Professional, scholar, or knowledge worker? Identity construction of Chinese management researchers amid the research–practice gap

PLOS ONE RESEARCH ARTICLE Professional, scholar, or knowledge worker? Identity construction of Chinese management researchers amid the research–practice gap Shubo Liu1, Mengna Lv ID1, Qiuli Huang ID1*, Yiduo Wang2 1 Busines School, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China, 2 Warwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom * a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Liu S, Lv M, Huang Q, Wang Y (2024) Professional, scholar, or knowledge worker? Identity construction of Chinese management researchers amid the research–practice gap. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0306833. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0306833 Editor: Muhammad Arsyad Subu, School of Health Binawan: Universitas Binawan, INDONESIA Received: April 23, 2024 Abstract We move beyond discussing the desirability and feasibility of bridging the research–practice gap to introducing an identity perspective to explore how Chinese management researchers make sense of the research–practice gap and what kinds of career identities are constructed. We conducted a qualitative study among 34 Chinese management researchers working at or studying for a PhD at research-oriented business schools in China. The findings show that management researchers in typical Chinese higher education institutions prefer constructing a single identity (i.e., professional, scholar, or knowledge worker identity) rather than a hybrid identity such as "academic-practitioner" as studies of their Western counterparts suggest. Moreover, before seeking and emulating role models to construct their desired career identities, researchers in China studying management reflexively search for referent groups by identifying either with a narrow disciplinary group (US mainstream management researchers or traditional intellectuals) or a broad group of knowledge workers. Furthermore, this study delineates how researchers with varying career identity narratives adopt corresponding identity work strategies (i.e., redefinition, defense, and distance) suggesting that identity work strategies do not always lead to achieving or preserving positive identity. Accepted: June 23, 2024 Published: August 29, 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Introduction The gap between academic research and practical application in business management is a long-standing issue that has significant implications for both academic and professional communities [1–3]. This phenomenon is particularly evident in China, where the academic evaluation system heavily emphasizes publication in high-impact journals and researchers often prioritize theoretical contributions over practical relevance [4]. For instance, a report from the National Natural Science Foundation of China revealed, "Many management research projects fail to align with China’s management practices largely due to the academic community’s insufficient interaction with the business sector . . . Researchers often lack focus and a deep understanding of the current state of China’s management practices, failing to produce PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833 August 29, 2024 1 / 24 PLOS ONE Professional, scholar, or knowledge worker? influential perspectives. . .. The disconnection between research and practice has become a unique chronic problem in China" [5]. Additionally, news from Guangming Daily (2021), one of China’s official media outlets, indicated a growing disconnect between the knowledge taught in business school and the needs of management practices [6]. Notably, considerable academic controversy exists regarding the feasibility and desirability of bridging this gap, posing identity challenges for management researchers [1–3]. For example, some management researchers marginalize their peers who maintain close ties with the practical world [7], and others criticize those who prioritize rigor over relevance [8], resulting in what Gulati (2007) termed "brutal identity warfare" [9]. Considering the situations in which research is detached from practice, generating intense debates in academia, how do management researchers make sense of and construct their career identities? The limited studies that have suggested that management researchers aspire to construct a hybrid identity to maintain a balance between the two selves as a scholar and practitioner [2, 3, 10] have primarily involved "academic-practitioners" acting as boundary spanners navigating both the academic and practical realms. However, there are also considerable management researchers based in business schools or universities where institutional norms focus on academic-specific tasks such as the pursuit of high-quality research, publication in top-tier academic journals, and participation in academia-oriented events. Their primary work responsibility is producing "scientific management knowledge" rather than "practical application," commonly observed in China [11]. Unfortunately, these "pure" researchers without practical application roles have received little consideration; thus, how they construct career identity amid the research–practice gap remains poorly understood. Therefore, this study’s central research question is as follows: 1. How does the research–practice gap affect Chinese management researchers’ career identity construction? We divided this broad question into three distinct questions: 2. What are the identity narratives of Chinese management researchers? 3. Why do Chinese management researchers construct these career identities? 4. How do Chinese management researchers implement identity work strategies to maintain these career identities? Based on 34 in-depth interviews with Chinese management researchers, we identify three identity narratives categories: professionals, scholars, and knowledge workers. Different categories of Chinese management researchers identify with distinct referent groups (i.e., US mainstream management researchers, traditional intellectuals, and knowledge workers) and frame their identities in terms of referent group membership. Furthermore, we delineate three identity work strategies that correspond to the three identified identity narratives: redefinition, defense, and distance. This study makes a threefold contribution to the literature. First, it reveals how Chinese management researchers who are not "academic-practitioners" construct their single rather than hybrid career identities and the identity work strategies that they (...truncated)