner starts internalizing some of the stepswhich can be called as tacit knowledge. Another way in which tacit knowledge can begained is through immersion in an activity rather than through formal instruction(Schutz and Luckmann, 1973). Herein, though the individual is consciously focused on
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
257
some parts of the activity and its outcomes, the information and knowledge in otherparts of the activity and their outcomes which are not being given conscious attention,are still absorbed by the brain. Researchers in cognitive psychology have used artificialgrammar experiments to demonstrate that subjects unknowingly learn complexgrammar rules while attending to simple artificial word copying tasks (Reber, 1967,1969; Reber et al., 1991) i.e. without explicitly being conscious of the rules. Intuition isan example of tacit knowledge accessed and utilized in this way (Hodgkinson et al.,2009; Woiceshyn, 2009). KT between individuals within and across organizations isnormally facilitated through apprenticeships which are inefficient and costly (Huber,1991), expert networks and by codification. Expert networks do not involvecodification and knowledge is provided by an expert to a novice. An example is when aconsultant works with users to implement an ERP system that the users mustunderstand and utilize (Ko et al., 2005).
Tacit knowledge can also be transferred when it can, in part, be made explicit, andcodified. Many of the practices of KM, such as best practices, benchmarking, etc.,involve the explication and codification of tacit knowledge by observation of itsapplication and practice (King, 2008). Organizational learning is the sum of all learningprocesses within an organization and involves individual and social learning catalyzedby personal communication, team dialogues and group meetings and is exemplified byinnovation, collaboration, and culture shifts.
Based on the explicit-tacit dimension, KT can be categorized into following fourforms or steps, i.e. socialization, externalization, combination and internalization(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995):
(1) Explicit to tacit (internalization) e.g. team building exercises.
(2) Tacit to tacit (socialization) e.g. team meetings and discussion.
(3) Tacit to explicit (externalization) e.g. discourse within a team.
(4) Explicit to explicit (combination) e.g. e mail of a report.
Socialization is when tacit knowledge is transferred in tacit form throughpersonalization or socialization for example between an expert and a novice.Externalization is the transformation of some tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge,via theories, concepts, models, analogies, metaphors and so on. Combination involvesthe conversion of codified knowledge into new forms of codified knowledge bycombination with varied bodies of explicit knowledge. Explicit-explicit transfer isachieved through various channels of communication within the firm. Internalizationis a process of conversion of explicit knowledge into a tacit form and is a process oflearning by adequate replication of specific tasks.
KT however requires an additional type of knowledge (Seaton, 2002) i.e. “theknowledge about how to transfer knowledge”. It would imply “this is what myknowledge means”, instead of just “this is what I know”, which would be possible onlyif the received knowledge is also contextualized in a way that will be utilized by therecipient. This process is known as knowledge transformation. In an organizationalcontext, it implies, “an organization’s capability to develop and refine the routines thatfacilitate combining existing knowledge and the newly acquired and assimilatedknowledge” (Zahra and George, 2002). Transformation of knowledge may even involve
IJEM26,3
258
interpreting the same knowledge in a different manner known as “translation” or“interpretation”. As Cranefield and Yoong (2005) explain:
[. . .] as knowledge becomes more highly specialized, it develops its own terminologies, whichtypically resides with specialists [. . .] but (this), by definition, restricts the accessibility of theknowledge to the novice.
This is where “theory of translation” becomes vital. According to some researchers,translation is a highly applicable analogy for exploring the nature of KT (Holden andvon Kortzfleisch, 2004).
3. MethodologyThe study consolidates existing research and theoretical models into an integrativeframework of KT between HEIs and industry. The study identifies the barriers toknowledge creation, transfer, utilization and adoption between researchers in HEIs andpractitioners in industry through review, analysis and application of literature onbarriers to KT and KT categorization into a process model using the KT cycleframework. The identified barriers to KT between researchers and practitioners wereidentified from literature and further refined by discussion with fourteen researchers ina business management school of North India. A proposed analytical framework wasthen developed by integrating the KT mechanisms identified from the knowledgecategorization framework into a process of KT based on the KT cycle to developrecommendations for enhanced performance outcomes of knowledge creation byresearchers, KT between HEIs and industry and utilization and adoption of researchoutcomes by practitioners and industry for better industry competitiveness. The paperleverages the following conceptual frameworks and theories from literature
. KT categorization (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
. KT cycle (Tranfield et al., 2004).
. Human resource (HR) systems (Garvin, 2000).
. KM practices.
. Innovation adoption curve (Rogers, 1962).
The paper aggregates and consolidates the current body of research related to KTbetween HEIs and industry to reveal its limitations and provides directions for futureresearch. It does not contain empirical research but develops a framework for analysisand resolution of KT barriers between HEIs and industry. Lack of empirical testing ofthe conceptual model could be a major shortcoming of this paper, which requiresfurther empirical research to validate the recommendations made.
4. KT barriers between researchers and practitionersKT can be depicted as proceeding through the stages of knowledge creation, diffusion,adoption and utilization (Figure 1).
