Kiran Trehan
This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Compatible bedfellows? Engaged scholarship entrepreneurship and policy impact’.
In a rapidly evolving world, the role of entrepreneurship research and its impact on policy is more critical than ever. In this blog, I expand on my commentary on Johnson (2023) by exploring the intricate relationship between theory and its real-world application, shedding light on the uncertainty that has long surrounded entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) research. For years, the debate on how research can truly impact practice has been at the forefront of social science discussions (Beyer & Trice, 1982; Starkey and Tempest, 2005; Rynes, 2007; Trehan et al., 2018, 2022). This debate has emphasized the need for applied research in entrepreneurial scholarship that reflects the actual experiences of businesses.
Recognizing and appreciating the importance of research impact is not just a strategic concern for university business schools; it’s a measure of research’s real-world value. The gap between researchers and practitioners has significantly influenced how research is perceived, with academics focusing on ‘rigor’ and practitioners on ‘relevance’. Striking a balance between these expectations is crucial for both communities (Trehan, 2022). Edwards (2018) asserts that achieving policy impact is not only desirable but feasible, despite challenges such as engaging small business owners and the requirement for sustained interaction over time. Policy impact is attainable, but significant challenges persist, particularly in catering to the needs of small business owners and maintaining prolonged engagement.
The world of small business often grapples with various policy interventions offering support to owner-managers. A recurring theme in these debates is the need for evaluation methods that go beyond mere quantitative ‘impact’ assessments. To truly make a difference in entrepreneurship research, we must emphasize the value of a policy learning culture. Johnson (2022) points out that scepticism often surrounds the ability of ‘scientist’ assessments of programs and policies to provide accurate and useful explanations. Similarly, I would argue that conventional evidence-based policymaking (EBP) places unwarranted faith in the rationality of policymakers.
Engaged scholarship offers an alternative approach that could greatly benefit researchers, policymakers and practitioners. It involves a collaborative inquiry where academics, policymakers and practitioners use their distinct perspectives and skills to co-produce knowledge about complex issues in uncertain real-world conditions (Van de Ven, 2006). This approach emphasizes the co-constructed nature of knowledge, fostering interaction between academia and practitioners. It provides a space for mutual understanding, allowing for critical questioning and co-creation of knowledge that can be applied in practice.
Both engaged scholarship and policy impact require concerted, purposeful action and collaboration between academics, practitioners and policymakers. Embracing emotional and political effort is essential to bridge the gaps highlighted by Johnson in challenging received wisdom. To truly make a difference, we must reimagine the purpose and value of entrepreneurship research. Making a tangible impact means addressing the social power relations that align the interests of academia, policymakers and businesses. This collaborative form of inquiry necessitates emotional and political effort. Addressing the gaps identified by Johnson requires a revaluation of the purpose and value of entrepreneurship research. Making a tangible difference involves engaging with the interests of researchers, policymakers and practitioners.
As researchers, we must be willing to step beyond established paths and engage in policy impact that is characterized by a shared relational space with a diverse range of actors. The collaborative efforts and emotional engagement in engaged scholarship can bring about real change, ultimately benefiting businesses, policymakers and academics alike. By taking this approach, we can reintroduce emotions into entrepreneurship research and policy impact, fostering genuine collaboration and co-production of knowledge.
In conclusion, the compatibility between engaged scholarship, entrepreneurship research and policy impact is clear. By embracing the principles of engaged scholarship and reimagining the role of researchers in shaping policy, we can bridge the gap between theory and practice and drive meaningful change in the world of entrepreneurship. The image of Girl with a balloon by Banksy depicts it is time to embrace this symbiotic relationship and make a difference. A picture paints a thousand words, engaged scholarship, entrepreneurship research and policy impact evokes possibilities, different ways of interpreting what we see, it presses us to examine our assumptions about the way we view the world and by extension what might be possible to understand and change or be changed. This image a form of activism that not only captures the intellectual agenda but it is also about engaging with the hearts and minds of the communities that shape us and revitalising our pursuit of relevance reach and impact that leave a lasting footprint / legacy
References
Beyer, J. M. and Trice, H. M. (1982) The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (4) p591-622
Edwards P. (2018) Critical performativity and the small firm: Challenges and prospects International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship vol. 36 (4) p368–379
Johnson, S. (2023) The policy impact of entrepreneurship research: challenging received wisdom. Evidence & Policy, https://doi.org/10.1332/174426422X16596963542147
Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M. and Daft, R.L. (2001) Across the great divide: knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, p340-355
Starkey, K. and Tempest, S. (2005) The future of the business school: Knowledge, challenges and opportunities. Human Relations, 58 (1) p6182
Trehan, K. (2023). Compatible bedfellows? Engaged scholarship entrepreneurship and policy impact. Evidence & Policy, 19(2), 319-322.
Trehan, K., Higgins, D., Jones, O. (2018) Engaged Scholarship: Questioning relevance and impact in contemporary Entrepreneurship research International Small Business Journal, Vol, 36 (4) p363- 370
Van de Ven, A.H. (2007) Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Image credit: Pixabay
Kiran Trehan is Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Partnerships and Engagement at the University of York and Director of the Centre for Women’s Enterprise, Leadership, Economy & Diversity.
Read the original research in Evidence & Policy:
Trehan, K. (2023). Compatible bedfellows? Engaged scholarship entrepreneurship and policy impact. Evidence & Policy, DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16656743975226.
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading:
The policy impact of entrepreneurship research: challenging received wisdom
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Evidence & Policy Blog 