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.”

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.

This article aims to explore dimensions and tensions in the relationship between theory (usually produced by academics) and practice (the domain, normally of practitioners) in human resource development (HRD).

The paper examines, from a conceptual perspective, the nature of mode 2 research, where knowledge is generated in the context of multi‐stakeholder teams (academics and practitioners) that transcend the boundaries of traditional disciplines, working on problems to be found in working life.

Mode 2 research has been seen in dichotomous terms of theory versus practice, referred to in various ways such as: the research‐practice gap; the implementation gap; the research‐practice divide; and the theory‐practice void. This gap is also typified by mode 1 research, an approach which adopts the principles of “normal science” and which generates results, the main beneficiaries of which are the academic community. The authors forward mode 2 research as an approach that requires both academic rigour and practical relevance. The article presents and critically evaluates a number of examples of academic‐practitioner partnerships in action in order to highlight both the potential and the challenges for the development of mode 2 research. It also recommends strategies for the advancement of mode 2 research, including getting academics to attune themselves more closely with the needs of practitioners, encouraging academics to write for practitioner journals, and the use of the kinds of research methodologies that can generate richer stories and cases that resonate with practitioner interests. Practitioners, however, need research that has a practical focus and which can be applied immediately.

This is a conceptual paper that draws on secondary examples to support the authors' contentions, making it appropriate to gain further background information on bridging the gap between theory and practice.

The paper critically evaluates a number of examples of academic‐practitioner partnerships in action.

This paper provides an in‐depth analysis of the challenges of undertaking effective and robust practice‐based research, through articulating philosophical differences in research approaches and discussing tensions between academic and practitioner needs.

The growing importance of ‘lived practices’ in entrepreneurship-related studies has sought to pose several questions and challenges for researchers/scholars in the field (Ruona & Gilley, 2009; Short, Keefer, & Stone, 2009). The issue of how current entrepreneurship research practices can become more applied in nature provides the basis for articulating more clearly what we mean by research impact and why it has become a central concern in the research field (Beyer & Trice, 1982; Huggins et al., 2008; Rynes, 2007; Starkey & Tempest, 2005). This debate has drawn specific attention to the need for applied research in entrepreneurial scholarship, which is more reflective of lived practice. The need to reach a balance between practitioners and academics’ expectations in terms of delivering research which is focussed towards achieving academic rigour and application to practice, which is both meaningful and relatable, is significant for both communities (Ram, Edwards, Jones, Kiselinchev, & Muchenje, 2017). This chapter seeks to assist and inspire both existing and future researchers in the field to make more informed choices and offer tangible evidence of good practice, serving as a guide to researchers wishing to develop engaged research. The authors hope that the nature of this chapter would seek to clarify the importance of engaged research in supporting how we understand and respond to the needs of entrepreneurial practice as a means of building trust and confidence in research reported. A key characteristic of the issue will be the different ‘framing’ of questions that can enhance practical knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is to address the research-practice gap in management and advocate the need for an independent organization, called the evidence-based management (EBMgt) collaboration to facilitate generation and dissemination of knowledge that is rigorous, relevant, and actionable.

The authors use a theory-building approach to collaboration. They identify existing challenges in the research-practice gap literature and argue that EBMgt offers the most viable alternative to narrow this gap. They offer a theory of collaboration with supporting propositions that engages the generators, disseminators, and users of management knowledge in an ongoing sustainable collaboration toward EBMgt.

The authors envision evidence at the center of the EBMgt collaboration. They offer a process model of EBMgt incorporating a collaboration that ensures the fusion of rigor, relevance, and actionability of management knowledge toward the production of strong evidence that is of value to a decision maker. They suggest that the collaboration generate evidence in the form of a systematic review (SR) using a standard template and make it available online to management decision makers around the world in real time. They outline the parameters of the SR and offer details on the design of the Template.

The theory of collaboration brings together various competing ideas and recommendations made over the past few decades to close the research-practice gap in management. The theory can be used as a guideline to establish and maintain the operation of an EBMgt collaboration.

The authors offer details on the format and content of a standardized SR along with a template to execute it. They believe it would appeal to a practicing manager to know the state-of-the-art knowledge that applies to a decision that he or she is about to make in real time.

The work provides a theoretical platform for the idea of EBMgt collaboration that was not available before. The authors add value to the research-practice gap literature by addressing critical concerns including the identification of relevant research questions, evaluating and grading evidence, fostering communication between researchers and practitioners, and translating research to practicing managers. The integration of research and organizational knowledge in the form of an SR that provides decision support to a practicing manager is of significant value to the profession. The conceptualization of the collaboration, not as a research method but as a separate social system that links key management knowledge stakeholders together adds originality to collaboration research.

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three streams of thought. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses.

