Building family/general practice research capacity

To promote the range of interventions for building family/general practice (family medicine) research capacity, we describe successful international examples. Such examples of interventions that build research capacity focus on diseases and illness research, as well as process research; monitor the output of research in family/general practice (family medicine); increase the number of family medicine research journals; encourage and enable research skills acquisition (including making it part of professional training); strengthen the academic base; and promote research networks and collaborations. The responsibility for these interventions lies with the government, colleges and academies, and universities. There are exciting and varied methods of building research capacity in family medicine.

The Nuffield legacy:twenty years of social science influence on pharmacy practice research

Guest editorial

Research output of Australian general practice: A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health

Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines. Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999. Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively. Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

Practice Literate Research: Turning the Tables

Researchers complain how difficult it is to get practitioners and policymakers to use research. In contrast, this paper looks at the issues from the perspective of practice, and argues that it is the researcher’s job to become more practice-literate, so that research begins with practice concerns and develops practice-based solutions. The paper explores the relationship between research and practice and suggests that research has insufficiently engaged with the nature of practice and practice knowledge. Using the Salisbury Statement on practice research (Salisbury Statement 2010) the paper offers a definition of practice research and analyses what would be required for an agenda for practice research. Finally the paper proposes five functions for practice research.

A strategy-as-practice approach to strategy research and education

This conclusion to the Dialog proposes a strategy-as-practice based approach to bringing strategy research and education closer to practice. Strategy-as-practice rejects the choice, proposed in the previous articles, between theory and practice. The authors argue for strategy research based rigorously on sociological theories of practice. Such research complements the parsimony and generalizability of economics-driven theory, extending strategy research to incorporate the messy realities of doing strategy in practice, with a view to developing theory that is high in accuracy. The authors suggest that practice-based research can also inform strategy teaching by providing students with rich case studies of strategy work as actually practiced, analyzed through such sociological lenses as ethnomethodology, dramaturgy, and institutional theory. Strategy-as-practice research does not aim to give students parsimonious models for analysis or expose them to cases of best practice but rather to help them develop practical wisdom through a better understanding of strategy in practice.

Directions for a troubled discipline:strategy research, teaching and practice introduction to the dialog

This Dialog responds to a growing debate about the relevance of business schools generally and the value of strategy theory and research for strategic management practice. The authors propose that academic theory and management practice can be better connected through management education. The academy researches practice, derives theory, and returns it to practice through the development of teaching materials and the teaching of current and future practitioners. The three articles in this Dialog examine how different approaches to strategy research inform strategy teaching and its application to practice. Joseph Bower explains the rise of business policy and the process research approach that informed that teaching tradition at Harvard Business School. Robert Grant responds by emphasizing the economic theory underpinnings of strategic management research and its impact on teaching. Paula Jarzabkowski and Richard Whittington conclude by proposing a strategyas-practice perspective and suggesting ways to better incorporate strategy-as-practice research into strategy teaching.

Practitioners are from Mars; academics are from Venus? An investigation of the research-practice gap in management accounting

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to identify and gain insights into the significance of barriers contributing to the purported "gap" between academic management accounting research and practice. Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on diffusion of innovations theory, this study collects and analyses data from a questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews with 19 representatives of the four principal professional accounting bodies in Australia. Findings: Professional accounting bodies perceive the gap between academic research and practice in management accounting to be of limited concern to practitioners. The two most significant barriers to research utilisation by practitioners are identified as: difficulties in understanding academic research papers; and limited access to research findings. In acting as a conduit between the worlds of academia and practice, professional bodies have an important role to play by demonstrating the mutual value to both academics and practitioners resulting from a closer engagement between MA research and practice. Research limitations/implications: As one of the few empirically-based, theoretically informed investigations exploring the research-practice gap in management accounting, this study provides insights rather than "answers". Its findings therefore serve as a foundational basis for further empirical and theoretical enquiry. Originality/value: This study contributes to the conversation about the "research-practice gap" in management accounting by adopting a distinct theoretical vantage point to organize, analyse and interpret empirical evidence obtained from Australian professional accounting bodies about management accounting practice. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.