In our ivory towers? The research-practice gap in management accounting

Abstract

This study reports on an investigation of 64 senior management accounting academics from 55 universities in 14 countries about the extent to which academic management accounting research does, and should inform practice. Drawing on the diffusion of innovations theory as a point of departure, and based on evidence obtained from a questionnaire survey and subsequent interviews, our findings reveal the prevalence of two broad schools of thought. One school, represented by the majority of senior academics, holds that there is a significant and widening ‘gap’ between academic research and the practice of management accounting, and that this gap is of considerable concern. In contrast, the other school holds that a divide between academic management accounting research and practice is appropriate, and that efforts to bridge this divide are unnecessary, untenable or irrelevant. From this empirical evidence, we advance a conceptual framework distinguishing between the ‘type’ of academic research undertaken, and the ‘users’ of academic research, and on the basis of this framework, contend that framing the relationship between academic research and practice as a ‘gap’ is potentially an oversimplification, and directs attention away from the broader but fundamental question of the role and societal relevance of academic research in management accounting.

Keywords:

• research-practice gap
• the diffusion of innovations theory
• management accounting research
• relevance

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Acknowledgements

We express our appreciation to all the academics who participated in this study. Special thanks are made to Sven Modell, Jane Broadbent, Kim Langfield-Smith, Cheryl McWatters, Deryl Northcott, Bob Kaplan, Richard Laughlin, Ken Merchant, and Mark Young for their insightful and constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We also gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments from participants in the paper's presentation at RMIT University, and School of Commerce Research Seminar, the University of South Australia.

Notes

This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Corrigendum (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2013.877214).

1. That is, ‘practice’ as assumed or inferred by parties to this conversation.

2. The definition of management accounting research is consistent with that of Foster and Young (1997, p. 64): ‘the process of using rigorous methods to explain and/or predict: (1) how changes to an existing management accounting system will affect management actions, motivation and organizational functioning, and (2) how internal and external organizational forces will affect management accounting system design and change’.

3. Following Malmi and Granlund (2009a, p. 640), the definition of management accounting as stated by CIMA (1996) is adopted in the current study: ‘the process of identification, measurement, accumulation, analysis, preparation, interpretation and communication of information used by management to plan, evaluate and control within an entity and to assure appropriate use of and accountability for its resources’.

4. Following Chenhall and Smith (2010), these journals include A*-ranked journals (according to the 2010 Excellence in Research for Australia rankings of the Australian Research Council) in the general area of accounting that have published management accounting research. These are The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Accounting Organizations and Society, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal and Journal of Management Accounting Research.  In addition, four international journals that specialize in, or support management accounting research are included, namely, Management Accounting Research, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Accounting and Business Research, and, Accounting and Finance.  Although necessarily restrictive, it was considered reasonable to select these journals, broadly regarded as the foremost international peer reviewed academic journals that publish management accounting research.

5. This included academics working in Universities in Australia, New Zealand, Japan or Singapore.

6. Although the UK is part of Europe, we base our distinction on research emanating from the UK and mainland Europe on cultural factors and historic differences (Hopper et al. 2001), resulting in the possibility of different definitions between these geographic reasons of what ‘good’ research is and how it should engage with practice (Amat et al. 1994, Bescos and Mendoza 1995, Chenhall and Langfield-Smith 1998).

7. The quantitative tests comparing geographic locations of respondents, and methodological affiliation were post hoc. They were undertaken after the completion of the interviews and were not taken into account in our selection of the sample. We point out that our qualitative findings were consistent with these quantitative results in that no readily identifiable trends or patterns in perceptions were discernible by geographic region or by methodological affiliation.

8. The detailed data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

9. These responses were conveyed to us through email communications with the particular academics.

10. Although intriguing, the aim of this study is not to predict such classification, but rather to understand the nature of what has been found to be a majority or minority view. What might predispose an academic to hold a majority or minority view is certainly a valid avenue for further research.

11. See Jarzabkowski et al. (2007) for a more extensive explanation of this distinction.

12. See Chenhall and Smith (2010) for a discussion of the evolution of Australian management accounting research as an example.