This paper reviews the main approaches that have analysed this topic, drawing a number of conclusions.

The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three main perspectives. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed us to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses. To represent the findings of the literature review in this sense, the authors will present, first, a model that serves as a framework to interpret the different solutions proposed in the literature to close the gap from a positivist paradigm. Subsequently, they question this view through a reflection that brings us closer to a more pragmatic and interpretive paradigm of management science to bridge the research–practice gap.

In recent studies, researchers agree that there is an important gap between management research and practice, which may bear little resemblance to each other. However, the literature on this topic does not seem to be guided by a rigorously structured discourse and, for the most part, is not based on empirical studies. Moreover, a sizeable body of literature has been developed with the objective of analysing and contributing solutions that reconcile management researchers and professionals. To offer a more systematic view of the literature on this topic, the paper classifies previous approaches into three different perspectives based on the ideas on which they are supported. Finally, the paper concludes with some reflections that could help to reorient the paradigm from which the management research is carried out.

Working in the world of international education consulting, while being fresh out of a PhD in comparative and international education (CIE), has magnified the challenges in bridging academic CIE research and practical work. When brought into practical work, CIE academic research brings a critical lens to what can often be a normative field, while clarifying theoretical lineage and concepts, supporting the operationalization and conceptualization of terms, and strengthening survey and questionnaire development. Despite the usefulness of CIE academic research to strengthen practical projects, programs and research, access to academic research in CIE limits its use on numerous levels. First, physical access to articles and books through costly subscriptions is an often-discussed challenge. Access to academic language, particularly for second language learners, carries an additional barrier. Finally, practitioners’ ability to wade through lengthy, dense, and technical articles, while identifying the key components of academic research, is a skill that is developed over time and with training.

While the reasons for the divide are common to many fields, CIE academic research has the added challenge of being situated in the highly practical field of education. However, this makes practitioner access to CIE academic research all the more crucial. Along with discussing issues of relevance and access, this discussion chapter highlights the exploration of alternative sources of academic research content to help academics and other scholars in CIE make their research more accessible. In this way, this discussion proposes that academic research and practice meet in the middle. Not only by increasing physical access to research through the various means discussed but also by using scaffolding approaches to academic research dissemination with the aim to increase the capacity of practitioners’ access to and use of CIE academic research. These approaches not only serve to bring academic research into the visibility of practice, but also to support practitioners’ skills in accessing and applying academic CIE research more easily.

The purpose of the paper is to introduce a model for practice-informed research and to propose this as an alternative paradigm of enquiry, capable of satisfying the competing demands for research in the built environment to be both academically rigorous, and also relevant to practice.

The model is defined in terms of research whose primary purpose addresses the immediate needs of professional practice, rather than theoretical, policy or other academic concerns, and which also utilizes the researcher's experientially gained knowledge as a methodological device. The extent to which this model is capable of demonstrating the required degree of rigour demanded by the academic world is then evaluated through a review of relevant theoretical and methodological literature.

The model is seen to draw upon the Aristotlean notions of techne and phronesis, and to belong to a long epistemological and methodological tradition associated with the concept of knowledge in action. The relationship between this concept and that of tacit knowledge, as well as emic and ideographic approaches to research are demonstrated. The model is also seen to have particular resonances with recent developments in the arts and design disciplines, in qualitative social research and in aspects of the current discourse surrounding the emergence of the knowledge economy.

The paper demonstrates the academic legitimacy of the proposed model as an alternative research paradigm for use in a built environment context.

The model presents an approach that has the potential to increase the relevance of research, and to generate an increased level dialogue between academics and practitioners in the built environment field.

The paper places the concept of practice-informed research into the public domain for subsequent consideration and debate by members of the built environment research community. The concept's insider and practice-centric approaches distinguish it from earlier contributions to the relevance v. rigour debate. By drawing on a wide range of interdisciplinary sources the paper also offers new theoretical insights that have not previously been aired in a built environment context.

The experience of “misfit” between individuals’ professional identities and their work roles or work contexts is common in career transitions. In contrast to extant literature that focuses on the identity struggle of these people, this study examines how problematic identity dynamics associated with misfit motivate the shift toward the development of positive identities and induce creativity in meaning-making and change-oriented actions. It builds on the insights of Mead (1934) and Joas (1996) who view creativity as the most significant aspect of human agency, and the identity work literature that highlights the agentic process in identity construction. The study looks at a group of “pracademics” whose career trajectories deviate from the prototypical patterns in academia. It examines the identity work strategies that these people undertake to overcome misfit and shows how identity work liberates them from the limits of a particular identity, and facilitates new activities that alter aspects of their work contexts. The study advances our understanding of identity work as a creative human endeavor and sheds new light on the change-oriented agency of misfits.