Search results

The purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the issue of research relevance from the frame of reference of university leaders. Its specific aim is to gain insights into how “relevance” is conceptualised, and the underlying assumptions upon which such conceptualizations are based.

Adopting an inductive approach, the study collects and analyses data from semi-structured interviews with 31 senior research-related university leaders, and archival sources in five Australian universities.

Research relevance is primarily viewed as a means of responding to government and political imperatives, as a pathway to ensuring university legitimacy, and as a means of generating further resources. The authors apply this understanding to develop a framework that adopts a nuanced view of relevance, reflecting what is driving research, and to whom research is principally targeted.

The evidence-base upon which the study is based represents a relatively small number of university leaders of Australian universities. Moreover, restricting the investigation to a few senior hierarchical levels nonetheless offers insights into high level organisational drivers hitherto neglected in the accounting research literature on university strategy, governance and accountability. While not addressing perceptions across the university population, this study focusses on and unpacks the social construction of relevance of this select group as research policy makers.

As one of the few empirically informed investigations exploring the issue of research relevance from the perspective of university leaders, this study provides insights rather than “answers”. Its findings therefore serve as a foundational basis for further empirical and theoretical enquiry.

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 explores the impact of contemporary calculative practices, termed “accountingisation”, on Australian accounting academics' values. Also, it seeks to understand the rationale underlying the development of various university performance measurement systems (PMSs), and their implementation and evaluation.

A case study approach uses accounting academics' responses to an online survey and also semi-structured interviews with senior research-related leaders in a group of Australian universities. This is supplemented by document analysis. A narrative story-telling approach explores and presents the combined data observations, over the period 2010–2018, of two characters: a “typical” accounting academic and a “typical” vice-chancellor.

The study contributes to the literature on PMSs in understanding “accountingisation”, the rationale behind the development, implementation and evaluation of performance metrics by senior management and its impact on accounting academics. It juxtaposes and unpacks the complexities and nuances of PMSs and provides empirical evidence by highlighting the perceptions of both the Australian accounting academics and senior university management. The findings demonstrate a level of discontent among accounting academics in reconciling the expectations of increased “accountingisation” within university PMSs. These are juxtaposed against the views of senior university leaders who are influential in determining PMSs.

This paper is novel in considering the implications of “accountingisation” in a contemporary setting, focusing on accounting academics, values and individual PMSs within business schools.

The contribution of accounting research to the space sector has arguably been less discernible, less visible and less appreciated than that made by STEM disciplines. This paper aims to ascertain the nature and extent to which management accounting can contribute to interdisciplinary advancements of the space sector. This is accomplished by investigating possible contributions realised by management accounting research to the space sector and identifying the opportunities and challenges facing interdisciplinary accounting researchers in making a contribution.

This qualitative empirical study draws on interviews with 25 academic researchers and practitioners from Australia, the USA, the UK, Canada, Europe, India and China, with research or practitioner experience on accounting issues germane to the space sector. The purpose is to seek their perceptions of how interdisciplinary management accounting research can solve contemporaneous problems in the space sector.

The potential contribution that management accounting research can make in the space sector is grounded in the inherent interdisciplinary of the discipline. The propensity to draw on other disciplines, theories, methodologies and methods is a strength of management accounting, as it is arguably by such interdisciplinarity that “wicked problems’ such as those presented by space exploration, policy and research can be solved.

This is one of the first papers to explore the role and contribution management accounting research can offer to what has traditionally been a STEM-dominated field. In so doing, it underscores the central importance and value-added by an interdisciplinary approach to management accounting research.

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.

This reflection is aimed primarily at doctoral students, early career researchers and more experienced accounting researchers seeking to undertake interview-based academic accounting research. It is specifically designed to identify and confront some common obstacles to publishing interview-based management accounting research.

This reflection is autoethnographic in the sense that it is based primarily on my publication experience, observations and reflections as an author/co-author and also as a reviewer and editor/editorial board member in submitting, reviewing and evaluating interview-based management accounting research. It therefore adopts a form of participant observation in approach in which the author seeks to provide to readers a sense of “being there” insofar as addressing the barriers to publishing interview-based management accounting research.

Whilst the insights that interview-based accounting research can offer are well established, there remain practical obstacles in publishing this form of research. These obstacles – portrayed in this paper as “hoops” through which authors must jump – largely reduce to challenges in convincing the reader of the credibility and authenticity of their approach and demonstrating the trustworthiness and dependability of the findings and conclusions reached.

The academic and practical issues raised in this commentary will assist emerging scholars in anticipating and dealing with the challenges they face in submitting these types of studies to academic accounting journals.

This paper is a critical analysis and reflection of the process of publishing interview-based accounting research. Rather than attempting to replicate the many excellent commentaries on this topic, it is designed to be of practical use to emerging scholars in the design, delivery and presentation of qualitative interview-based accounting research with a particular aim of navigating the submission and review process.

The paper presents the initial groundwork for the development of a research agenda around the management control implications of employing workers with intellectual disability.

The point of departure of this foundational enquiry is primarily prior analyses and critiques of empirical research into the employment of workers with intellectual disabilities.

The authors extend the management control framework advanced by Tessier and Otley (2012) by offering insights relating to the benefits and costs of both compliance as well as performance roles of management control systems (MCS). As such, the authors advocate potential avenues for further empirical investigation and also offer four broad ways in which the use of MCS is implicated in the employment of individuals with an intellectual disability by recognising that achieving compliance outcomes or achieving performance outcomes both carry associated benefits and costs.

The extent to which management control research has engaged with the context of workers with intellectual disability is limited. However, this paper identifies some of the salient considerations underlying an agenda for further research in this area.

The employment of workers with intellectual disabilities is by no means unprecedented. In many Western economies, there have in recent times been significant disability policy shifts, recognising the key role of employment in the financial security and social participation of people with disabilities, including those with intellectual disabilities. A key performance indicator stated in these policy positions is an increase in workforce participation for this group of people. However, an increase in the employment of such individuals is likely to represent significant implications in terms of prevailing conditions as well as new management control configurations that may be required.

The paper overviews existing knowledge about the employment of workers living with an intellectual disability and identifies areas relating to the management control implications of such arrangements within which more research is required.

Purpose – The authors investigate the interpretations of senior university decision-makers on three questions: (1) What constitutes “relevant” research? (2) In what ways is the relevance of research typically measured? and (3) What alternative ways might be adopted in measuring the relevance of research?

Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory study adopts an inductive approach, informed by data collected from semi-structured interviews with senior research-related university leaders and archival sources in five Australian and eight US universities.

Findings – There is considerable convergence in the conceptualization as well as the operationalization of the notion of relevance between the Australian and US universities participating in this study. The evidence supports a relational rather than currently prevailing transactional approaches in operationalizing the concept of research relevance. This relational approach emphasizes the importance of stakeholders, their needs and expectations, and their engagement in the articulation of measures that demonstrate the relevance of research in both the short and longer terms.

Research limitations/implications – The evidence is primarily based on the views of university senior management drawn from a relatively small number of universities leading to questions about the representativeness and generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the findings have been informed by leaders at the most senior hierarchical levels. Although consistent with the aim of the study, the views of university leaders provide only one view on our research questions.

Originality/value – The authors provide a conceptual view of research relevance from the perspective of one pivotal group – university senior management – that has been largely and surprisingly overlooked in discussions of the relevance of academic research.