4.1 Knowledge creationA large proportion of managerial knowledge is created in HEIs. Most of it is largelyconsidered as irrelevant to practice i.e. it is perceived as ambiguous, cognitive, abstractand intangible (Aram and Salipante, 2000; Berry, 1995; Hodgkinson et al., 2001;
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
259
Pettigrew, 1997; Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999; Starkey and Madan, 2001; Tranfield andStarkey, 1998; Van Aken, 2001; Van de Ven, 1998; Whitley, 1984a, b; Wind and Nueno,1998).). Based on review of research literature, it is hypothesized that the most likelyexplanation is that “management knowledge created by academia and researchers hasits roots in the tacit knowledge possessed by researchers who are likely to be farremoved from the real life application context of managerial practitioners”. Thus aresearcher is likely to frame managerial problems and their solutions in his owntheoretical and abstract context which would have very little relationship to anyparticular sector, organization or function of industry and thus become abstract,irrelevant., incoherent or intangible to practitioners at first glance.
4.2 Knowledge diffusionMost of the knowledge produced and codified by researchers is compiled and diffusedin the form of articles, books, reports and manuals or/and presented at conferences andseminars and in the form of electronic information i.e. online databases. Thus,knowledge diffusion within the few researchers who create knowledge andpractitioners who are expected to utilize the same, would be hampered byinadequate accessibility as the latter are unlikely to acquire and read journals orbooks whose information is partially understandable and difficult to make sense of.Further, the process of codification (externalization) would lead to partial capture ofknowledge which would still need to be interpreted and applied. Since, most of thismaterial is inaccessible or difficult to understand by practitioners, its hypothesized thatknowledge diffusion is hampered by the process of externalization and combination(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) when the most effective method of transfer of knowledgewould require socialization, i.e. when its fashioned as transfer of tacit knowledgebetween individuals (Brown and Duguid, 2001; Nonaka, 1994).
4.3 Knowledge adoptionThe academic knowledge produced in written and oral form would need to bemeaningful and understood by practitioners before it can be adopted. Sense making(Weick, 1995) is vital if generalized findings are to be transformed, assimilated,internalized and crafted for use in practice. Knowledge adoption would thus requirechanging of managerial mindset which is a complex and under researched process, but
Figure 1.Knowledge transfer cycle
IJEM26,3
260
is crucial as mindsets “define” perceptions (Gear et al., 1989), which become the basis ofmanagerial action. It is hypothesized that adoption would be a lengthy process andwould follow the Rogers (1962) innovation adoption curve. Thus, early adoptersi.e. practitioners who are more inclined to experiment and apply new knowledge intheir specific industrial and functional context would need to be identified and targetedwith appropriate value proposition which is knowledge which has the potential toenhance managerial or organizational performance. This would require framing andpresentation of research outcomes in a manner that is clear, logical, comprehensibleand actionable to managers (Combination).
4.4 Knowledge utilizationThe use of research-based knowledge would require application of findings, ideas,models and propositions developed in academia by practitioners which can guide orinform decision making in “real world” context. Beyer and Trice (1982) categorizedknowledge use into instrumental, conceptual and symbolic use. Instrumental use is thespecific, direct use of knowledge that requires change in behavior, short-term decisionmaking or action such as the decision to introduce a new product or service based onresearch evidence. Conceptual use is indirect and cognitive and involves a change inthe understanding of a phenomenon or situation. Symbolic use is the use of knowledgeto legitimatize positions or to justify actions and decisions. It is hypothesized thatknowledge use of any of the three kinds by practitioners would require significantinternalization by early adopters (practitioners) initially and later by the groups/teams,the organization or industry at large, later. This would require significanttransformation of research outcomes into procedural knowledge by practitioners sothat it can guide action or managerial practice. Further, utilization and adoption by theorganization would require a full understanding of organizational change processesand inter organizational KT mechanisms for the research outcomes transformed intomanagerial practice by some practitioners to be institutionalized at the organizationallevel.
KT or research outcomes produced by researchers would thus encounter barriers atall the four stages of the KT cycle i.e. creation, diffusion, adoption and utilization.Managerial knowledge creation involves exploring, building, testing and validation ofcognitive models of associations and causal relationships between relevant consumer,product and organizational attributes. The knowledge created through research wouldrequire significant transformation before it is adopted effectively by industry.Similarly, creation of knowledge workers i.e. managers in the classroom would behampered for the same reasons. Thus, for example, cognitive models of marketingtheory available in marketing textbooks would be delivered and presented in aclassroom situation in form of lecture, case or role play et al which would at most betranslated and illustrated by the teacher based on her specific contextual framework.The knowledge presented by the teacher in the classroom would require contextualtransformation into managerial practice by the future managers before it can be of anyuse to the organization where they are likely to be employed. The theoreticalknowledge gained in the classroom would be inadequate for taking marketingdecisions in the real world unless they can contextualize it in the form of managerialpractice in a specific organizational and situational context (create relevant tacitknowledge). The student would have to be immersed in the specific managerial role for
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
261
some time before she can learn the nuances of applying marketing theory to decisionsituations (transform theoretical concepts into actionable practices). Researchoutcomes available as explicit published research would also need contextualtransformation for it to become useable managerial knowledge. The student/futuremanager would have to learn how to transform the published research basedknowledge into managerial tasks or routine procedures and adapt regularly so that theKT process is accelerated and usage of the new knowledge gained is automated(Nelson and Winter, 1982). For example, when learning to play a musical instrumentlike the guitar initially, the player would need to consciously think about where eachfinger should be for each note to be played. She will then start directing her fingers tothose positions so that she can strum a certain number of strings. Over time, and withenough practice, the process of strumming the guitar would become automatic and theshe would no longer have to be consciously aware of the commands that her mind issending to her fingers. In fact, when she becomes an experienced guitar player, she willmake mistakes or slow down if she tries to become consciously aware of which stringsshe is playing. This is because she would have internalized the knowledge in the formof tacit knowledge, which normally operates with minimal effort by the brain and body(Chilton and Bloodgood, 2010).
