A pint-sized conversation: publicans, brewers, and academics on the UK beer, pub and brewing industry

<p dir="ltr">Most academic research still takes place within a bubble more often than not separating itself, in a number of ways, from the ‘real’ world. Academic projects are often designed without engaging with practitioners, theory is often more valued than usable solutions and publications are written in complex, dense and inaccessible language. There has been much written about the resulting academic practitioner divide, also noted as a theory-practice divide and that ‘this dominant model has come under increasing scrutiny and criticism on the basis that it is increasingly divorcing the research conducted in business schools from the realities of practice’ (Hughes et al., <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2025.2520653#" target="_blank">Citation2008</a>, p. 223). The academic-practitioner gap has been explained by different styles and motivations for sharing and dissemination of research, where academics are focused on accuracy and theory and practitioners on simplicity (Bansal et al., <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2025.2520653#" target="_blank">Citation2012</a>). Excuses such as talking different languages and having different time horizons (Bartunek, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2025.2520653#" target="_blank">Citation2007</a>); Bansal et al., <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2025.2520653#" target="_blank">Citation2012</a>) are given as reasons why the relationships do not work and institutional motivation and reward are given as reasons for academics not to pursue this route (Hughes et al., <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2025.2520653#" target="_blank">Citation2008</a>; Nyilasy & Reid, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2025.2520653#" target="_blank">Citation2007</a>). (Cont.)</p>