The science–practice gap has been recognized as a grand challenge for management scholars in the 21st century. Despite the generation of a considerable amount of knowledge, which is clearly relevant to practice, the science–practice gap continues to persist. We challenge past notions that areas of management have not sufficiently developed to be prescriptive. The Editorial leadership of the Journal of Management commissioned our team to change the conversation on the science–practice gap by changing the question to one which focuses on adherence. We introduce an adherence-based framework from the medical literature to advance the conversation on the science–practice gap in management. This includes a rubric that identifies five criteria to evaluate the prescriptive readiness of research (theoretical grounding, rigor, relevance, practical recommendations, and communication) that produce five levels of research advancement (exploratory, preliminary, option, guidelines, and standards). We identify how scholars and practitioners can overcome structural, social, and psychological barriers to adherence (make recommendations possible, easy, normative, rewarding, and sometimes required). While the science–practice gap may remain a persistent concern, an adherence-based approach can serve to change the nature of the conversation in order to reduce the gap in many areas of management.

科学与实践之间的鸿沟已经被认为是21世纪管理学者面临的巨大挑战。尽管产生了大量与实践显然相关的知识，但科学实践的差距仍在继续。我们挑战过去的观点，即管理领域尚未充分发展为规范性的。《管理杂志》的编辑领导委托我们的团队通过将问题更改为关注依从性的问题来改变有关科学与实践差距的讨论。我们从医学文献中引入了基于依从性的框架，以推进有关管理中科学与实践差距的讨论。其中包括一个可用来评估评估规范性研究的五个标准的理论（理论基础，严谨性，相关性，实用的建议和交流）产生五个层次的研究进展（探索性，初步性，备选方案，指南和标准）。我们确定了学者和实践者如何克服依从性的结构性，社会性和心理性障碍（使建议成为可能，容易，规范，有奖励，有时是必需的）。尽管科学与实践之间的鸿沟可能仍然是一个长期存在的问题，但是基于依从性的方法可以用来改变对话的性质，从而缩小许多管理领域的鸿沟。奖励，有时是必需的）。尽管科学与实践之间的鸿沟可能仍然是一个长期存在的问题，但是基于依从性的方法可以用来改变对话的性质，从而缩小许多管理领域的鸿沟。奖励，有时是必需的）。尽管科学与实践之间的鸿沟可能仍然是一个长期存在的问题，但是基于依从性的方法可以用来改变对话的性质，从而缩小许多管理领域的鸿沟。