The key barriers to creation, diffusion, adoption and utilization of managerialknowledge at an individual and organizational level are summarized in Table I. Thus,significant barriers are likely to prevail in the process of KT from researchers topractitioners. Based on the barriers identified and the likely reasons there of, thefollowing strategies and tactics are recommended to overcome the same.
5. Overcoming the barriers for effective KT5.1 Knowledge creationFor academicians to acquire the tacit knowledge which could produce knowledgerelevant to industry, researchers would have to gain insight into the managerialchallenges faced by practitioners and their practices which could be throughobservation, communication and participation. The explicit knowledge availablethrough published reports would be inadequate and therefore regular socializationwith practitioners would be essential to incorporate their world view which could guideand scope research endeavors. HEIs would need to create the required humanenvironment (HE) and adopt HR practices so that researchers are motivated andincentivized for the same. HEIs would need to create a culture that encourages andrewards researchers to socialize with practitioners through information sharing, teamwork and innovation. Collaborative projects based on the concept of CoP involvingmultiple stakeholders from HEIs and industry, would enable minimization of the gapin the tacit knowledge within researchers. Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP)program is one such mechanism in the UK which has been partially successful sinceHEIs are rated as low importance as a source of knowledge for innovation (Hughes,2008). Some of the reasons cited are (Bruneel et al., 2010) variance in institutional normsbetween HEIs and industry, conflicts over IP and lack of attitudinal alignment betweenindustry and HEIs.
Another significant factor identified from literature is the time gap in production ofresearch outcomes which could be relevant to industry. Researching and producingtheoretical knowledge is a long drawn process and may have little relevance to
IJEM26,3
262
Kn
owle
dg
ecr
eati
onK
now
led
ge
dif
fusi
onK
now
led
ge
adop
tion
Kn
owle
dg
eu
tili
zati
on
Ind
ivid
ual
Res
earc
hp
rob
lem
san
dso
luti
onar
efr
amed
inth
eco
nte
xt
ofth
ere
sear
cher
wh
ose
exp
osu
reto
man
ager
ial
and
org
aniz
atio
nal
pra
ctic
eis
lik
ely
tob
eli
mit
ed
Res
earc
hou
tcom
esar
eC
odifi
edin
asc
ien
tifi
cte
rms
and
foll
owa
scie
nti
fic
pro
cess
wh
ich
may
be
dif
ficu
ltto
inte
rpre
tan
dm
ake
sen
seof
by
pra
ctit
ion
ers
Res
earc
her
san
dp
ract
itio
ner
sw
ould
hav
ev
ery
dif
fere
nt
min
dse
tssh
aped
by
thei
rjo
bre
qu
irem
ents
and
wor
ken
vir
onm
ent
wh
ich
mak
esit
dif
ficu
ltfo
rth
emto
hav
esh
ared
mea
nin
gs
(req
uir
edfo
rad
opti
onof
taci
tk
now
led
ge)
ofth
eco
nte
xt
Uti
liza
tion
ofth
ere
sear
chou
tcom
esp
rod
uce
dan
dp
ub
lish
edb
yre
sear
cher
sw
ould
nee
dsi
gn
ifica
nt
tran
sfor
mat
ion
bef
ore
itca
nb
ecom
eu
sefu
lfo
rp
ract
itio
ner
sP
ract
itio
ner
sw
ould
nee
dto
be
adeq
uat
ely
mot
ivat
edan
dsk
ille
dto
be
able
totr
ansf
orm
and
uti
lize
the
new
kn
owle
dg
eav
aila
ble
inth
efo
rmof
rese
arch
outc
omes
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Res
earc
her
sin
HE
Isw
ould
pro
du
cean
dp
ub
lish
rese
arch
mot
ivat
edb
yth
eir
org
aniz
atio
nal
(HE
I)in
cen
tiv
esw
hic
hm
ayh
ave
ver
yli
ttle
rele
van
ceto
pra
ctit
ion
ers
inin
du
stry
Res
earc
her
sin
HE
Isin
tera
ctw
ith
pra
ctit
ion
ers
ver
yin
freq
uen
tly
and
mos
tly
info
rmal
occa
sion
s,i.e
.con
fere
nce
s,se
min
ars,
man
agem
ent/
exec
uti
ve
dev
elop
men
tp
rog
ram
sw
her
em
ost
ofth
ek
now
led
ge
exch
ang
edis
lik
ely
tob
eof
exp
lici
tfo
rmth
eref
ore
lead
ing
tov
ery
lim
ited
dif
fusi
onof
taci
tk
now
led
ge
Man
ager
ial
chal
len
ges
face
db
yp
ract
itio
ner
sin
org
aniz
atio
ns
req
uir
eco
nte
xt
spec
ific
solu
tion
sw
her
eas
rese
arch
ers
outc
omes
nee
dto
be
bro
ader
inco
nte
xt
and
gen
eral
ize
able
tob
eco
nsi
der
edfo
rp
ub
lica
tion
For
org
aniz
atio
ns
toad
opt
kn
owle
dg
ecr
eate
db
yac
adem
ia,
they
wou
ldn
eed
tocr
eate
the
app
rop
riat
eh
um
anen
vir
onm
ent,
pra
ctic
esan
din
cen
tiv
esto
enco
ura
ge
pra
ctit
ion
ers
toco
nte
xtu
aliz
e,ad
opt
and
uti
lize
the
rese
arch
outc
omes
Table I.Barriers to transfer of
research outcomes usingthe knowledge transfer
cycle framework
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
263
