Editorial.(Editorial)

The relationship between academic research and retail practice is inevitably an uneasy one. Practitioners often seek straightforward and no-nonsense insights and can sometimes be impatient with what they see as unnecessary complexity, ambiguity or just plain academic dilettantism. Just where are those golden nuggets? Just give us the executive summary. Academics, on the other hand, recognise that complexity and ambiguity in business situations are more often the norm than the exception and are often intolerant of what they regard as simplistic analysis based upon frequently dubious and often unquestioned assumptions. But sometimes, academic research is designed and presented to fit the rules of the game and can be frustratingly--sometimes deliberately--obscure to outsiders. Academic research assessment exercises inspired by target-driven governments and academic cliques don't help in making academic research more accessible to practice.

A further difficulty is that what we might call populist research (apparently compelling findings based on small samples and particular agendas) often gets the headlines. Contrast the difference in media attention given to the concept of 'clone towns' as against that given to one of the biggest recent research programmes on retailing, the Future of Retail Property, funded by the British Council of Shopping Centres. Soundbite Britain triumphs again.

The result is that the twain--academics and practitioners--sometimes never meet; and this is a pity. How many of our practitioner subscribers, for example, are regular readers of the Journal of Retailing? No hands? How many retail academics regularly peruse the pages of Retail Week, the Grocer or Drapers'? A few hands, perhaps. This is not just a problem for retailing. Scholars and practitioners in marketing and operations management, for example, appear to share the ...