Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present and analyze the opinions of a number of editors of accounting journals on the value they attach to the practical relevance of management accounting research and the potential role of qualitative methods in conducting this type of research.

This paper collects together commentaries from these journal editors about the theme indicated above, together with an overview and reflections by the editors of this special issue.

The journal editors do not regard a lack of practical relevance in management accounting research as a key concern. Most of them see practice‐relevance and theoretical advancement as complementary, while the latter is given by far the most weight as the core of academic work. Furthermore, most journal editors have no clear preference for either qualitative or quantitative research in relation to the practical relevance issue. Neither do they seem to have strong opinions about the specific benefits of qualitative methods in practice‐relevant studies. In their commentaries, the editors of this special issue advocate a stronger connection between the needs of practitioners and the content of the research, more interventionist research in which practitioners and researchers work together, and a greater focus on communication between academics and practitioners about the practical implications of management accounting research. The special issue editors specifically emphasize the importance of this communication in relation to safeguarding the “support” of various groups in society for academic research.

The paper contributes to the ongoing debate about the practical relevance of management accounting research, and particularly to the role of qualitative methods in practice‐relevant studies.

By collecting and analyzing the opinions of editors of several prominent accounting journals on the practice‐relevance of the research in this field, a contribution is made to the ongoing debate about this issue.

The purpose of this paper is to explore some of the forces which militate against building capacity for research in business and management that satisfies the double‐hurdle criteria of academic rigour and relevance to practice, despite strong pressures in favour of it.

The paper is a reflective piece based on a small number of interviews with researchers, and a variety of initiatives and events in the business and management environment.

Forces for practice relevant research include rhetorical statements from high‐profile academics, government, the research councils, and many business and management researchers. Forces against it relate principally to editorial and reviewer processes relating to journal publication and grant awards. Modes of academically rigorous, practice relevant research actually carried out are highly varied – some variations are discussed – but these are not widely understood by funding councils, editors, reviewers, or even by researchers working in different modes of such research.

The principal point of this paper is a call for capacity building to develop in the community an understanding of the nature of rigour in different modes of practice relevant and cumulative research. This contrasts with, but is in addition to, more traditional calls for effort to be applied to the further development and promulgation of practice relevant research approaches themselves.

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.

Thus far, no study collects evidence from practitioners directly to investigate the characteristics of operations management (OM) research that appears to have impacts on OM practice, nor do we know how practitioners evaluate the managerial relevance of OM research. This paper aims to answer two interesting and important questions: how do practitioners judge the managerial relevance of OM research; and whether practitioners' criteria on managerial relevance can help OM researchers improve the relevance?

A panel of senior executives was asked to read the top 10 most downloaded papers from the Journal of Operations Management and fill the designed questionnaire. Following Cronbach's cumulative theory‐building process through which progress is made by successively testing the efficacy of the measures, this research examined the diverse disciplines, consolidated relevant findings, and integrated them into a tractable, meaningful research framework.

This paper reveals that practitioners evaluate our OM research by three criteria: whether academic research is applicable or implementable (solution oriented), whether academic research provides novel insights or new perspectives to management (eye opening), and whether academic research helps practitioners recognize their situations (accessibility).

While the awareness of managerial relevance in OM research has been growing, few systematic, quantitative‐oriented empirical studies of practitioners' attitude toward academic OM research exist in current literature. This paper directly explores practitioners' opinions on managerial relevance through quantitative analysis and identified several possible dimensions to pursue managerial relevance in OM research.

Conducting relevant research is a cornerstone of good academic practice. However, considering academics and practitioners’ divergent paradigms and social systems, it is challenging to undertake impactful research. Indeed, the research–practice gap remains an essential issue in human resource management research. There have been several calls for translating research for dissemination, making it more societally relevant, and beginning conversations and activities that move beyond the confines of the academic context. In fact, research on talent management (TM) has been accused of lagging in offering organizations vision and direction. Understanding the perceived causes and potential solutions for relevant problems is a real need to successfully narrow the TM research–practice gap. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to offer an in-depth discussion on the research–practice gap in TM. To do so, we first identify the critical dimensions of research relevance that will help us to ground our discussion regarding the applicability of current academic TM research. By doing this, we seek to understand better what is happening with TM research, which should then help provide insights into how its practical impact can be improved.

This paper compares and contrasts practice-based perceptions of the research–practice gap in the United States (US) with those in Australia.

The current study extends the work of Tucker and Lowe (2014) by comparing and contrasting their Australian-based findings with evidence from a questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews with senior representatives of 18 US state and national professional accounting associations.

