Wine Economics and Policy 12(1): 19-22, 2023 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/wep ISSN 2212-9774 (online) | ISSN 2213-3968 (print) | DOI: 10.36253/wep-14724 Wine Economics and Policy Citation: Riccardo Vecchio (2023). Does anyone read my papers? The gap between academic consumer research and the real (wine) world. Wine Eco- nomics and Policy 12(1): 19-22. doi: 10.36253/wep-14724 Copyright: © 2023 Riccardo Vecchio. This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze Univer- sity Press (http://www.fupress.com/ wep) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information fi les. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no confl ict of interest. Does anyone read my papers? � e gap between academic consumer research and the real (wine) world Riccardo Vecchio Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II (Italy),Via Univer- sità 100, 80055 Portici –Naples, Italy E-mail: riccardo.vecchio@unina.it Abstract. Th e goal of this discussion paper is to foster the debate among scholars on some of the key issues that are currently challenging the impact of academic wine consumer studies and encourage younger researchers towards alternative paths. Based on my personal experience, I will focus on some scholars’ practices that (in my view) could be revised to increase the reconnection of researchers to the practical world, namely: topic relevance Vs. trendiness, methodological approaches and data utility, sample issues and the replication crisis. Keywords: relevance, practicioners, scholars. 1. INTRODUCTION As a wine consumer scholar from the beginning of my academic career I was clearly aware that I would never uncover the role of oncogene activa- tion in human thyroid carcinomas or discover a real-time strategy to con- trol prosthetic hands. Nevertheless, I always thought that my research out- puts could be of (some) interest for practitioners and policy makers. Th e sad reality is (in my case) that the outcome papers are only read by aca- demic colleagues. Th e most frustrating consideration stems from the fact that nowadays research funds are deeply bounded by practical objectives and deliverables. Nonetheless, my wine consumer studies (I can state with a great degree of confi dence) have rarely whispered in the ears of princes [1] – informed policy makers – and never advised wineries’ managers in their strategic planning. As a partial consolation, I quote Lockshin and Corsi [2] (p.493, 2020) which stated: “Th is behaviour has oft en led to the accusation, particularly from industry, that our research does not provide answers to the questions that really matter”. Th e researcher-practitioner divide is indeed an enduring issue among many disciplines and especially in applied academic fi elds (see, among others, [3]). Notwithstanding the merits of knowledge dif- fusion among the academic community, I do believe that as applied schol- ars we should profoundly aim to reach a wider audience of possible ben- 20 Riccardo Vecchio eficiaries of our research. Similarly, we must encourage young scholars to develop studies that have an impact also (or foremost) on the real-world. However, this pat- tern is not without potential pitfalls, recalling the cave- ats of too closely following practitioners’ agendas [4]. In my personal view, academic studies have strongly been pressured towards novelty of findings and the applica- tion of innovative methodological approaches, which are surely important features of research but do not represent (necessarily) a quality mark. Additionally, the increasing competitiveness and complexity of the sci- entific publication process has encouraged scholars to engage in research that have greater publication appeal (the so-called indicator game). Moreover, academic research timing (from hypothesis formulation to data gathering and article publication) is clearly divergent from practitioners’ need to collect and analyse market information. Nevertheless, a sharp shift towards rele- vant research that addresses substantive problems could be necessary, urged by the increasing amount of exter- nal funding which is progressively more outcome based. The goal of this discussion paper is to foster the debate among scholars on some of the key issues that are cur- rently challenging the impact of academic wine consum- er studies and encourage younger researchers towards alternative paths. In my view not everything is directly attributable to the scholars’ community, as some push- backs are also due to the industry and to policy makers. Hereafter, due to my personal experience, I will focus only on some scholars’ practices that (in my view) could be revised to increase the reconnection of researchers to the practical world: topic relevance Vs. trendiness, meth- odological approaches and data utility, sample issues and the replication crisis. But first some words of warning. Whilst I am aware of the importance of the relevance versus rigour debate [5] and the differences existing among Universities and business schools’ research, for sake of conciseness I will not dwell into these issues. Additionally, I do not question the basic principles of academic freedom [6], which is in my opinion one of the most remarkable benefits of our profession. Finally, I transparently admit that in many papers I have deviated from several recommendations provided in this discus- sion and (as later highlighted) I am aware of the incen- tives of digressing. 