immediate problems facing industry. Determining which problems to focus on andallocating resources for research which are likely to have a significant impact on thosechallenges which industries are likely to face in the medium to long term could lead to avalue added research model. Thus, research focus would have to be strategicallyaligned and scoped so that it has value for industry.
5.2 Knowledge diffusionEffective diffusion of knowledge would require interpretation and presentation offindings in a manner that can be understood by practitioners. Practitioners would notbe familiar with the language and semantics employed by researchers to communicatetheir findings to their peers. Therefore, translation of research outcomes in a mannerthat is meaningful and actionable by practitioners would be beneficial. Diffusion ofnew ideas would also require idea champions in the industry who would be willing totake the risk and effort of contextualizing the new knowledge created into actionablepractices. Thus practitioners who could be early adopters would need to be identifiedand supported. Adequate social interaction between researchers who are producers ofmanagerial knowledge and practitioners who are potential users would be required forsome time to resolve any cognitive or behavioral barriers likely to be encountered inthe adaptation (translation) process. The process of socialization through observation,discussions, experience sharing, imitation, or some other social interaction wouldenable diffusion of tacit knowledge embedded within researchers.
One of mechanisms identified from literature is Evidence-based Policy and Practice(EbPP) (Tranfield et al., 2004) which is a method of integration of best researchevidence of a specific problem or issue selected based on practitioner’s pre-existingexperience and expertise on that subject alongwith end-user preferences and concerns(Hamer and Collinson, 1999; Muir-Gray, 1997; Trinder and Reynolds, 2000). Here in, thebest research evidence available for a particular managerial problem is systematicallyreviewed based on criteria evolved from practitioner expertise to identify solutions tothe concerned problem, apply learning’s from previous situations and evaluate therisks and benefits of potential interventions (Tranfield et al., 2004) while incorporatingthe views, values, concerns and expectations of people who are most likely to beaffected by the specific decision or action. Evidence created by systematic review andintegration of research evidence with the knowledge already held within the companyand the “manager’s” pre-existing knowledge and experience (Bero et al., 1998;Rosenberg and Donald, 1995) would lead to creation and diffusion of a research basewhich is meaningful to practitioners. Although EbPP has been found to effective inreplacing primary research as the source of evidence on which decisions are based(Evans and Pearson, 2001, p. 593). In some disciplines such a medical science there areproblems in adoption and utilization by practitioners (Bero et al., 1998; Rosenberg andDonald, 1995). Thus, it is suggested that HE and HR practices of user organizations inthe industry would be important factors in encouraging practitioners to adopt andutilize the evidence available from the research base (Nutley and Davies, 2000).
5.3 Knowledge adoptionKnowledge adoption would practitioners who are end users to re evaluate theirexisting cognitive frameworks and experiment with new practices. Early adopterscould be practitioners who are willing to take the risk and wish to benefit from
IJEM26,3
264
significant performance enhancement or who are facing serious managerial challengescould make the necessary transition by contextualizing research knowledge to theirspecific business domain. They could then take responsibility for the transfer ofknowledge to other practitioners in the organization. HR practices and culture withinthe user organization would play an important role in facilitation of knowledgeadoption. Appropriate reward and recognition systems that incentivize innovativework practices and (bottom-up and top-down) knowledge sharing in the organizationwould reinforce the knowledge adoption process. Appropriate incentives will motivatepractitioners to experiment and learn new work practices. A work environment thatpromotes and celebrates the KM efforts of early adopters and a performancemeasurement and feedback system which tracks, reports, analyzes, and set targetspertaining to adoption of innovative best practices would lead to creation of thenecessary human infrastructure for knowledge adoption.
