Measuring accounting educators’ views on the teaching–research nexus (TRN): an international comparative study

ABSTRACT

The relationship between teaching and research in the modern university has been the subject of vigorous scholarly enquiry in the education literature for several decades. Few international comparative studies are reported in the literature. This study compares and discusses the teaching–research nexus (TRN) in accounting in three international regions: the UK and Ireland (UKI); Australia and New Zealand (ANZ); and South Africa (SA). The purpose of this study is to provide evidence of that the TRN empirical model operates in the different regions, and more so to describe the TRN that remains challenging for the accounting academic profession globally. Positive synergies from the TRN are evident in all jurisdictions in this study but are largely ignored by academic institutions and professional accounting bodies (PABs) that influence the university accounting curriculum. Formal government research assessment measures, coupled by PABs pressures, result in accounting becoming more a teaching-led rather than research-informed academic discipline. This has implications for: the status of accounting academics; the public perception of the professional standing of accounting in society; and the learning experiences of accounting students.

KEYWORDS:

• Teaching–research nexus
• accounting education
• factor analysis
• professional accounting bodies

Introduction

The nexus, or conversely tension, between teaching and research in the modern university has been the subject of vigorous scholarly enquiry in the education literature for several decades (Boyer, 1990; Brew, 2006; Elton, 1986). The deliberation of the relationship, what takes preference and what is valued, continues. Changes in government and institutional policies affect this relationship and continue to influence the work and focus of the academy. Against the background of developments in policies and practises, this study describes and compares the teaching–research nexus (TRN) in the discipline of accounting in three international regions: the UK and Ireland (UKI); Australia and New Zealand (ANZ); and South Africa (SA).

The purpose of this study is established: first, whether the TRN empirical model developed by Duff and Marriott (2012) operates equivalently across different global regions; and second, if it is equivalent, do differences occur between the three regions. Without the equivalence (invariance) testing undertaken in this paper, it is impossible to establish whether the inventory works equally well across the three regions. This is important for all accounting educators across the globe concerned about the possibility for accounting being relegated to a teaching-only discipline. This study shows the TRN empirical model is robust across three global regions. This highlights the importance to accounting educators who see real value in the importance of teaching and research.

More recently, the TRN in accounting has been investigated in different regions (Duff & Marriott, 2012, 2017a, 2017b; Hancock et al., 2017; Lubbe & Duff, 2020). These studies identified positive and negative effects and recognised how accounting education differs between the regions, identifying different challenges and reward systems. The TRN literature is characterised by a rich smorgasbord of subject- and nation-specific studies using a wide range of methodologies. However, there are few, if any, international comparative studies reported in the literature.

The rationale for this study is both empirically and policy motivated. First, to establish whether the TRN model of Duff and Marriott (2017a) is applicable across the three regions. This can only be established by subjecting the three datasets to a simultaneous evaluation. By so doing allows this study to establish whether the TRN in accounting as measured by the research instrument is a global or more localised phenomenon. It also allows other researchers in the field to establish whether the inventory could be of use in other regions (e.g. North America, the Far East) or for adaptation in related disciplines (e.g. business and management) or professions (e.g. law, medicine). From a policy perspective, it provides evidence to help to establish a case to protect the global standing of the accounting academic profession to ensure it does not become a teaching-only activity with limited research opportunities and a stagnating curriculum driven by the needs of professional accounting bodies who operate internationally. The tensions that exist between the focus on teaching for technical content as required by the accreditation bodies, and the need and interest in producing relevant research in accounting remain problematic.

