Abstract

Current hypotheses for the existence of the ‘research-practice gap’ focus on weaknesses in research dissemination on the one hand and practitioner attitudes and motivations on the other. It is suggested that the gap has more fundamental origins in the cognitive and value mismatch between researchers and practitioners. To narrow the gap both cultures need to use a common framework (map and language) that is located at a level of analysis between their typical modes and makes explicit provision for the consideration of values. The decision analytic framework fulfils these requirements and it is therefore argued that all reports of research should include a decision analytic representation of the findings