5.4 Knowledge utilizationEffective utilization of new knowledge adopted by early adopters would still behampered if the new knowledge created by researchers does not solve immediateproblems being faced by the organization. Thus internalization of the new researchbased knowledge adopted by practitioners would still be required if new knowledgecreated and diffused through the earlier three stages of KT are to create newperspectives and enhance the level of organizational tacit knowledge. While newpractices may be incorporated as new knowledge, it would be considered as utilizedonly when the organization can draw upon it to generate new ideas or concepts, aprocess largely dependent on the application of both procedural and contextualknowledge skills. Therefore, knowledge can be said to have been utilized whenpractitioners creatively identify new opportunities relating to products, services,markets, or processes and innovatively tackle their short term managerial challengesby drawing upon the tacit knowledge embedded in the collective memory of theorganization. Thus in accordance with tenets underlying a knowledge-based economy,this would then will lead to increased competitiveness (Drucker, 1993).
6. ResultsThe paper attempts to identify the limitations inherent in existing literature related toKT between HEIs and industry. The two main approaches identified from literature forthe same were the co-production model (Tranfield et al., 2004) and the open innovationmodel ( Johnston et al., 2010). The mechanisms for KT suggested within these twoapproaches were EbPP (Tranfield et al., 2004) and CoP (Gertner et al., 2011). However,as mentioned in these papers, these approaches and mechanisms are still inadequate ineffective KT between researchers and practitioners. Some of the reasons given for thesame are related to lack of alignment of perspective, incentives and culture betweenHEIs and industry. Other gaps identified from literature relate to inadequatemotivation of practitioners to adopt and utilize the research outcomes in theirorganization. The paper argues that the barriers to KT between researchers andpractitioners are structural in nature based on the process ie KT cycle wherein theidentified barriers of perspective, motivation, skill and processes (Table I) need to betranscended for knowledge created by researchers in HEIs can become a source ofcompetitive advantage for organizations. The process of KT requires alignment in the
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
265
four stages between researchers and practitioners at various levels which cannot beachieved by selective mechanisms such as CoPs and EbPP only. A strategic andintegrated approach is likely to yield better results since various processes and skillsare needed to transcend the barriers of individual and organizational perspectives,motivations, skills, capabilities and reward. KT between HEIs and industry is notlikely to be successful unless these barriers, identified in section 4, are effectivelytackled which requires an integrated approach so that knowledge produced byresearchers in the form of research outcomes can be relevant, understood, transformed,adopted and utilized by practitioners to create competitive advantage for theorganization. KT mechanisms such as CoPs and EbPP only partially address thebarriers inherent in the various stages of KT identified using the KT cycle.
7. DiscussionEffective KT between HEIs and industry is inhibited by the inherent barriers whichexist in the process of KT. Lack of relevant tacit knowledge within researchers whocreate knowledge, ineffective documentation and dissemination of knowledge createdwhich inhibits knowledge diffusion, lack of adequate motivation within practitionersto change their current mindset and behavior patterns and ineffectivecontextualization and adaptation of knowledge by practitioners inhibits effectiveutilization of new knowledge by industry. Strategies aimed at tackling these barriersneed to be supported through institutional mechanisms (HR practices andenvironment), information technology (IT) infrastructure and KM systems KTbetween HEIs and industry would lead to competitive advantage for both.
The human or HR systems can be developed using Garvin (2000) framework. Thethree approaches are:
(1) External learning. External learning would require HEIs to align their researchobjectives and processes with practitioners to enhance learning. Researcherscan co-design their research programs and disseminate the outcomes in theform of practitioner cases and papers that are easily understandable bypractitioners. Collaborative projects such as teaching partnerships betweenresearchers and practitioners could lead to narrowing of the gap in perspectives.
(2) Internal learning. Internal learning processes could focus on knowledge sharingamongst researchers and with practitioners through KM processes ofprofessional dialogue; curriculum development; peer supervision; peercoaching; and research collaborations so that the context or shared space isenlarged and a more uniform shared perspective is developed.
(3) Experiments. Experiments can be undertaken by practitioners with help ofresearchers to identify means of improving the effectiveness of knowledgedissemination which could lead to improved practices.
Technological infrastructure i.e. the non-human systems which facilitate the KMinfrastructure could improve the efficiency of KT. The major functions of technologysystem consisting of entry, storage, retrieval, and distribution of knowledge in the KMsystem could be leveraged for KT mechanisms such as systematic review.
KM practices which facilitate collective and focused perspectives and researchscoping would facilitate the KT process. For example, CoPs consisting of peer groupsof researchers and practitioners with the same research focus could lead to enhanced
IJEM26,3
266
KT as already evidenced in the case of KTPs in UK (Gertner et al., 2011). Reward andincentive systems which facilitate KT and would need to be instituted in order toaccelerate these efforts. Thus a meaningful KM system supported by a performancemeasurement system which incentivizes appropriate behaviors would make the KTprocess more effective and efficient. Mentoring programs and other socializationmechanisms between researchers practitioners would help overcome the barriersidentified in Table I.
