Yes i agree research based decisions sound logical, but they don’t necessarily add value. The keyword here is “VALUE”. Then one could argue they’ve produced invaluable research, but in reality there’s a fundemental difference or a contradiction if you will. That is, academics are socialists, corporates are capitalists. Only language they understand is PROFIT, and profit at any cost. But a researcher is likely to present a more socially acceptable proposition that may not always appeal to corporates driven by value creation for shareholders. When you have two different groups of people with two different agendas, i doubt they can work together.

As for researchers ability to communicate, i’d like to think researchers are good communicators. Its not their inability to communicate that results in ouright rejection of their research findings. If you can’t communicate yourself, you can always hire someone who can communicate in corporate lingo. May be you can use technology as catalyst in this communication process, hopefully that will help bridge the gap. So communication isn’t always a barrier. Even if its a barrier it can always be overcome. Issue is value and relevancy of research, mindset of corporates etc…

Corporate arrogance if not ignorance is another reason why research findings don’t get translated into actions.