Accounting is a widely taught discipline in ANZ, SA and the UKI. Accounting programmes attract large numbers of students in all these countries and are often regarded as a ‘cash cow’ by institutions, generating significant surpluses. A primary objective of accounting education is to facilitate students to pass the professional accounting bodies’ (PABs) membership examinations (e.g. Behn et al., 2012; Nieuwoudt & Wilcocks, 2005). Internationally, the undergraduate accounting curriculum in universities is heavily influenced by the accreditation requirements of PABs (Duff et al., 2020; Hopper, 2013; Verhoef & Samkin, 2017), where critical accountants argue the focus is on the passive acquisition of technical knowledge, reflecting accounting standards and extant practice, rather than engagement with contemporary accounting thought or involving students as active participants in the production of knowledge (Gebreiter, 2021; Hopper, 2013; Parker, 2013; Sikka et al., 2007).

This study has three objectives. First, to confirm that the empirical model operates equivalently across different regions (Duff & Marriott, 2017a). Second, to compare the findings of the regional studies. Third, to identify the regional challenges to inform the international fostering of the TRN in accounting in universities. This issue is becoming more important as the nexus between university teaching and research has become the subject of political attention and policy making across many countries with potentially detrimental effects on both areas of university activity. The TRN empirical model was previously tested in three studies that was conducted in different regions. Based on the appropriateness of the TRN empirical model in these studies, an international comparative study is conducted to confirm the equivalent operation of the model across different regions.

Contribution

The contribution of this study is three-fold. First, it demonstrates that the TRN empirical model operates equivalently across three global regions. It does this by subjecting the regression weights, the factor variances and error variances to invariance testing to establish their equivalence across the three regions. As the model is found to be invariant, we then assess mean differences in the factors across the three regions. Second, although prior work has assessed model fit and demographic differences within each of the three regions, there has been no formal comparison of the three regions to establish whether differences empirically exist. Thirdly, we believe that acknowledging the existence of a TRN supports the global standing of the accounting academic profession to ensure that the focus on research is retained, while recognising the teaching-intensive focus of technical knowledge.

This paper is organised as follows. A literature review is presented in the second section. The research methodology is described in the third section. Data collection and validity of the model are discussed in the fourth section. The fifth section presents a discussion of the findings and the sixth section concludes the paper.

Literature review

Research and teaching are considered as two defining characteristics of higher education (Durning & Jenkins, 2005; Trowler & Wareham, 2008). Calls for the integration of research into teaching are repeatedly made, stating that the integration contributes to the development of competencies, such as inquiry skills, which are essential to function in the knowledge society (Brew, 2006) and that through involvement in research, students are prepared to live in a world of super-complexity (Barnett, 2000). The linkage between research and teaching, termed the ‘teaching research nexus’, implies interdependence (Tight, 2016), with some arguing that an emphasis on research might be detrimental to the vocational orientation of programmes and the employability of graduates (Skoie, 2000). The lack of a research focus in accounting education has drawn criticism (Samkin & Schneider, 2014a), however, the relative merits of integrating research within what is increasingly viewed as vocational education and training (Hopper, 2013) are largely inconclusive (Duff & Marriott, 2017a, 2017b).

The literature review highlights several studies that have investigated and described the existence (or not) of the TRN. First, we consider TRN investigations in the context of higher education and policy, followed by a description of investigations that specifically focused on accounting. Each country in this study has its own context but a common theme is a threat to the TRN that exists or is developing.

The teaching–research nexus (TRN)

Early studies strongly opposed the existence of any links between teaching and research in higher education (see Feldman, 1987, pp. 274–275), stating that there is little research to support the existence of a link between teaching and research (Elton, 1986, 2001; Hattie & Marsh, 1996; Marsh & Hattie, 2002; Ramsden & Moses, 1992) and that what is taught is isolated from the academic debate of researchers (Brown, 2005). In contrast, Neumann (1992, 1993), moving away from the correlation studies of Marsh and Hattie, argues that academics believe a nexus between teaching and research does exist, even if it is not always possible to prove it statistically (Neumann, 1992). Neumann (1994) identified a tangible, intangible and a global nexus. The ‘tangible nexus’ (p. 326) exists when academics with extended experience in research pass these research skills and techniques on to students. The ‘intangible nexus’, (p. 327) by comparison, refers to the subtle interplay between teaching and research. Students’ engagement with knowledge in a questioning and critical way fosters curiosity and excitement, and a positive attitude to learning. The broader connection between research and teaching at the faculty or institutional level, referred to as the ‘global nexus’ (p. 331), points to the research activities of the academic unit and how faculty directs their research skills and experience in the courses offered to students.

Identified as an intangible nexus, Smeby (1998), using a mixed-method research design, found that the nexus varied by academic discipline and that academics teaching at the doctoral degree level tended to agree that their research influenced their teaching. Shin (2011) determined that the TRN differed depending on academics’ career stages, their levels of education, and the academic disciplines in which academics pursued their teaching and research activities.

At the global nexus level, Simons and Elen (2007) completed a literature review identifying the uncertainties that have been observed in the TRN, specifically as it relates to the differentiation between higher education institutions, the aim of education at the university, the organisation of higher education (curriculum and teaching) and institutional arrangements (policy and financial issues, responsibilities). Their study found that the contradictions can be attributed to the mixed use of two approaches, namely a functional approach and an idealistic approach, calling for ‘an educational reflection and research that takes into account the specific educational potential of academic enquiry, and the particular teaching potential of researchers’ (Simons & Elen, 2007, p. 629).

Comparative studies that considered the relationship between teaching and research include a study conducted in England and Sweden between four universities (Taylor, 2008); and between Dutch and English universities in the context of governance reforms (Leisyte et al., 2009). Taylor (2008) identifies the relevance to the TRN of issues such as the discipline, contextual factors, and structural and political contexts, while Leisyte et al. (2009) found that work portfolios were seriously impacted by the teaching and research workload.

Examining policy implications on the academic productivity at a large Norwegian university, Christensen et al. (2018) showed that engagement, administrative and technical support for research and teaching stimulated research publications. However, their study warns that measuring academic productivity based on publication and credit points has adverse effects on teaching, thereby supporting the argument of a negative global nexus relationship between research and teaching. They argue that, to avoid adverse trade-offs between research and teaching, and to gain further positive effects on research productivity, the severe adverse effects on teaching output should receive careful consideration (Christensen et al., 2018). Veer-Ramjeawon and Rowley’s (2019) recent study of knowledge management in Mauritius and South Africa, calls on policymakers to provide policy direction to enhance research in emerging higher education sectors, and provides insights into the processes in universities of managing their core missions in research, teaching and knowledge transfer.

While models of close linkages between research and teaching are widely embraced in research-oriented universities, Geschwind and Broström (2015) identify a perceived misalignment between institutional incentives for individual academic staff and the needs of teaching. Their study found that while managers seek to secure the participation of senior researchers in education, establishing a tangible nexus, they prefer to delegate the bulk of teaching activities to less research-active staff. Gebreiter (2021) in a case study of a UK Business School notes that a new Dean from the private sector implemented a new structure in the accounting department. Roles were described as ‘routine’ which included teaching and administration and ‘non-routine’ which was research. Teaching fellows were recruited, and they were only required to complete ‘routine’ tasks with no research expectations, resulting in a non-existent TRN.

Continuing at a global nexus level, Brennan et al. (2019, p. 7) describe academics’ conceptions of teaching and research, proposing that a community of scholars is the ‘heart of a research-intensive university’, maximising teaching and research productivity. Focussing on academics in the social sciences, Horta and Santos (2019) examined how organisational factors are related to the working research environments of universities associated with the research agendas. Their study, as with other studies (Edgar & Geare, 2013; Leisyte, 2016) finds that organisational characteristics can influence the research agendas of academics. This finding would seem to be consistent with the view that research evaluation exercises have influenced the attitudes of senior management in universities, which in turn help shape organisational characteristics. However, Horta and Santos argue that ‘policies that attempt to condition and regulate the research produced by academics, and encourage the production of breakthrough research, may be counterproductive and may have the opposite effect to what policy makers and university managers intend’ (Horta & Santos, 2019, p. 9). They contend that giving academics more freedom and autonomy is a better way to stimulate innovative, disruptive, and multidisciplinary research.