Bridging the barriers in creation and transfer of managerial knowledge betweenresearchers and practitioners would thus require a strategic and integrated approachon the part of both HEIs and industry for enhanced organizational performance.Researchers need to acquire the tacit relevant knowledge so that their researchoutcomes are aligned with industry needs and requirements. Systematic review andevidence based practices and policies would ensure diffusion of research outcomes in aform which is understandable and relevant to practitioners. Further, dissemination ofresearch outcomes through formal and informal social processes would lead tomeaningful diffusion of research outcomes in the form of procedures and cognitivemodels which are adoptable by practitioners. Conscious applicationi.e. experimentation and adaptation by early adopters in industry would lead toeffective knowledge adoption by few practitioners who can then become the agents ofchange by facilitating adoption of practices based on new knowledge. However, theorganization would gain only when new knowledge thus adopted is utilized inidentifying and leveraging new opportunities, i.e. which enhance its innovativenessand learning capability. Organizations would need to facilitate the process KT of newknowledge by creating supporting HR, IT and KM systems and processes.
8. Implications and conclusionsKnowledge is a key source of competitive advantage for industry who need to accessand utilize knowledge produced in HEIs in addition to other sources. Researchers cancontribute by producing relevant knowledge and disseminating the same bycodification and framing of knowledge in the form of easily understood cognitivemodels and procedures. Early adopters in industry would need to apply and adapt theknowledge to their specific context to make it usable. These early adopters would thenbe responsible for championing the adoption and utilization of new industrial practicesin their professional group, company and industry. KT between HEIs and industrywould thus require efforts on the part of both to produce and disseminate industryrelevant knowledge and so that industry can adopt and utilize the same. Formingalliances with industry for knowledge creation and collaboration between researchersand industry practitioners would only partially address the problem since adoptionand utilization of research outcomes would further require contextualization andinternalization which would not be possible without active experimentation andadaptation by practitioners. HR practices which are aligned with innovation and KThave to be instituted by organizations. Thus, it can be concluded that transfer ofmanagerial knowledge produced by research is inhibited by barriers at various stagesof the knowledge of the KT cycle. Overcoming these barriers would require reorientation of academicians and practitioners facilitated by institutional mechanismsand policies of HR, KM and IT which would facilitate and enable the same. Further,focus is required in knowledge creation by HEIs and by organizations so that there HR,
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
267
IT and KM practices and policies can be aligned with the strategic objectives of thefirm. Thus, a firm would have to define the kind of knowledge it requires and the kindof partnerships with HEIs supported by effective supporting policies so thatknowledge based competitive advantage can be realized
9. LimitationsThe paper develops a theoretical model that draws inferences and conclusions frompublished research and conceptual models in literature. The suggestions are based onexisting research findings and experiences of fellow academicians. Thus, therecommendations cannot be adopted without appropriate testing and adaptation tospecific organizational cultures and systems. Further extrapolation of the issuesidentified and discussed is required to build a workable model of KT of researchoutcomes from researchers (HEIs) to practitioners (industry).
References
Aram, J.D. and Salipante, J.P.F. (2000), “Applied research in management: criteria formanagement educators and for practitioner-scholars”, paper presented at the US Academyof Management Conference: Multiple Perspectives on Learning in Management Education,Toronto.
Arrow, K.J. (1974), The Limits of Organization, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.
Badaracco, J.L. (1991), The Knowledge Link: How Firms Compete through Strategic Alliances,Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Beesley, L.G.A. and Cooper, C. (2008), “Defining knowledge management (KM) activities:towards consensus”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 48-62.
Bennet, A. and Bennet, D. (2004), Organizational Survival in the New World: The IntelligentComplex Adaptive System, Elsevier, Boston, MA.
Bennet, D. and Bennet, A. (2008), “Associative patterning: the unconscious life of anorganization”, in Girard, J.P. (Ed.), Organizational Memory, ICI Global, Hershey, PA.
Bero, L.A., Grilli, R., Grimshaw, J.M., Harvey, E., Oxman, A.D. and Thomson, M.A. (1998),“Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews ofinterventions to promote implementation of research findings”, British Medical Journal,No. 317, pp. 465-8.
Berry, M. (1995), “Research and the practice of management: a French view”, OrganizationalScience, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 104-16.
Bessant, J., Birkinshaw, J., Delridge, R., Griffith, R., Haskel, J. and Neely, A. (2007), Competing onKnowledge: The UK’s Global Innovation Challenge, Advanced Institute of ManagementResearch, London.
Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1982), “The utilization process: a conceptual framework andsynthesis of empirical findings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4,pp. 591-622.
Brauner, E. and Becker, A. (2006), “Beyond knowledge sharing: the management of transactiveknowledge systems”, Knowledge & Process Management, Vol. 13, pp. 62-71.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2001), “Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective”,Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 198-213.
IJEM26,3
268
Bruneel, J., D’Este, P. and Salter, A. (2010), “Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers touniversity-industry collaboration”, Research Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 858-68.
Chen, M. (1996), “Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: toward a theoretical integration”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 100-34.
Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Chilton, M.A. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2010), “Adaption-innovation theory and knowledge use inorganizations”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 1159-80.
Christensen, P.H. (2003), "Knowledge sharing – time sensitiveness and push-pull strategies in anon-hype organization", paper presented at the EGOS Colloquium, Copenhagen BusinessSchool, Copenhagen.
Cohen, M.D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M. and Winter, S. (1996),“Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: contemporary researchissues”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 653-98.
Cranefield, J. and Yoong, P. (2005), “Organisational factors affecting inter-organisationalknowledge transfer in the New Zealand state sector – a case study”, The Electronic Journalfor Virtual Organizations and Networks, Vol. 7, December.
Davenport, T. (1995), “The virtual and the physical”, CIO Magazine, November 15.
DeFillippi, R.J., Arthur, M.B. and Lindsay, V.J. (2006), Knowledge at Work: Creative Collaboration
in the Global Economy, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Department of Trade and Industry (2001), “Lord Sainsbury of Turville’s speech to the NorthWest Knowledge Economy Conference, University of Central Lancashire, Preston”,available at: www.dti.gov.uk/ministers/archived/sainsbury090101.html.
Drucker, P. (1993), Post-capital Society, Harper & Collins, New York, NY.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 11, pp. 1105-21.
Evans, D. and Pearson, A. (2001), “Systematic reviews: gatekeepers of nursing knowledge”,Journal of Clinical Nursing, Vol. 10, pp. 593-9.
Evers, H.D. (2008), “Knowledge hubs and knowledge clusters: designing a knowledgearchitecture for development”, Working Paper Series 27, Department of Political andCultural Change, Bonn.
Garvin, D.A. (2000), Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work,Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
Gear, M.C., Liendo, E.C. and Scott, L.L. (1989), Changing Mindset: The Potential Unconscious,New York University Press, New York, NY.
Gertner, D., Roberts, J. and Charles, D. (2011), “University-industry collaboration: a CoPsapproach to KTPs”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 625-47.
Goh, S. (2002), “Managing effective knowledge transfer; an integrative framework and somepractice implications”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23-30.
Goldberg, E. (2005), The Wisdom Paradox: How Your Mind Can Grow Stronger as Your Brain
Grows Older, Gotham Books, New York, NY.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 17, pp. 109-22.
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
269
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, S. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard BusinessReview, May/June, pp. 63-76.
Hamer, S. and Collinson, G. (Eds) (1999), Achieving Evidence-based Practice: A Handbook forPractitioners, Bailliere Tindall, Edinburgh.
Hatch, N.W. and Dyer, J.H. (2004), “Human capital and learning as a source of sustainablecompetitive advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 1155-78.
Hodgkinson, G.P., Herriot, P. and Anderson, N. (2001), “Re-aligning the stakeholders inmanagement research: lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology”,British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, special issue, pp. S41-S48.
Hodgkinson, G.P., Sadler-Smith, E., Burke, L.A. and Sparrow, P.R. (2009), “Intuition inorganizations: implications for strategic management”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 42,pp. 277-97.
Holden, N.J. and von Kortzfleisch, H.F.O. (2004), “Why cross-cultural knowledge transfer is aform of translation in more ways than you think”, Knowledge and Process Management,Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 127-36.
Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”,Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Hughes, A. (2008), “University-industry links and UK science and innovation policy”, in Yusuf, S.and Nabeshima, K. (Eds), How Universities Promote Economic Growth, The World Bank,Washington, DC.
Johnston, L., Robinson, S. and Lockett, N. (2010), “Recognising ‘open innovation’ in HEI-industryinteraction for knowledge transfer and exchange”, International Journal of EntrepreneurialBehaviour & Research, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 540-60.
Kelemen, M. and Bansal, P. (2002), “The conventions of management research and theirrelevance to management practice”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,pp. 97-108.
King, W.R. (2008), “An integrated architecture for an effective knowledge organization”, Journalof Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 29-41.
Ko, D-G., Kirsch, L.J. and King, W.R. (2005), “Antecedents of knowledge transfer fromconsultants to clients in enterprise system implementations”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1,pp. 59-85.
Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Koulopoulos, T. and Frappaolo, C. (1999), Smart Things to Know about Knowledge Management,Capstone, Dover, NH.
McAdam, R. and McCreedy, S. (1999), “A critical review of knowledge management models”, TheLearning Organisation, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 91-100.
Mitton, C., Adair, C.E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S.B. and Waye-Perry, B. (2007), “Knowledge transferand exchange: review and synthesis of the literature”, The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 85 No. 4,pp. 729-68.
Muir-Gray, J.A. (1997), Evidence-based Health Care: How to Make Health Policy and ManagementDecisions, Churchill Livingstone, London.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.
IJEM26,3
270
NESTA (2006), The Innovation Gap: Why Policy Needs to Reflect the Reality of Innovation in theUK, NESTA, London, research report, October.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, OrganizationScience, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), “The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledgecreation”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-55.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1991), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,Oxford.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2003), “The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creationas a synthesizing process”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 2-10.
