Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

4. Implications
Lorne Booker et al.
The overall goal <strong>of</strong> this study was to understand how academic research influences <strong>the</strong> state <strong>of</strong>
practice in <strong>the</strong> field <strong>of</strong> business valuation. The role <strong>of</strong> direct and indirect knowledge transfer
approaches was investigated by identifying <strong>the</strong> channels through which academic knowledge reaches
CBVs. The utility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> knowledge market perspective in examining <strong>the</strong> relevance problem was
evaluated. For this, 15 semi-structured interviews with CBVs were conducted. The following
implications are <strong>of</strong>fered:
Implication 1: Academic research on business valuation is relevant to <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> practitioners.
Business valuation pr<strong>of</strong>essionals are aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> academic findings and make use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m in <strong>the</strong>ir
practice. They are familiar with <strong>the</strong> major scholars in <strong>the</strong> field. Despite some difficulty in accessing
peer-reviewed articles and comprehending <strong>the</strong>ir content, most CBVs benefit from scientific research in
<strong>the</strong>ir domain.
Implication 2: The overall knowledge market for business research is not a single homogeneous
body. Instead, <strong>the</strong> knowledge market consists <strong>of</strong> two discrete markets: practitioner and academic.
They dramatically differ in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir objective, type <strong>of</strong> knowledge, and clientele. Surprisingly,
business valuation practitioners are engaged in codifying and communicating <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge to <strong>the</strong>ir
colleagues.
Implication 3. The indirect knowledge distribution channel plays a key role. Scholarly knowledge
reaches business valuation pr<strong>of</strong>essionals through direct and indirect knowledge dissemination
channels. However, practitioners obtain most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge by means <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> indirect knowledge
dissemination method.
Implication 4: Knowledge translation mechanisms play <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> market intermediaries. The inability
<strong>of</strong> scholarly knowledge to directly reach industry pr<strong>of</strong>essionals results in academic knowledge market
failure. In this case, <strong>the</strong> knowledge translation mechanisms play a key role as intermediaries that
correct this imperfection. When an existing market cannot meet customer demand, a new market and
new intermediaries emerge and modify <strong>the</strong> supply chain.
Implication 5: Academics should not change <strong>the</strong> manner in which <strong>the</strong>y publish scholarly articles.
Business pr<strong>of</strong>essionals believe that researchers following a strict scientific format for a reason, and
<strong>the</strong>y do not ask academics to change <strong>the</strong>ir methods. Instead, <strong>the</strong>y prefer accessing scientific findings
through <strong>the</strong> practitioner knowledge market. The solution to <strong>the</strong> academic research relevance problem
<strong>the</strong>refore resides in having a healthy, effective and efficient practitioner knowledge market.
Implication 6: The knowledge market perspective provides a useful approach to <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong>
academic relevance. In this project, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> knowledge markets was adapted to investigate <strong>the</strong>
existing knowledge distribution channels. In <strong>the</strong> result, <strong>the</strong> framework explicating knowledge
distribution processes was constructed, and a number <strong>of</strong> novel, unexpected findings emerged.
Therefore, <strong>the</strong> knowledge market perspective is recommended as a fruitful approach to fur<strong>the</strong>r
investigate <strong>the</strong> relevance issue.
Acknowledgements
This study is kindly supported by a research grant from <strong>the</strong> AIC Institute for Strategic Business
Studies, McMaster University and <strong>the</strong> grant 864-07-0181 from <strong>the</strong> Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council <strong>of</strong> Canada (SSHRC). Sincere thanks go to <strong>the</strong> attendees <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> seminar on <strong>the</strong>
relevance <strong>of</strong> KM scholarly research held on November 25, 2010 at Monash University – Caulfield,
Australia who provided very valuable insights on this project.
References
Ankers, P. and Brennan, R. (2002) "Managerial Relevance in Academic Research: An Exploratory Study",
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol 20, No. 1, pp 15-21.
Bakos, Y. (1998) "The Emerging Role <strong>of</strong> Electronic Marketplaces on <strong>the</strong> Internet", Communications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ACM,
Vol 41, No. 8, pp 35-42.
Bolton, M. and Stolcis, G. (2003) "Ties that do not Bind: Musings on <strong>the</strong> Specious Relevance <strong>of</strong> Academic
Research", Public Administration Review, Vol 63, No. 5, pp 626-630.
Breu, K. and Peppard, J. (2003) "Useful Knowledge for Information Systems Practice: The Contribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
Participatory Paradigm", Journal <strong>of</strong> Information Technology, Sep, Vol 18, No. 3, pp 177-193.
97