“Knowledge transfer should be part of the research process”

Jörn Redler on his experiences with Open Science

I would like to talk to you about the so-called theory-practice gap in marketing research and open science. Where do you see this gap and why is it relevant to marketing research?

JR: Marketing is traditionally understood as an applied science and thus claims to address questions that are relevant to practice and whose results can actually be used in companies. However, our own meta-scientific studies, including those conducted jointly with our colleague Holger J. Schmidt, have shown that research and practice are largely decoupled today. Research topics are often formulated independently of practical problems, which means that managers often perceive the issues as irrelevant or already solved. In addition, researchers and practitioners draw on different evidence, methods and terminology, which makes communication and transfer difficult. As a result, findings from marketing research rarely reach practical application, while feedback from practical application hardly ever finds its way into research. This theory-practice problem is also increasingly being discussed in connection with open science initiatives. Open science aims to make research more transparent, comprehensible and accessible. In marketing research, this could help to reduce the distance between science and practice – for example, through open data, reproducible methods and freely available results. This would strengthen the connection to practice and possibly close part of the existing gap.

Would you say that the theory-practice gap is a structural phenomenon, i.e. inherent in the logic of science, which analyses retrospectively, or is it more a misunderstanding of which topics are actually relevant to practice?

JR: It is not a fundamental problem if research deals with topics that will only become relevant in the future. Practitioners understand the necessity of such forward-looking analyses or concepts. What is more difficult is that practitioners hardly have any expectations of science anymore. Researchers are increasingly no longer considered relevant contacts in marketing, which is less due to the time perspective and more to a lack of connectivity in research.

Are there typical situations in which academia and practice come together, for example at conferences? Or are they two separate worlds with no real overlap?

JR: They are more like two islands. There is hardly any real exchange, although greater openness on both sides would be desirable. However, it is not solely the fault of academia; practitioners should also seek contact more actively. Nevertheless, the distance between the two is not only the result of individual misguided developments, but is also structurally determined. The logics differ: practice is oriented towards quick, pragmatic solutions, while science pursues other goals and has established incentive systems that further increase the distance. Approaches to change would therefore also have to address these structures.

You are also familiar with everyday working life in companies. Are there typical situations in which managers would actually draw on research, for example when developing new strategies or concepts?

JR: Basically, there should be an expectation to take time for such questions. In other areas, this is a matter of course. In medicine, for example, engaging with current research is part of continuous professional development. In management, this is hardly the case. There, people tend to rely on discussions with colleagues, a quick internet search or, nowadays, AI systems. We have hardly ever observed anyone specifically looking at scientific literature or using contextualisation through discussions with scientists. There are several reasons for this: time pressure, other incentive systems, but also the fact that scientific articles are hardly accessible in their form for practical use and often remain hidden behind paywalls. Formats are therefore needed that translate content and make it easier to connect. Networks or personal exchange forums could play an important role here because they enable discussions without research being perceived as additional ballast. Without appropriate transfer formats, the distance between research and practice will remain.

Looking at the scientific side: as you say, marketing research often deals with topics that seem of little relevance to practice. Added to this is the use of specialist language and the lengthy publication processes, which often mean that results are only available years later. Where do you think we should start – with the topics or with communication?

JR: There is no single lever. Relevance, language and speed are interrelated. It would make sense to develop research topics more closely in collaboration with practitioners. This would create a common understanding from the outset and allow interim results to be shared at an early stage. At the same time, better translation work is needed – formats that present research in an understandable way and promote a common language. Only through more exchange at all levels can the theory-practice gap be narrowed.

Suppose you had to make a plea at a VHB conference for greater involvement of company representatives in the research process: what advantages would intensive exchange have for the discipline and for individual scientists?

JR: The advantages depend heavily on the career stage. For established researchers, it can be very fulfilling to work on topics that are not only of purely scientific interest, but also have a concrete impact in practice. For young scientists, however, the situation is more difficult. As long as careers are evaluated almost exclusively on the basis of publications in high-ranking journals, there is little incentive for them to become more involved in practical work. This is precisely where the structural problem lies: the current incentive systems reward theoretical excellence, but not transfer.

The incentive structures therefore seem to be designed in such a way that the theory-practice gap can hardly be closed. What do you think needs to change to create more relevance and exchange?

JR: The central benchmark for an academic career continues to be publications in high-ranking journals and the acquisition of third-party funding. Renown in practice or a robust network outside academia, on the other hand, play no role. Transfer publications or engagement in exchange with companies are often even considered a disadvantage because they tie up time and resources that could also be invested in another “top journal paper”. To counteract this, such activities would have to be made visible and specifically rewarded, either through recognition of transfer publications or by taking practical resonance into account in appointments and evaluations. In my view, it also makes sense to systematically involve representatives from the field in review processes. This would allow for early assessment of whether research questions are actually relevant and whether results can be applied to practical issues.

Interesting idea.

JR: Yes, journal editors point out that it is difficult to recruit practitioners for review processes. Nevertheless, relevance should become a mandatory criterion. To this end, every publication should contain a clear transfer section in which the results are precisely translated and the practical implications highlighted. This section should no longer be a formal requirement, but should be systematically taken into account in the review process.

Shouldn’t marketing research see itself more as a discipline that has a social impact? Is this being discussed in the community, or is it more your personal observation?

JR: That is indeed a big question. I notice this gap, as do some of my colleagues, but overall it is not discussed enough within the discipline. In marketing, there is also a fundamental problem of self-positioning: what exactly do we want to be? Historically, the subject in Germany has tended to come from a sales-oriented tradition. Later, the focus shifted to exchange processes and value creation – a concept that remained very broad and abstract. In the meantime, topics such as purpose and sustainability have been added, but even that has not led to a clear positioning in terms of content. I believe it is urgently necessary for us in the discipline to talk more intensively about our role and define how we can create social relevance. Only in this way can the theory-practice gap be seriously addressed.

What role can open science play in closing the theory-practice gap? Is it primarily about transparency in publication or openness throughout the entire research process?

JR: I see several levels. Openness should begin at the outset, with research topics being formulated jointly with partners in practice. And it should not end with publication. Researchers need to pay closer attention to how their results are received and classified. Feedback throughout the entire process is crucial. In projects we carry out with partners in practice, we see how valuable this continuous exchange is – for both sides. Added to this is the potential in the area of data: if companies were to share or pool their information, this would create an enormous basis for new research. For me, open science is therefore less a technical issue and more a question of social openness, i.e. the willingness to systematically involve practitioners.

Ultimately, it’s a question of mindset. Researchers need to consciously say: I conduct practice-oriented research that supports companies, whether DAX-listed corporations or SMEs, in their work and thus develops relevance.

JR: Exactly, at least part of the research should have this aspiration and focus on relevance. Ultimately, it’s a question of meaning: what are we doing, and what role do we play as marketers in the science system?

Let’s assume that company representatives and researchers jointly develop a complex topic that is both scientifically interesting and has publication potential. Where exactly in the research process should this co-creation take place?

JR: Ideally, the collaboration should accompany all phases of the project, from the development of the research question and the research design to the interpretation and communication of the results. In practice, this can take different forms: companies contribute their empirical knowledge, such as which approaches they have already tested, while the scientific community contributes the literature and methodological expertise. There are also various models for data collection, from the use of existing company data to the joint development of new sources and the enrichment of external data. It is crucial that the evaluation does not take place in an ivory tower, but in dialogue. This allows us to check whether the analyses actually contribute to solving the jointly formulated question. In the end, both sides should take responsibility: researchers by bringing the results to the scientific community, and companies by passing on the findings to their practice.

Would companies even get involved if it is unclear from the outset what concrete results a research project will ultimately yield?

JR: I wouldn’t be pessimistic about that. Many companies are willing to engage in cooperation if it becomes clear that research will be beneficial in the long term. It is important to build trust and to involve the breadth of practice, not just individual pilot partners. Real-world laboratories or smaller projects can serve as a starting point and later lead to larger research questions. In this way, researchers also become more familiar with the complexity of entrepreneurial reality and understand why it is not enough to make individual adjustments.

Can open science really close the theory-practice gap that you have identified as a problem? Or is it more of a tool that alleviates symptoms, while the actual causes lie deeper?

JR: Open science alone will not solve the problem. However, it can make important contributions through better data exchange, more transparent communication and new formats for communication. Open science does not replace fundamental change, but it can provide impetus.

Which actors could help to strengthen the bridge between research and practice? Do you see professional associations or universities as bearing the main responsibility here?

JR: First of all, the question arises as to whether the will is there at all. Many feel well established in the existing system. But if you really want to change something, the key leverage lies with universities and science policy. That is where the incentive structures are set that guide institutes and researchers. Professional associations can also play an important role by tirelessly creating spaces for dialogue and bringing together specific stakeholders, ideally in smaller, curated formats that enable exchange on an equal footing. Finally, funding programmes could be envisaged that explicitly require cooperation with practitioners and combine scientific excellence with practical relevance.

In conclusion, if you had to name three reasons why open science is a good thing for business administration – and marketing research in particular – what would they be?

JR: First, open science can strengthen individual motivation. Researchers experience more meaning in their work when their results have an impact not only in the scientific community but also in practice. Secondly, open science makes a contribution to society, for example through findings that can be used by businesses, politicians and the public alike. And thirdly, open science acts as a catalyst for the discipline itself: it forces us to ask fundamental questions anew and to further develop our self-image as a discipline.

Thank you very much!

*The interview was conducted on 26 September 2025 by Dr Doreen Siegfried.
This text was translated on 7 October 2025 using DeeplPro.

About Prof. Dr Jörn Redler:

Jörn Redler is Professor of General Business Administration, specialising in marketing, at Mainz University of Applied Sciences. He trained as an industrial clerk, studied economics and obtained his doctorate from Justus Liebig University in Giessen. His research focuses on point-of-purchase communications, brand management, the relevance of marketing research and reputation management of scientific organisations.

Contact: https://www.hs-mainz.de/hochschule/persoenliche-seiten/redler-joern-prof-dr/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joern-redler-a6a713208/

to Open Science Magazine