Nutley, S. and Davies, H.T.O. (2000), “Making a reality of evidence-based practice: some lessonsfrom the diffusion of innovations”, Public Money & Management, Vol. 20, pp. 35-42.
Nutley, S., Walter, I. and Davies, H. (2002), “From knowing to doing: a framework forunderstanding the evidence-into-practice agenda”, discussion paper 1, University of StAndrews, St Andrews.
Pederson, P.O. (2003), “Knowledge management FAQs”, available at: www.melcrum.com/know_articles/01.htm (accessed September 4, 2003).
Pettigrew, A.M. (1997), “The double hurdles for management research”, Advancement inOrganizational Behaviour, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (1999), “Knowing ‘what’ to do is not enough: turning knowledge intoaction”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 83-108.
Polanyi, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post Critical Philosophy, University ofChicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Polanyi, M. (1962), Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-critical Philosophy, Harper Torchbooks,New York, NY.
Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Public Sector Benchmarking Service (2003), Knowledge Management, Learning through Sharing,Public Sector Benchmarking Service, London.
Reber, A.S. (1967), “Implicit learning of artificial grammars”, Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbal Behavior, Vol. 6, pp. 855-63.
Reber, A.S. (1969), “Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages”, Journal ofExperimental Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 115-9.
Reber, A.S., Walkenfeld, F.F. and Hernstadt, R. (1991), “Implicit and explicit learning: individualdifferences and IQ”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 888-96.
Roberts, J. (2000), “From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer”, Technology Analysis & StrategicManagement, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 429-43.
Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, 1st ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rosenberg, W. and Donald, W.A. (1995), “Evidence-based medicine: an approach to clinicalproblem solving”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 310 No. 6987, pp. 1122-6.
Ryle, G. (1949), The Concept of Mind, Hutchinson, London.
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
271
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1999), KM: A Review of the Literature, Institute ofPersonnel and Development, London.
Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M.M. and Frolich, J. (2002), “Knowledge interactionsbetween universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants”,Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 303-28.
Schutz, A. and Luckmann, T. (1973), The Structures of the Life-World, Northwestern UniversityPress, Evanston, IL.
Seaton, R.A.F. (2002), Knowledge Transfer, Strategic Tools to Support Adaptive, IntegratedWater Resource Management under Changing Conditions at Catchment Scale –A Co-evolutionary Approach, The AQUADAPT Project, Bedford.
Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001), “Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in thefuture of management research”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, special issue,pp. S3-S26.
Tranfield, D. and Starkey, K. (1998), “The nature, social organization and promotion ofmanagement research: towards policy”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 4,pp. 341-53.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Marcos, J. and Burr, M. (2004), “Co-producing managementknowledge”, Management Decision, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 375-86.
Trinder, L. and Reynolds, S. (Eds) (2000), Evidence-based Practice: A Clinical Approach, BlackwellScience, Oxford.
Van Aken, J. (2001), “Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: thequest for field-tested and grounded technological rules”, Working Paper 01.1, EindhovenCentre for Innovation Studies, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.
Van de Ven, A.H. (1998), “Professional science for a professional school”, paper presented at theBreaking the Code of Change Conference, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Aben, M. (2001), “Making the most of your company’s knowledge:a strategic framework”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 421-39.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sense Making in Organizations, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Whitley, R. (1984a), “The fragmented state of management studies: reasons and consequences”,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 331-48.
Whitley, R. (1984b), “The scientific status of management research as a practically-orientedsocial science”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 369-90.
Wind, J. and Nueno, P. (1998), “The impact imperative: closing the relevance gap of academicmanagement research”, paper presented at the International Academy of ManagementNorth America Meeting, New York, NY.
Woiceshyn, J. (2009), “Lessons from ‘good minds’: how CEOs use intuition and guiding principlesto make strategic decisions”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 42, pp. 298-319.
Wong, W.L.P. and Radcliffe, D.F. (2000), “The tacit nature of design knowledge”, TechnologyAnalysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 493-512.
Youtie, J. and Shapira, P. (2008), “Building an innovation hub: a case study of the transformationof university roles in regional technological and economic development”, Research Policy,Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1188-204.
Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002), “Absorptive capacity – a review, reconceptualisation andextension”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
IJEM26,3
272
Further reading
Cohendet, P., Kern, F., Mehmanpazir, B. and Munier, F. (1999), “Knowledge coordination,competence creation and integrated networks in globalise firms”, Cambridge Journal ofEconomics, Vol. 23, pp. 225-41.
Hasher, L. and Zacks, R.T. (1984), “Automatic processing of fundamental information”,American Psychologist, Vol. 39 No. 12, pp. 1372-88.
Nonaka, I. and Takaushi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,Oxford.
Pettigrew, M. (2001), “Systematic reviews from astrology to zoology: myths andmisconceptions”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 322, pp. 98-101.
Reber, A.S. (1993), Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York,NY.
Spender, J.C. (2000), “Tacit knowledge in organizations”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 25, pp. 443-6.
Corresponding authorRajat Gera can be contacted at: [email protected]
Bridging theknowledge
transfer gap
273
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints