Collaborative work with my colleague Stephen Fox from VTT. We explain that the extant framing of research relevance is skewed because it is centred upon irrelevance of much research knowledge to practitioners, while excluding or under emphasising the irrelevance of much practice knowledge to practitioners. Moreover, the current framing is skewed because the extant literature disregards the very common collaboration between researchers and practitioners. In addition, we explain that the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because theory, practice, and relevance are discussed in vague terms rather than specific terms. Furthermore, the current framing of research relevance is indistinct because there is little reference to theory knowledge. We argue that current skewed and indistinct framing obscures the complexity of relevance. As a result, overly simplistic assertions have been made about how relevance can be increased. We broaden and balance the framing of research relevance. We provide greater specificity in the explanation of factors that contribute to the complexity of relevance. We provide recommendations for addressing the complexity of relevance. The article is available here at the journal’s webpage.