Even though research and teaching are meant to be inter-connected in research universities, a strong symbiosis is not easily achieved (Boyer Commission, 1998), while the shifting in contexts and expectations lead to uncertainties for individual academics and universities as organisations. Boyer’s (1990) ‘Scholarship of Teaching’ is described as the recognition of the work involved in the mastery of knowledge as well as the presentation of information so that others may understand it (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Lubbe, 2015; Tight, 2016). However, excellent teachers tend not to share and publish their knowledge of exemplary teaching practices, as found by Halse et al. (2007) in their analyses of the research activities of award-winning university teachers in Australia, adding to the debate of the relationship between teaching and research.

In their study of integrating disciplinary research into teaching in a faculty of humanities, Visser-Wijnveen et al. (2012) observed unexpected benefits arising from a tangible nexus of bringing students into contact with the research interest of the teacher. Examining the potential of inquiry-based learning to strengthen the TRN, Spronken-Smith and Walker (2010) analysed three case studies in different disciplines and found that adopting an open, discovery-oriented inquiry-based learning approach results in stronger links between teaching and research. Schouteden et al. (2016) studied teachers’ research conceptions at teaching-intensive higher education institutions. Their study’s focus is on teachers as ‘the very people who may have the most extensive contacts with students, the most extensive teaching loads, and hence the most extensive opportunities to integrate research into their teaching’ (p. 80). They found that differences between teachers’ general and contextualised research conceptions provide a new and promising view on the research–teaching relationship, and the relationship between teachers’ research conceptions and research integration practices (Schouteden et al., 2016).

In summary, the seminal contribution of Neumann’s (1994) categorisations of the tangible, intangible, and global benefits of the TRN have been extended by several subsequent studies. Three decades of research endeavour have populated this social space with theoretical and empirical contributions at all levels, be they departmental, disciplinary, institutional or international. The literature suggests that, even though a TRN does exist in most cases, there is mixed evidence, with some suggesting a lesser or limited relationship.

Studies of the TRN in accounting education

The past four decades have seen several investigations into linkages between accounting research and practice (Albrecht & Sack, 2000; Inanga & Schneider, 2005; Kaplan, 2011) and calls for research into practical accounting issues such as sustainability and public interest (Gray & Collison, 2002; Marx & Van der Watt, 2013). The so-called research-practice gap in accounting has attracted considerable attention in recent special issues of leading academic journals and editors’ forums (for example, Parker et al., 2011; Ratnatunga, 2012; Scapens & Bromwich, 2010).

Concerns in the literature point to the development of a dichotomy between accounting research and teaching in the university system, originating from the competition between different institutions for funds, talented students, and the most talented faculty (Hopwood, 2007). Within the discipline of accounting and professional accounting education, observers have highlighted accounting academe’s challenges and its relation with the profession (Evans et al., 2010; Guthrie et al., 2014; Guthrie & Parker, 2014, 2016), the influence of accreditation (Ellington & Williams, 2017; Mathews, 2004; Sikka et al., 2007) the research output of accounting academics (Samkin & Schneider, 2014a), and research excellence as an influence over which university a student chooses to study accounting (Behn et al., 2012; Ellington, 2017).

More recently, the relationship between accounting research and teaching has been investigated in different regions (Duff & Marriott, 2012, 2017a, 2017b; Hancock et al., 2017; Lubbe & Duff, 2020) using a cluster analysis model. In their study of the teaching–research nexus, Duff and Marriott (2012, 2017a, 2017b) developed and tested a model of the factors that influence this relationship. The empirical model was derived from the significant accumulation of research which examines the TRN over forty years. In doing so it includes a range of educational theories including Bandura’s (2001) social cognitive theory and Goode’s (1960) theory of role strain. Their novel study, set in the discipline of accounting, identified the factors that describe the positive effects of the relationship between academic research and teaching as well as the factors that have a negative effect. Although faculty research can be beneficial to teaching and vice versa, there are also negative effects reported. The factors identified in the cluster analysis model of Duff and Marriott (2017a) inform this comparative international study (as discussed in the method section below).

