Abstract (EN)

The rigor/relevance debate has generated an intense conversation. Despite a growing consensus on the need for research to be more impactful, scholars have drawn radically different paths to bring research and practice closer. This accumulation of contributions that are often unarticulated with each other has led to a situation of confusion. This paper seeks to clarify this debate. It presents a taxonomy of different strategies to reduce the gap between research and practice. Based on a systematic analysis of 135 editorial statements, viewpoints, theoretical papers and empirical papers in top-tier journals, we show four different approaches academics take to bridge the gap, which take root in a different explanation of the origin of the gap and highlight their complementary nature by providing an integrative framework.