Lorenz Lassnigg: Research and practice: A difficult bridge

”Political practices must be included endogenously in attempts to understand the research-practice relationship in adult education,” argues Dr. Lorenz Lassnigg, senior researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Vienna. In his column, he examines the elements for bridging the gap between research and practice.

Reflecting on the relationship between research and practice automatically leads to questions about gaps between these two dimensions and possible ways of bridging these gaps. However, these relations quickly turn out to be much trickier than might appear at first sight (1).

Looking at adult education as a specific field of practice and adult education research, we can easily see that each is embedded in various other contexts that overlap to some degree: education, social and political relationships and employment and the economy on the side of practice, and the research and science systems on the research side.

As to what elements might be essential to bridge the gap between research and practice, two stand out – and both are problematic: first, the complex of information-media-knowledge production; second, politics and policy making for channelling resources and framework conditions. Both elements establish new, independent relationships between research and practice, thereby increasing complexity.

PRACTICES ARE ESSENTIALLY material (2), as they cannot be carried out without resources such as time, space, competences, knowledge and materials, which are ultimately financial. Also, as far as adult education and research are public endeavours, they depend on politics. The production and application of results from adult education research are simply not possible without resources.

This is not trivial because a double barrier and a self-destructive circle are formed by a lack of resources at the practice level, due to competition for resources for research and practice. Research demands time, and when resources for practice are basically lacking (the first barrier), research for better practices does not make sense if a lack of resources is expected to prevent future application (the second barrier).

Therefore, political practices must be included endogenously in attempts to understand the research-practice relationship in adult education (3).

IN PROFESSIONAL AND POLITICAL discourses, the main proposal for bridging the gap between practice and research involves establishing and improving information flows between the two dimensions.

Among the proposals are changes in research and substantial practices, as well as building intermediate brokerage practices, where all these practices can be established as business activities. Taken together, varied intermediate structures with various functions are imagined, involving actors and/or new players on different sides of the gap (4).

Catchwords include transfer centres and science communication selling results on the research side, science or knowledge centres reviewing and valuing research in the intermediate structures, and professionalisation through capacity building via science education and research training on the practitioner side (5).

IN THEIR CONCRETE SHAPING and enactment, all these mechanisms and practices can be built in various ways, which might contradict or complement each other. Depending on the effort and configuration, they might intervene in established practices and change them.

Systemic impact and effects, however, are not clear from the outset. For example, the establishment of powerful intermediary businesses might contradict professionalisation on both sides, practice and research.

Implicitly, all these additional mechanisms assume a kind of authoritative relationship between research and practice (6). By establishing additional intermediaries, a direct relationship between research and practice is undermined by separation.

Alternatives toward more cooperative solutions would include democratic versions of integrating the Third Mission, which involves contributing to the social, cultural and economic development of society, into the primary functions of research universities as core institutions of research (7). Additionally, efforts to develop knowledge production as research practice should aim for transdisciplinary cooperation between research and practice in the sense of Mode Two, which is context-driven production of knowledge (8).

ADULT EDUCATION MIGHT be allocated a role in all these endeavours, and it remains open for practice and research in adult education to determine how to conceive and take on this role. To do this in a reasonable and sustainable way, efforts must be made to understand the complex configurations in which adult education is situated.

Exemplary, though implicit and limited, attempts in this direction can be found in the EAEA Manifesto for Adult Learning: The Power and Joy of Learning, which partially covers the relationships between research, practice, and (indirectly) politics, and in the report Learning through life: Inquiry into the future for lifelong learning by the Learning and Work Institute in the UK, which provides a comprehensive picture of the complex relationships involved. Practical implications remain to be seen.

References:

(1) Lassnigg, L. (2025). Theorie und Praxis, Praxistheorie – Leerstellen und Theoretisierung im Theorie-Praxis-Diskurs. Magazin erwachsenenbildung.at, Ausgabe 54-2025. Online: https://erwachsenenbildung.at/magazin/25-54/meb54_09_standpunkt_lassnigg.pdf

Altrichter, H., Kannonier-Finster, W., & Ziegler, M. (2005). Das Theorie-Praxis-Verhältnis in den Sozialwissenschaften. In: H. Heid, C. Hartei, (eds). Verwertbarkeit (pp. 119-142). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-07736-7_6

Heikkinen, A., Alanko-Turunen, M., & Narko, R. (1996). Do research and practice meet? Prospects from surveys and analyses on vocational education and training in EU and Finland. Hämeenlinna: Tampere University Press.

(2) Milne, C., & Scantlebury, K. (Eds.) (2019). Material Practice and Materiality: Too Long Ignored in Science Education. Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01974-7

(3) Prøitz, T.S., Aasen, P., & Wermke, W. (2023). Education Policy and Education Practice Nexuses. In: T.S. Prøitz, P. Aasen& W. Wermke (eds). From Education Policy to Education Practice (pp. 1-16). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36970-4_1

(4) OECD-CERI (2007). Evidence in Education. Linking Research and Policy. Paris: OECD. Online: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2007/06/evidence-in-education_g1gh7fde/9789264033672-en.pdf

(5) Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., & Buntins, K. (Eds.) (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. Methodology, Perspectives and Application. Wiesbaden: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7

(6) European Expert Network on Economics of Education. Online: https://eenee.eu/de/

(7) Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L., & Vallance, P. (Eds.) (2016). The Civic University. The Policy and Leadership Challenges. Cheltenham: Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717728

(8) Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Looking for more articles on the relationship between research and practice?

This article is part of the theme 'Research and Practice 2025'.

Read related articles here