Teooria-praktika (=teoreetikute-praktikute) vahelise lõhe ületamisest mõtlemisele on kulutatud üksjagu aega. Siinviidatu on üks tekst, mis võiks huvi pakkuda eeskätt poliitikakujundajatele ja riigivalitsejatele. Kõnealuse lõhe ületamise keskseks teguriks on institutsionaalne keskkond. Siin on mõõdikutega raske midagi ära teha, kuigi need võivad osutuda üheks vahendiks keskkonna kujundamisel. Siiski, tulemus siin saabub, mitte ei saavutata.

Ja veel. Siinviidatus jõuavad autorid mitmetele järeldustele, mis ilmselt võivad leevendada probleemi, kuid lugemisel – eriti järelduste-kokkuvõtte osa! – oleks avardav hoida joont, et tegemist ei ole ammendava loeteluga. Siin on piirideks vaid kujutlusvõime.

Kontekstiks:

Nevertheless, there is no agreement on why practitioners are often indifferent towards research coming from academia (Kieser, Nicolai, & Seidl, 2015; Romme et al., 2015). This is unfortunate for both scholars and practitioners for a number of reasons.

Autorid väidavad:

In this paper, we claim that trust (and the lack of thereof) constitutes a major factor affecting the gap between business practitioners and the management research community. […] Thus, rather than asking why practitioners often may see our results as irrelevant, we ask whether and why they may see them as (un) trustworthy.

Mis on usaldus?

Trust is usually conceptualized as a relation: A (trustor) trusts B (trustee) to do X.

… ja usaldusväärsus?

Trustworthiness shows the capacity to fulfil others’ expectations of trust (Levine, Bitterly, Cohen, & Schweitzer, 2018) and comprises three dimensions: ability, benevolence and integrity (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007).

Asümmeetria probleem:

Building trust is a particular challenge in settings that involve power asymmetries, and knowledge imbalance is an example of such asymmetry.

Ja nüüd tähelepanu, valitsejad ja poliitikakujundajad!

Institutions supporting trustworthiness judgements towards professions comprise three elements: formal and informal professional norms guiding interactions with clients, a system of sanctions and certification needed to perform the job.

Iseenesest asjad ei juhtu, on vaja midagi veel.

Instead, we propose that our discipline lacks institutions that would support practitioners in trusting us. In that way, we contribute to the extant research on relevance (Butler et al., 2015; Daft & Lewin, 2008; Kieser & Leiner, 2009; Kieser et al., 2015; Starkey & Madan, 2001; Vermeulen, 2005). We show that trust-building institutions in management research are directed inward rather than outward.

Järgneva refereeringu sisu on avalikus sektoris siiski väga mõjutatav:

Comparing management scholarship to other professions allows us to learn what is missing and ask what kind of initiatives could be implemented to change the present state of affairs. One of the factors in the framework is beyond our reach: we cannot (and most likely do not want to) increase practitioners’ well-being dependency on our services.

… ja soovitus arusaadavuse suurendamiseks on asjakohane, kuid kaheldav, kas sellest piisab. Ainuüksi põhjusel, et enamik erialakirjandust – ükskõik, kui lihtsalt väljendatud! – on andmebaasides luku taga ja “praktikud” lihtsalt ei pääse ligi. Sestap on allnev pigem inspiratsiooniks:

Therefore, academic papers would need to be accompanied by more digestible summaries on how the results allow practitioners to gain insight into the future.

Latusek, D., & Hensel, P. G. (2022). Can they trust us? The relevance debate and the perceived trustworthiness of the management scholarly communityScandinavian Journal of Management38(1), 101193.Chicago