Search results

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.”

A gap between research and practice is commonly perceived throughout accounting academia. However, empirical evidence on the magnitude of this detachment remains scarce. The authors provide new evidence to the ongoing debate by introducing a novel topic-based approach to capture the research-practice gap and quantify its extent. They also explore regional differences in the research-practice gap.

The authors apply the unsupervised machine learning approach Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to compare the topical composition of 2,251 articles from six premier research, practice and bridging journals from the USA and Europe between 2009 and 2019. The authors extend the existing methods of summarizing literature and develop metrics that allow researchers to evaluate the research-practice gap. The authors conduct a plethora of additional analyses to corroborate the findings.

The results substantiate a pronounced topic-related research-practice gap in accounting literature and document its statistical significance. Moreover, the authors uncover that this gap is more pronounced in the USA than in Europe, highlighting the importance of institutional differences between academic communities.

The authors objectify the debate about the extent of a research-practice gap and stimulate further discussions about explanations and consequences.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to deploy a rigorous machine learning approach to measure a topic-based research-practice gap in the accounting literature. Additionally, the authors provide theoretical rationales for the extent and regional differences in the research-practice gap.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive theory as to why academic research in accounting is said not to help practice.

The authors (1) present a comprehensive literature review in the academic/practitioner gap arena, and (2) develop a theoretical background for it. Further, they identify (3) the different information needs of these groups using value group theory and (4) the inherent factors and personality traits that influence career choice. Next, they (5) evaluate the values of each subgroup. They then (6) theorize what types of accounting research would interest each. They argue that (7) individuals who enter the academy differ from those who enter practice, and (8) the socialization processes and the impact of the professional setting (practice or academe) on behaviors further the separation of academic research from practitioner needs.

This paper is theoretical. It suggests that bridging the gap will be difficult. The study is theoretical. The limitation is that it does not empirically test the relationships hypothesized. By providing a comprehensive model of factors underlying the gap, however, it can be a fruitful source of research ideas for years to come. The implications are that it will be difficult to bridge the gap between accounting practitioners and academics. Having a greater understanding of the causes of the gap, however, may be very useful in fostering thought as to how to overcome it.

Prior literature on the topic is largely atheoretical. This paper is the first to develop a broad theory of the gap.

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.

The aim of this paper is to identify and gain insights into the significance of barriers contributing to the purported “gap” between academic management accounting research and practice.

Drawing on diffusion of innovations theory, this study collects and analyses data from a questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews with 19 representatives of the four principal professional accounting bodies in Australia.

Professional accounting bodies perceive the gap between academic research and practice in management accounting to be of limited concern to practitioners. The two most significant barriers to research utilisation by practitioners are identified as: difficulties in understanding academic research papers; and limited access to research findings. In acting as a conduit between the worlds of academia and practice, professional bodies have an important role to play by demonstrating the mutual value to both academics and practitioners resulting from a closer engagement between MA research and practice.

As one of the few empirically-based, theoretically informed investigations exploring the research-practice gap in management accounting, this study provides insights rather than “answers”. Its findings therefore serve as a foundational basis for further empirical and theoretical enquiry.

This study contributes to the conversation about the “research-practice gap” in management accounting by adopting a distinct theoretical vantage point to organize, analyse and interpret empirical evidence obtained from Australian professional accounting bodies about management accounting practice.

The Pathways Commission on Accounting Higher Education Report (2012) recommends turning the accounting profession into a learned profession through the purposeful integration of accounting research, education and practice. This paper develops an approach to identifying and quantifying the specific dimensions of the gap between the accounting academic and practice communities, thereby contributing to moving the accounting profession to a learned profession. For this we focus on audit research, because the discussion of the perceived gap between audit research and audit practice is extensive; yet no one has actually quantified that gap to date. While researchers have classified and quantified audit research, no one has done likewise for publications issued by the practice community. We choose the 38 distinct recommendations in the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession (ACAP) Final Report as an initial benchmark. We compare those recommendations to the 16 audit research themes from Lesage and Wechtler (2012) and to the publications spanning 33 years of audit research posted on the American Accounting Association website. Eight Lesage and Wechtler themes, comprising 50% of the themes, were not explicitly included in any ACAP distinct recommendation. Conversely, seven distinct recommendations had zero direct matches in the audit literature. This gap suggests future research opportunities in terms of exploring underrepresented topics and, maybe more importantly, the reasons why some topics are underrepresented.

The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast perceptions about the research-practice “gap” as it may apply within management accounting, from the perspective of professional accounting bodies in Australia and Germany.

The findings reported in this paper is based on the collection and analysis of data from interviews with 19 senior representatives from four Australian Professional bodies and 14 representatives of German Professional accounting bodies.

In Australia and Germany, there exist common as well as unique barriers preventing a more effective engagement of academic research with practice. Common to both countries is the perception that the communication of research represents a major barrier. In Australia, practitioner access to academic research is seen to be a principal obstacle; in Germany, the relevance of topics researched by academics is perceived to represent a significant barrier to academic research informing practice.

This paper directly engages with, and extends recent empirically based research into the extent to which academic research may “speak” to management accounting practice. It extricates both common and specific barriers contributing to the oft-quoted “research-practice gap” in management accounting, and points to the pivotal nature of an intermediary to act as a conduit between academics and practice.

By investigating this issue in two quite different cultural, educational, academic and practice contexts, this paper provides much-needed empirical evidence about the nature, extent and pervasiveness of the perceived research-practice gap in management accounting, and provides a basis for further investigation of this important topic.

This article presents the results of a study involving 261 domestic violence researchers representing a variety of professional disciplines. The purpose of this study was to identify researchers' perceptions of the connections between research and practice in domestic violence. The study builds on previous literature that identified a gap between research and practice in domestic violence. Through a factor analysis of the Domestic Violence Research‐Practice Perceptions Scales: Researcher Form, a new instrument developed for this study, a four‐factor conceptual framework for understanding the domestic violence research‐practice gap was identified. The four factors identified were labelled as follows: (a) personal practice orientation, (b) beliefs about practitioners, (c) beliefs about researchers, and (d) beliefs about a research‐practice gap. Researchers were shown to differ in their scores on the first factor subscale based on whether they had prior experience of providing services to clients affected by domestic violence and whether domestic violence is the primary focus of their research agenda. Implications of the findings for integrating research and practice in domestic violence are then discussed.

The authors suggest that the research-to-practice gap, such as that found in evidence-based management, is due in part to a lack of attention to embodied knowledge. The recommendation is for change agents to bring attention to embodied knowing when implementing change based on research. The purpose of the paper is to address the research-to-practice gap.

This is a conceptual paper that considers limitations of the predominant approach to considering the research-to-practice gap. The literature on phenomenology, feminist theory, and learning theory form the basis for exploring these challenges as well as possible solutions for transcending the research-to-practice gap.

Strategic opportunities for introducing increased corporeal understanding are advanced. The suggestions address the research-to-practice gap at three critical stages of research-based change initiatives. These include making embodied knowledge integral to change initiatives in framing research, reducing resistance, and increasing acceptance. Among the specific strategies discussed are attending to tacit knowledge when considering the change, embracing the embrained body including attending to kinesthetic resistance and starting with the body to increase acceptance when implementing change.

There has been very little previous attention to the corporeal in management research and practice, including in the organizational change literature. This paper not only increases this discussion significantly but also provides suggestions for how to move forward in practice.

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.