Duff and Marriott (2017a) concluded that the relationship between academic research and teaching required careful management. They identified that the accounting TRN in the UK differed from other countries and cultures and that it would be necessary to establish whether their model was applicable elsewhere. Hancock et al. (2017) administered the Duff and Marriott (2012, 2017a, 2017b) research instrument to accounting and finance academics in higher education in ANZ, establishing its validity with a sample from these countries: ‘An important finding is that the empirical model developed for the UK population of accounting academics operates almost equivalently for the population of accounting and finance academics in ANZ’ (p. 27). Lubbe and Duff (2020) adopted a similar instrument as Duff and Marriott (2017a, 2017b) and Hancock et al. (2017) to a sample of accounting academics from SA. They found the model to be replicable in this country, suggesting its widespread applicability in both the developed and developing worlds of accounting education.

In a study focussing on the TRN in accounting in South Africa, Lubbe (2015) found that the perception that new knowledge in accounting is discovered outside the university, combined with the strong control by the profession of the accounting curriculum through accreditation and the loyalty of accounting academics towards the profession, obstruct the perceived research role and value of accounting academics. Considering the perceptions of Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) students studying accounting in two Australian universities, Tucker and Scully (2020) found that, although students readily embrace the use of accounting research in the classroom, there is a need for educators to explicitly demonstrate the credibility of academic research if the findings of such research are to be adopted in practice.

In summary, the slender corpus of literature considering the TRN has been dominated by the authors’ largely quantitative efforts in defining what makes up the relationship between teaching and research at a local or regional level.

TRN discussions and tensions in the respective regions

This section briefly describes the discussions and tensions in each of the three international regions of this study, namely UKI, ANZ, and SA. In the UK, following the passing of the Higher Education and Research Act (2017), the teaching performance of universities is measured by a series of metrics known collectively as the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). These metrics included variables obtained from the National Student Survey, the Destination of Leavers Survey (DHLE) and continuation data obtained from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Critics noted that none of the variables measured teaching quality. The chair of the TEF panel said that it was not a ‘direct measure of teaching’ but was ‘a measure based on some of the outcomes of teaching’ (Husbands, 2017).

The TEF is one of three measures used to assess the relative performance of UK universities. Research has been the subject of a Research Excellence Framework (REF) and the more recently launched Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF). There is no attempt made by the UK government to identify any linkages between the three measures. The REF assesses three distinct elements: the quality of outputs (e.g. publications, performances, and exhibitions), their impact beyond academia, and the environment that supports research (REF, 2019). While there may be anticipated linkages between the REF and KEF, it is difficult to see how the TEF measure could recognise the benefits from the TRN. Furthermore, the latest REF exercise differs from previous exercises as it addresses an issue identified by the Stern Review (2016) concerning the portability of research outputs. In previous exercises, the research outputs assessed only related to academic faculty currently employed at an institution. For the latest exercise, this restriction is relaxed so the REF measures the research outputs of faculty that no longer research, or teach, at that institution. The Stern Review (2016) also noted that most institutions decided not to include all their faculty members in the REF submission. It is recommended that all research-active staff should be returned to the REF. Consequently, since 2015, HESA now requires universities to categorise academic staff according to their employment contract as teaching only, research only, teaching and research, or neither teaching nor research (HESA, 2015).

Hence there are some staff who only teach (HESA data indicates that this is over a quarter of academic staff and rising) and not complete any research and, conversely, some of the most research-active faculty have limited opportunities to teach. While it is not the intended outcome of this significant contract change, the result is an inevitable erosion of the potential learning benefits of the TRN in UK universities.