2. RELEVANCE VS. TRENDINESS (AND THE INDICATOR GAME) Scientists consider an article to be relevant if it addresses an issue that has an impact on collective and/ or individual well-being in the short or long term. While undoubtedly it is hard to perform wine consumer research that actively benefits the broader collective, we should encourage studies that provide useful insights for multi- ple stakeholders. However, an unwritten, but quite well- known, fast-track to publication is to perform research on a “hot topic”; in other words, investigate an issue that is popular in the international or national media due to some (recent) trend or phenomenon. Nevertheless, most often when a topic is popular among the general press, the wine industry has already exploited its market opportunities. Similarly, articles dealing with such hot topics have higher probabilities to be cited by colleagues and thus contribute to the indicator game [7]. 3. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES AND DATA UTILITY The general rule in science is that empirical research is rigorous if the methods and techniques warrant the conclusions drawn. Whilst scholars generally acknowl- edge that all methodologies investigating consumer and other stakeholders’ attitudes and behaviours (from field experiments to stated preferences techniques) hold spe- cific limitations and strengths (see, among others, [8]), there seems to be a periodic popularity upsurge of one, specific method of data gathering. Guiding to over-criti- cism towards other methodologies and to a proliferation of studies more concerned of showcasing the complex- ity and grandeur of the underlining design rather than focusing on the potential utility of outcomes. Relatedly, a worrying issue is also the use of validated scales in our research, which is certainly due to seek high methodo- logical rigour, nonetheless it can lead scholars to diverge from real-world measurements. Whilst information on psychological processes in the consumer journey and possible moderating or mediating influences are key for wine industry stakeholder, often the outcome of these scales depict individual psychometric characteristics that do not offer practical insights to wineries or policy mak- ers interested in identifying market segments or inter- ventions’ effectiveness. Studies should be designed build- ing on the unique make-up of that market [2] and care- fully considering their final, empirical contribution [9]. 4. UNDER-POWERED SAMPLES AND THE REPLICATION CRISIS Causal inferences to be informative relies on exter- nally valid samples [10]. However, empirical evidence suggests that non-representative convenience samples 21Does anyone read my papers? The gap between academic consumer research and the real (wine) world can provide insights that closely resemble those found using representative samples [11]. Indeed, many wine consumer studies rely on limited samples, most often non representative of any specific target population [12, 13]. While acknowledging the difficulties in achieving successful academic collaborations, an alternative to per- form studies with narrow, convenience samples could be to crowdfund larger datasets collecting quota-based sub-samples from different affiliations. The immediate advantages of such practice would be to reduce indi- vidual scholars’ efforts of data collection (as each par- ticipant could provide a limited number of respondents) and more closely reach a larger population, (probably) located in different geographical areas. Strictly related to the issue of low external validity of many wine con- sumer studies is the huge issue of the publication bias attached to replication studies. Most scholars are con- vinced (and I fear appropriately) that journals will never publish research that loyally replicates an investigation performed by other authors [14]. Whilst the advance- ments provided by this work for the academic commu- nity could indeed be limited, the outcomes would be of great benefit for the practitioners. As findings could offer an important update on stakeholders’ attitudes or/and behaviours and, even more importantly present, a vali- dation of previous insights. 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS I hope that this discussion paper, examining a non- exhaustive list of core topics that limit academic stud- ies’ usefulness to solve practitioners and policy makers problems, will provide some impetus to wine consumer researchers to further debate (and potentially increase) our contribution to the real-world. Among the possi- ble options, we should try to engage practitioners in the design of our studies and further exploit the opportu- nities offered by traditional and social media to share outcomes through popular science outputs (as indeed many younger scholars are increasingly doing). Overall, I sincerely believe that enhancing the impact of our wine consumer research is a win-win solution. REFERENCES [1] Roth, A. E. (1995). Bargaining Experiments” chap- ter 5 in John H. Kagel and Alvin E. Roth, editors, The Handbook of Experimental Economics. [2] Lockshin, L., & Corsi, A. M. (2020). Key research top- ics likely to generate Australian and other wine pro- ducer countries’ support during the period 2020-2030. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 32(4), 493-502. doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-01-2020-0004 [3] Brennan, R. (2004). Should we worry about an “academic‐practitioner divide” in marketing? Mar- keting Intelligence & Planning, 22 (5), 492-500. doi.org/10.1108/02634500410551879 [4] Tapp, A. (2004). A call to arms for applied market- ing academics. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22 (5), 579-590. doi.org/10.1108/02634500410551950 [5] Brewer, J. D. (2013). The public value of the social sciences. London, UK: Bloomsbury. [6] Fish, S. (2021). Versions of Academic Freedom. University of Chicago Press. [7] Werner, R. (2015). The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful. Nature, 517(7534), 245- 245. doi.org/10.1038/517245a [8] Huffman, W. E., & McCluskey, J. J. (2017). Using stated preference techniques and experimental auc- tion methods: A review of advantages and disad- vantages for each method in examining consumer preferences for new technology. International Review of Environmental and Resource Econom- ics, 10(3-4), 269-297. doi.org/10.1561/101.00000088 [9] Ozretic-Dosen, D., Fuduric, M., & Horvat, S. (2022). Challenging the status quo in marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 143, 294- 297. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.077 [10] Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2009). The experi- mental approach to development economics. Annual Review of Economics, 1(1), 151–178. doi. org/10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.143235 [11] Frigau, L., Medda, T., & Pelligra, V. (2019). From the field to the lab. An experiment on the repre- sentativeness of standard laboratory subjects. Jour- nal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 78, 160-169. doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.06.003 [12] Deroover, K., Siegrist, M., Brain, K., McIntyre, J., & Bucher, T. (2021). A scoping review on consumer behaviour related to wine and health. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 112, 559-580. doi. org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.03.057 [13] Schäufele, I., & Hamm, U. (2017). Consumers’ per- ceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. Journal of Cleaner production, 147, 379-394. doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.118 [14] Ferraro, P. J., & Shukla, P. (2022). Credibility crisis in agricultural economics. Applied Economic Per- spectives and Policy. doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13323 [15] Foltean, F. S. (2019). Bridging marketing theory- practice gap to enhance firm performance: Intro- 22 Riccardo Vecchio duction to the special issue. Journal of Business Research, 104, 520-528. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbus- res.2019.06.008 [16] Kumar, N. (2008). The CEO’s marketing manifesto. Marketing Management, 17(6), 24–29. [17] Fraser, K., Deng, X., Bruno, F., & Rashid, T. A. (2020). Should academic research be relevant and useful to practitioners? The contrasting difference between three applied disciplines. Studies in High- er Education, 45(1), 129-144. doi.org/10.1080/0307 5079.2018.1539958 [18] Rowley, J. (2012). Evidence-based marketing: a per- spective on the ‘practice-theory divide’. Internation- al Journal of Market Research, 54(4), 521-541. doi. org/10.2501/IJMR-54-4-521-541 Wine Economics and Policy Volume 12, Issue 1 – 2023 Firenze University Press State of the International Wine Market in 2022: New market trends for wines require new strategies Rafael Del Rey1, Simone Loose2,* Does anyone read my papers? The gap between academic consumer research and the real (wine) world Riccardo Vecchio A certification for natural wine? A comparative analysis of consumer drivers in Italy and Spain Eva Parga Dans1,*, Riccardo Vecchio2, Azzurra Annunziata3, Pablo Alonso González4, Raimundo Otero Enríquez5 Structure and development of the Czech wine market and foreign wine trade Kamila Vesela, David Křížek*, Lucie Severova The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap Stefano Massaglia1, Tibor Verduna1, Vincenzo Varchetta2, Filippo Brun1, Simone Blanc1,* The new CAP and the challenge of sustainability: a synthetic indicator for the Italian wine sector Roberta Sardone1,*, Simonetta De Leo1, Davide Longhitano2, Roberto Henke1 Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign: a tool to better understand Fischer-Boel’s 2008-2011 grubbing-up campaigns and the desire in 2022 to reintroduce locally premiumized grub-ups Étienne Montaigne1, Samson Zadmehran2,*, Alfredo Coelho3, Yacine Messaoudène4 The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review John C. Spence