Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how practical relevance of management accounting knowledge relates to research paradigms and theoretical pluralism.

The paper is conceptual in nature.

As the management accounting discipline is considered to be an applied discipline, a number of authors claim that management accounting research should develop relevant theory that can be used in practice. This call for increased practical relevance of management accounting knowledge interrelates with a debate on the desirability of theoretical pluralism and paradigm diversity in management accounting research. Drawing on the work of Nicolai and Seidl, the paper distinguishes different forms of practical relevance, and analyses the effects of theoretical pluralism on these different forms. The paper argues how theoretical pluralism particularly enhances relevance in a conceptual sense rather than an instrumental sense. The conceptual relevance of research may further be enhanced by interpretive research that acknowledges complexity and that has the potential to challenge the performativity of mainstream management accounting knowledge, without challenging the pursuit of efficiency as such. This is different from critical research. The instrumental relevance stemming from mainstream management accounting research entails de‐contextualization and simplification, and might create unintended self‐fulfilling prophecies.

The paper broadens the concept of relevance so that it includes conceptual relevance and legitimative relevance. It links these concepts of relevance to three research paradigms: a mainstream paradigm, an interpretive paradigm and a critical paradigm. For each paradigm, relevance is related to the use of theory.

The paper broadens the concept of relevance and advocates the pursuit of conceptual relevance, particularly through interpretive research.

This paper proposes to rethink the concepts of relevance and usefulness and their relation to the theory–practice gap in management research.

On the basis of the cognitive-linguistic relevance theory or inferential pragmatics, supplemented by insights from information science, we define relevance as a general conceptual category, while reserving usefulness for the instrumental application in a particular case.

There is no reason to hold onto the difference between theoretical and practical relevance, nor to distinguish between instrumental and conceptual relevance.

This novel approach will help to clarify the confusion in the field and contribute to a better understanding of the added value of management research.

The discussion of rigor vs relevance is an ongoing debate in academic environment. Ambitions to fulfill one of these two objectives might not exclude the other. Instead, they could and should be achieved simultaneously. However, what seems to be missing in supply chain management (SCM) research is the unfolding of symmetrical balance between the two dimensions of relevance – theoretical vs practical relevance. The purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of this symmetrical balance and to change the conversation to also include the practical relevance dimension.

The paper is based on literature studies as well as the results of a questionnaire survey distributed to the Danish Supply Chain Panel consisting of 113 supply chain executives (as per the beginning of 2017). A short interview about the questionnaire results was also carried out with three panel members.

With an increased focus on journal rankings, there is a risk of pursuing more theoretically relevant SCM research at the expense of practically relevant SCM research. Both types of relevance are important for growing the discipline. But the current development seems to favor theoretical relevance, further widening the gap with respect to practical applications. Practical relevance is important both in the knowledge production and in the knowledge transfer stages.

There is a need to further explore different resources to close the gap between theoretical and practical relevance in SCM research. Researchers ought to follow an ambidextrous research strategy. This paper advises to bring back the core of the profession – the research process. This paper encourages researchers to be more creative and intensify the focus, equally, on both the theoretical and practical relevance in their research.

This research showcases a variety of different approaches for researchers to engage with practice so as to reduce any prejudices from both sides and enhance SCM decision-making processes. This paper recommends adding a new type of paper “practical paper” and including practitioners in the review board to evaluate the practical content of the research paper. This initiative would strengthen the interaction between researchers and practitioners.

This paper provides new insights on the need for symmetrical balance between theoretical and practical relevance being important for both academia and practice.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how the quality of Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management (QRAM) is manifested through the conceptualization of knowledge about functioning actions that are applicable for local management accounting practices.

Drawing on language game theory and pragmatic constructivism, the paper analyzes the “practice doing” embedded in key language games of the case descriptions of three articles on intra-organizational buyer-supplier relations published in QRAM with the aim of revealing how they contribute to the development of a performativity in management accounting topos that integrates facts, possibilities, values and communication.

The analysis documents that the three QRAM articles on inter-organizational cost management make a common contribution to the knowledge related to what to do to make functional actions within the practice of inter-organizational cost management. Together, the articles provide conceptual rigour with a complexity in content that can encompass the four dimensions of integration.

In providing a framework for analyzing practice relevance, the paper has implications for contemporary discussions on doing research that is relevant for practice.

The paper provides novel insight into the analysis of quality in management accounting research. Additionally, it provides a framework for reflecting on the accumulation of practice-relevant knowledge and identifying areas requiring more research.

Conducting research that is both practice- and theory-relevant is important for the service research community. Action research can be a fruitful approach for service researchers studying the transformative role of service research and wanting to make contributions to both the research community and to practical development. By exploring the current use of action research in service research, this study aims to make suggestions for enhancing the contribution to theory and practice development and to propose criteria for research quality for action research in service research.

This study builds on a systematic literature review of the use of action research approaches in service research.

The study makes three main contributions. First, it posits that any action research project needs to consider the four elements of problem identification, theorization, creating guiding concepts and intervention. Second, based on these elements mirrored in service action research, it outlines and analyzes three approaches to action research (i.e. theory-enhancing, concept developing and practice-enhancing). Third, it suggests a move from instrumental to a more conceptual relevance of the research and elaborates on the criteria for research quality.

This study contributes to the understanding of how action research may be applied for conducting high-quality collaborative research in services and proposes measures to enhance research quality in action research projects focusing services.

We discuss results from recent relevance research with implications for information professionals. Our studies show that beyond the usual concern with high relevance and non‐relevance judgements, that partially relevant judgements by users are important. We call for the adoption of a more complex view of human relevance judgements in the education and practice of information professionals.

The growing involvement of management researchers in knowledge exchange activities and collaborative research does not seem to be reflected in a growing academic output. The purpose of this paper is to explore barriers for the limited academic output from these activities as well as the potential for ‘interesting’ papers.

The paper uses secondary data and statistics as well as an illustrative case study to trace knowledge exchange activities and barriers for academic output based on these activities.

The paper identifies a number of barriers for the turning of data derived from knowledge exchange activities into academic papers such as low priority of case study research in leading management journals, a growing practice orientation in the research funding systems, methodological challenges because of limited researcher control and disincentives for researcher involvement in knowledge exchange activities. The paper also identifies a potential for ‘interesting’ research and discoveries through collaborative research.

Diminishing the barriers for collaborative and case-based research and exploring the potential for ‘interesting’ discoveries has the potential to increase the number of published papers with a high level of scientific rigor as well as a high level of relevance for practice.

An outcome focus on the relationship between knowledge exchange activities and management research is to the author’s knowledge new in the debate about weak practical relevance of management research.