Addressing the Research-Practice Gap: Unraveling the Implementation Science Implementation Practice Conundrum

Abstract Renowned historian and best-selling author, Yuval Noah Harari, convincingly asserts that through language and narrative abilities we create things that do not exist independent of us in the real world. Humanity organized itself from small groups into larger and larger groups through “convenient fictions” such as money, religion, kingdom, capitalism, and nation. Though useful, these narratives artificially differentiate “us” and “them”. Over time, the overlap of narratives reveals conundrums and contradictions that when critically examined may seed more useful approaches. For example, although implementation and practice are synonyms, differentiating implementation science from implementation practice creates a conundrum. This conundrum suggests an implicit asymmetry between researchers and practitioners that may be amplified and perpetuated, not corrected, by the science of implementation. To say that scientists develop frameworks for implementation or that there is a research-practice gap, invites an assumption that researchers produce the knowledge, and it is practitioners’ failure to apply this evidence that produces the gap. To spark reflection and refresh thought, this commentary briefly examines roots and myths of this implementation science implementation practice conundrum, some of which include how academic programs prepare practitioners, researchers, and workforce leaders, the gold standard of randomized controlled trials, as well as the proliferation of implementation theories, models, and frameworks. In these discussions, we suggest simplification, as well as curricula and research transformation, so that those implementing and those affected by implementation can more meaningfully determine feasibility and impact to diminish the research-practice gap.