Traditionally there has been an expectation that academics at universities in ANZ should be involved in teaching, research, and service. However, it is now quite common for some faculty members to be appointed as teaching-only where there are no research expectations, or teaching-focused where the research expectations are less and related to pedagogy. There are some similarities with the case study reported by Gebreiter (2021). This has raised the spectre of teaching-only universities as was the case in Australia prior to 1985. However, this view was strongly opposed in submissions to a review of provider category standards in Australia in 2018.

There is the widespread use of casual academics in ANZ. For example:

Four in five of Australia’s casual academics – those who are employed on a short-term basis and often paid hourly – have teaching-only contracts, and this is likely to rise. Over 20% of Australian academics are paid by the hour as casual staff. (Bennet et al., 2019)

Such roles do not offer the same opportunities for promotion, and many accounting academics in ANZ are on contracts with expectations around teaching and research in the belief that there is a symbiotic relationship between both activities (Bennet et al., 2019). The Bradley Report (Bradley et al., 2008) conceded there is no compelling evidence about the value of the TRN, stating that:

While it is difficult to find compelling research evidence which unequivocally supports the argument that graduates with degrees from such institutions are demonstrably better than those from teaching-only institutions, it would not be in Australia’s best interests to ignore the weight of international opinion and practice on this issue. (p. 124)

In ANZ there is nothing like the TEF although there is an ongoing debate about rewarding universities based on student performance. Possible performance indicators and performance targets that have been suggested relate to improvements in student attrition, student performance, low socio-economic status (SES) participation and workforce preparedness of graduates.

Research output as a key performance measure of Australian universities commenced in 2010 with the first Exercise in Research for Australia (ERA). New Zealand has the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) which commenced in 2004. In Australia, the ERA is based around four criteria: indicators of research quality; indicators of research volume and activity; indicators of research application or impact and indicators of recognition as established through esteem measures. The 2018 ERA results in Australia were published in March 2019 and were met with criticisms around the value of the exercise given the costs incurred and with no research funding attached to the outcomes. The political environment in Australia in relation to higher education and the roles and funding of teaching and research supports the importance of the research reported in this paper (Guthrie et al., 2014; Guthrie & Parker, 2016). The Australian government has recently signalled a move to fund more applied research. Alan Tudge the Federal Education Minister commented ‘ Lest anyone miss what this means, Mr Tudge made it plain that rankings driven by research metrics, will not be the main game’ (Campus Morning Mail, 2021). Less focus on journal rankings has the potential to provide more recognition for research on pedagogy, especially if such research shows improvements in student learning and employability skills. This links back to the professional body requirements of accounting degrees that focus heavily on developing employability skills.

There is a similar expectation in SA for academics to be active researchers. Shaped by post-apartheid pressures, policy frameworks and capacity building of the higher education sector received considerable attention over the last 20 years (Cloete, 2014), with a recent shift focussing on ‘strengthening regional and national development of African universities to enable their more meaningful participation in the global knowledge economy and society’ (p. 1355). SA universities receive annual subsidies from the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) based on research publication output, with a significant proportion relating to journal article publications (Harley et al., 2016), providing a financial incentive to increase research output. The DHET does not distinguish between journals on its accreditation list and therefore the government subsidies do not consider the quality of journals (Fouchè & Van der Merwe, 2020). To encourage the publication of high-quality research, the SA National Research Foundation (NRF) has a rating system for researchers based primarily on the quality and impact of their outputs (Harley et al., 2016). A similar national rating system does not exist for quality teaching in SA.

Considering the factors that impact accounting research output in developing countries, Negash et al. (2019) refer to the larger Anglophone Sub-Sahara Africa region. Their study identified factors limiting research output in this region to include the national research assessment policies and procedures, lack of research funding, editorial and/or reviewer biases that are not necessarily favourable for research carried out in (or about) the region, and internet connectivity issues. Like the other regions, accounting academics in SA are required to be engaged in research, teaching and service. Some academics are appointed as teaching-only with no research expectations, or teaching-focused where the research expectations are less. However, promotion criteria require that permanent staff demonstrate research output. The ‘service’ component is not always clearly described and often entails support of the profession and social responsiveness.

