Article contents

Paper title
Author(s)
Abstract
Article information
How to cite?
DOI
Copyright
Open access
References
Research Article

Building Usable Management Knowledge:  A Framework of Bridging Mechanisms Between Research and Practice

Authors

  • Anna Fiorentino Adjunct Professor, Business Department, John Cabot University, Italy

Abstract

This article develops a conceptual framework for how management research becomes usable knowledge for practitioners. While the theory–practice gap has been widely acknowledged, existing discussions have focused primarily on diagnosing the divide rather than explaining the organizational and intellectual mechanisms through which research gains relevance. Integrating insights from organizational theory, knowledge management and institutional analysis, this narrative review identifies three categories of bridging mechanisms—interface mechanisms, interpretive mechanisms and institutional mechanisms—that shape the translation of scholarly insights into actionable managerial understanding. Interface mechanisms structure interaction between researchers and practitioners; interpretive mechanisms facilitate meaning-making across epistemic communities; and institutional mechanisms create the conditions for long-term knowledge integration. Together, these mechanisms provide a structured account of how management knowledge becomes usable without sacrificing conceptual rigor. The framework contributes to ongoing debates on research impact by reframing knowledge relevance as an outcome of organizational design and knowledge governance rather than as a trade-off with rigor. Implications highlight how intentionally structured interfaces and interpretive processes can enhance the strategic value of management research and support evidence-informed decision-making in organizations.

Article information

Journal

Journal of Business and Management Studies

Volume (Issue)

7 (9)

Pages

17-28

Published

2025-12-01

How to Cite

Fiorentino, A. (2025). Building Usable Management Knowledge:  A Framework of Bridging Mechanisms Between Research and Practice. Journal of Business and Management Studies, 7(9), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.32996/jbms.2025.7.9.2

References

[1] Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (2020). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0097

[2] Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0188

[3] Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic–practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.

[4] Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.

[5] Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O’Brien, J. (2012). Bridging the research–practice gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0140

[6] Bansal, P., Smith, W. K., & Vaara, E. (2018). New ways of seeing through qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1189–1195. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4004

[7] Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic–practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1181–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314529160

[8] Breslin, D., & Gatrell, C. (2020). Theorizing through context: Why theory is lost in translation and how it can be found. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0281

[9] Burgelman, R. A., Floyd, S. W., Laamanen, T., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2022). Strategy processes and practices: Dialogues and intersections. Strategic Management Journal, 43(4), 702–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3308

[10] Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094

[11] Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.

[12] Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why the explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12210

[13] Cornelissen, J. P., & Durand, R. (2014). Moving forward: Developing theoretical contributions in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 51(6), 995–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12078

[14] Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C. (2013). Editors’ comments: Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0085

[15] Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2016). Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1113–1123. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4004

[16] Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120

[17] George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007

[18] Gherardi, S. (2016). To start practice-based studies: Insights and controversies. Management Learning, 47(4), 353–368

[19] Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310758

[20] Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass.

[21] Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01

[22] Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625

[23] Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Bridging the rigour–relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00832.x

[24] Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

[25] Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., & Cabantous, L. (2015). Conducting global team-based ethnography: Methodological challenges and practical methods. Human Relations, 68(1), 3–33

[26] Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., & Cabantous, L. (2019). Rationality and emotion in strategizing: A practice perspective. Organization Studies, 40(4), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617751005

[27] Johns, G. (2017). Reflections on the 2016 Decade Award: Incorporating context in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0044

[28] Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26(4), 222–232.

[29] Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13

[30] Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. I. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 672–690. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553247

[31] Lukka, K., & Suomala, P. (2014). Relevant interventionist research: Balancing theoretical and practical contributions. Management Accounting Research, 25(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.07.001

[32] MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136

[33] Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583–598.

[34] Nicolini, D. (2017). Practice theory as a package of theory, method and vocabulary: Affordances and limitations. In M. Jonas, B. Littig, & A. Wroblewski (Eds.), Methodological Reflections on Practice-Oriented Theories (pp. 19–34). Springer.

[35] Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2008). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664

[36] Okhuysen, G. A., & Bonardi, J. P. (2011). The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.55662527

[37] Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., & Tuunanen, T. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

[38] Post, C., Sarala, R. M., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549

[39] Romme, A. G. L., & Endenburg, G. (2006). Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular design. Organization Science, 17(2), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0169

[40] Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 340–355. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069460

[41] Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12640

[42] Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0183

[43] Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2020). Sensemaking reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organization Theory, 1(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719879937

[44] Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634433

[45] Stadler, C. (2015, June 16). Should managers read academic articles? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

[46] Stadler, C. (2022, September 28). Should managers read academic articles? LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-managers-read-academic-articles-christian-stadler

[47] Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations,” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420

[48] Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.

[49] Tsang, E. W. K. (2014). Generalizing from research findings: The merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12024

[50] Tsang, E. W. K., & Ellsaesser, F. (2011). How contrastive explanation facilitates theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330804

[51] Tsoukas, H. (2017). Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12219

[52] Van Aken, J. E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2009). Reinventing the future: Design science and its research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00658.x

[53] Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226293.001.0001

[54] Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527385

[55] Van Burg, E., Cornelissen, J. P., Stam, W., & Jack, S. L. (2022). Advancing qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720930992

[56] Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.

[57] vom Brocke, J., Hevner, A. R., & Maedche, A. (Eds.). (2020). Design Science Research: Cases. Springer

Downloads

Views

9

Downloads

3

Keywords:

Management knowledge, Research-practice interface, Knowledge integration, Organizational mechanisms, Usable knowledge, Knowledge governance, Conceptual framework