The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge for Theory and Practice
Abstract
We examine three related ways in which the gap between theory and practice has been framed. One approach views it as a knowledge transfer problem, a second argues that theory and practice represent distinct kinds of knowledge, and a third incorporates a strategy of arbitrage--leading to the view that the gap is a knowledge production problem. We propose a method of engaged scholarship for addressing the knowledge production problem, arguing that engaged scholarship not only enhances the relevance of research for practice but also contributes significantly to advancing research knowledge in a given domain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
Bounded rationality and organizational learning
Simon, H. A. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.125 · Cited by 3,028
That's Interesting!: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology
Davis, M. S. (1971) · Philosophy of the Social Sciences · doi:10.1177/004839317100100211 · Cited by 1,219
The Intellectual and Social Organization Of the Sciences
Whitley, R. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199240531.001.0001 · Cited by 1,076
Cited by
GREENHALGH, T., JACKSON, C., SHAW, S., & JANAMIAN, T. (2016) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12197 · Cited by 1,288
Greenhalgh, T., Hinton, L., Finlay, T., Macfarlane, A., Fahy, N., Clyde, B., & Chant, A. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12888 · Cited by 1,059
Jull, J., Giles, A., & Graham, I. D. (2017) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0696-3 · Cited by 651
Short, J. C., Broberg, J. C., Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109335949 · Cited by 644
Gond, J., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12074 · Cited by 405
Metadata
- Authors
- Van De Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 802-821
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3807
- OpenAlex
- W2051066739
- Cited by
- 1,663
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 81.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Knowledge for Theory and Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/amr.2006.22527385
- The paper
- Van De Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for Theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527385
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
