Research has shown that the transfer of management-related knowledge in academia to practice is ineffective (Pfeffer and Sutton 1999). Ven de Ven (2007) identified three groups of issues to explain this problem. Firstly, the lack of use of the outputs of management research may be a result of inappropriate communication methods (e.g. managers and consultants who advise them are unlikely to read academic literature regularly (Rynes et al. 2002; Rousseau 2006)).
Secondly, problems may relate to the differences in the type of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is focused upon building generalisations and theories, whereas practical knowledge in the professional domain is connected to the structure and dynamics of particular situations. Consequently, “Exhortations for academics to put their theories into practice and for managers to put their practices into theory may be misdirected because they assume that the relationship between knowledge of theory and knowledge of practice entails a literal transfer or translation of one into the other” (Van de Ven, 2007:4).
Thirdly, issues relating to the production of the knowledge. In relation to the development of management knowledge, a process of enquiry that is unengaged with the stakeholders beyond the academic environment may face problems in transfer and implementation. Approaches with the common theme of “involvement with members of an organization over a matter which is of genuine concern to them” (Eden and Huxham, 1996:75), i.e. action research, may be a potential solution.
How does this relate to engineering education? Given Trevelyan’s (2010) description of engineering as “distributed expertise enacted through social interactions between people”, there would seem to be clear ways in which the challenges of management knowledge transfer are linked to the discussion of the methods of engineering education. For example:
- Problems caused by inappropriate communication methods: Trevelyan (2009) identifies the importance of communication in the work of engineers, in order to allow them to operate effectively within the ‘distributed expertise’ model of engineering. It would be interesting to see how the communication-related issues found to hinder the transfer of management knowledge from academia compare to those identified by Trevelyan (2009, 2010).
- Problems caused by the nature of the knowledge: For engineering education the problem is perhaps not the nature of the knowledge, but the gap between knowledge of the practice of engineering and the content taught in universities (Pascail 2006; Trevelyan 2010).
- Problems caused by method of knowledge generation: For engineering education, this may point to the important role of in-company education activities (industrial projects, internships, etc.) where the problem and solution are more closely linked than in a class-based academic environment (Seagraves et al. 1996).
Pfeffer, J. and R. I. Sutton (1999). "Knowing 'what' to do is not enough: Turning knowledge into action." California Management Review 42(1, Fall): 83-108.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). "Is there such a thing as 'Evidence Based Management'?" Academy of Management Review 31(2): 256-269.
Rynes, S. L., A. E. Colbert and K. G. Brown (2002). "HR professionals' beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice." Human Resource Management 41(2): 149-174.
Seagraves, L., I. Kemp and M. Osborne (1996). "Are academic outcomes of higher education provision relevant and deliverable in the workplace setting." Higher Education 32: 157-176.
Trevelyan, J. P. (2009). Engineering education requires a better model of engineering practice. Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2009, Palm Grove, Queensland, Australia.
Trevelyan, J. P. (2010). "Reconstructing Engineering from Practice." Engineering Studies In Press.
Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-922629-6. .