The extent to which academic research informs practice is perceived to be limited, despite the potential for academic research findings to make a significant contribution to management accounting practice. We find similarities as well as differences in the major obstacles to closer engagement in the US and Australia. This comparison, however, leads us to offer a more fundamental explanation of the divide between academic research and practice framed in terms of the relative benefits and costs of academics engaging with practice.

Rather than following conventional approaches to ‘bridging the gap’ by identifying barriers to the adoption of research, we suggest that only after academics have adequate incentives to speak to practice can barriers to a more effective diffusion of their research findings be surmounted.

This study makes three novel contributions to the “relevance literature” in management accounting. First, it adopts a distinct theoretical vantage point to organize, analyze, and interpret empirical evidence. Second, it captures practice-based views about the nature and extent of the divide between research and practice. Third, it provides a foundational assessment of the generalizability of the gap by examining perceptions of it across two different geographic contexts.

Purpose: The current study aims to cast light on the divide between academic research in management accounting and its applicability to practice by examining, from the standpoint of nursing, how this gap is perceived and what challenges may be involved in bridging it.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The current study compares the findings of Tucker and Parker (2014) with both quantitative as well as qualitative evidence from an international sample of nursing academics.

Findings: The findings of this study point to the differing tradition and historical development in framing and addressing the research–practice gap between management accounting and nursing contexts and the rationale for practice engagement as instrumental in explaining disciplinary differences in addressing the research–practice gap.

Research Implications Despite disciplinary differences, we suggest that a closer engagement of academic research in management accounting with practice “can work,” “will work,” and “is worth it.” Central to a closer relationship with practice, however, is the need for management accounting academics to follow their nursing counterparts and understand the incentives that exist in undertaking research of relevance.

Originality/value: The current study is one of the few that has sought to look to the experience of other disciplines in bridging the gap. Moreover, to our knowledge, it is the first study in management accounting to attempt this comparison. In so doing, our findings provide a platform for further considering how management accounting researchers, and management accounting as a discipline might, in the spirit of this study’s title, “Learn from the Experience of Others.”

Purpose – The author introduces the Eastern philosophy of wisdom, especially its epistemology of Yin-Yang Balancing as the Eastern cognitive frame, to shed light on the debates over the distinction and integration between research and practice as well as between qualitative and quantitative methods so as to solve the problems of relevance-rigor gap as well as complexity-simplicity gap. The author also applies the frame of Yin-Yang Balancing to the development of a novel method of case study.

Methodology/Approach – This is a conceptual article.

Central theme – The Eastern philosophy of wisdom is better at an open-minded exploration of open-ended issues by emphasizing relevance and complexity, while the Western philosophy of science is better at a closed-minded exploitation of close-ended issues by emphasizing rigor and simplicity. A geocentric integration of both Eastern and Western philosophies is needed.

Research and practical implications – Management research is far behind the need for theoretical insights into practical solutions largely due to the increasing gaps between relevance and rigor as well as between complex problems and simple solutions. The root cause of the two gaps lies in the overreliance on the Western philosophy of science, so a new light can be found in the Eastern philosophy of wisdom, and the ultimate solution is a geocentric integration of Eastern and Western philosophies. A novel method of case study can be built by applying the Eastern philosophy.

Originality/Value – The author highlights the urgent needs for the Eastern philosophy of wisdom and its integration with the Western philosophy of science toward a geocentric meta-paradigm. As a specific application of the geocentric meta-paradigm, the author proposes a novel method of case study called Yin-Yang Method.

This study aims to explore what characteristics contribute to the definition of relevance in business-to-business (B2B) marketing research and how/why different strands of B2B marketing maintain or lose their relevance.

This study is conceptual. It adopts a performative-phenomenal standpoint for B2B marketing research and approaches relevance through the concept of episteme, which is considered pivotal for understanding this phenomenon.

This study proposes four axioms that define the characteristics of relevance in B2B marketing research and discusses their implications for scholars and practitioners. Consequently, an action plan for revitalizing B2B marketing research is developed, comprising learning and temporal dimensions, resulting in nine different relevance types.

The central argument put forward in this study is that different research strands of B2B marketing have deeply rooted epistemic underpinnings that influence their interpretation of relevance. Consequently, fostering dialogue between practitioners and scholars is considered necessary to sustain relevance in B2B marketing research. B2B scholars are urged to think beyond their subspecialized silos and acknowledge how the business environment and the various strands of B2B marketing congruently shape B2B marketing relevance, while also embracing research methods that bring them closer to business practice.

Marketing practitioners and academics continue to drift apart. This study puts forward three recommendations to bring marketing academics and practitioners closer together.

The study contributes to the B2B marketing literature by grappling with the theory-praxis gap and critically exploring what constitutes relevance in B2B marketing research.