Even though a formal assessment of research output exists in SA, the focus of accounting academe has been, for several years, on the teaching of accounting in line with the dominant PABs in SA (Van Der Schyf, 2008; Venter & de Villiers, 2013). Studies on the perceptions and focus of SA accounting academics identified issues associated with a lack of research skills, insufficient time for conducting research, a lack of mentorship and departmental support (Lubbe & Duff, 2020), academic pressure on quality teaching to large classes of diverse students (Lubbe, 2017; Nieuwoudt & Wilcocks, 2005; West, 2006).

Notwithstanding the existence of a research component in their employment contracts, SA accounting academics either largely fail to engage in, or remain disconnected from research (Verhoef & Samkin, 2017). They describe the existence of two-tier promotion and remuneration system in South African universities that favour accounting academics who are professionally qualified, enabling a practice of salary loading to recruit and retain professionally qualified staff to teach accounting (Venter & de Villiers, 2013; Verhoef & Samkin, 2017).

The TRN has been the subject of continual debate within SA universities. As mentioned, concerns about the relatively low accounting research output is SA are associated with the status of accreditation (Venter & de Villiers, 2013; West, 2006) that creates tension between teaching and research, limited flexibility on content (Stainbank & Tewari, 2014) and heavy teaching loads allowing little time for research (Fouchè & Van der Merwe, 2020). In the first TRN study conducted in SA (Lubbe, 2015), the strong control by the accounting profession of the content offered by accredited universities and the loyalty of accounting academics towards the profession were identified as issues that obstruct the research role of accounting academics.

SA accounting academics are more driven by the requirements of the profession (Venter & de Villiers, 2013). However, there is an increased pressure on SA accounting academics to produce research output (even though the quality is not necessarily assessed) and to hold a PhD. This is in line with Paisey and Paisey’s work (2017) that identified the trend towards the development of PhD holders rather than professionally qualified staff. While the accounting research output in SA is lagging that of developed countries such as the UK, Australia and NZ (Samkin & Schneider, 2014a), recent studies noted a shift from being teaching orientated towards being more research orientated (De Jager & Frick, 2016) with accounting academics pursuing PhD studies for the purpose of career progression and for intrinsic personal reasons (De Jager et al., 2018).

In sum, the political and institutional environments outlined above demonstrate that this is an important time to assess the benefits of the TRN in accounting at an international level. In each jurisdiction, there has been an observable trend towards accounting faculty becoming more teaching and less research focused. If this trend persists, then the many identified benefits of the TRN are in jeopardy. This would be detrimental to accounting faculty members, their students and, in the long term, to the status of the accounting profession itself. This study provides evidence that a TRN does exist in accounting, and to protect the global standing of the accounting academic profession, it is important that accounting does not become a teaching-only activity with limited research opportunities. The following section outlines the research method of this study.

Research method

This study refers to the data of three separate studies conducted in the UKI, AZN and SA respectively, using the TRN model that was developed by Duff and Marriott (2017a). The research method includes a brief description of the development and administration of the model, its application and fit in the regional studies and the comparison of the respective regional findings.

Inventory development and administration

The inventory was developed by Duff and Marriott (2012) from a 19-proposition model describing the extant TRN literature. Empirical refinement reduced this to eight scales describing four higher level factors relating to student issues, curriculum issues, extrinsic rewards issues, and researcher issues (Duff & Marriott, 2017a). Similar studies were conducted in ANZ (Hancock et al., 2017) and in SA (Lubbe & Duff, 2020) where the same eight factors were identified. The eight factors found in Lubbe and Duff (2020) correspond to the largest eight factors identified in Hancock et al. (2017). The items used within the eight scales are identical across the three studies. Theoretically and empirically the eight factors are divided into those factors which support the notion of the teaching–research nexus, termed the positive gestalt and conversely, those factors which identify the challenges and problems of implementing a TRN in accounting, labelled negative gestalt. The administration of the three surveys was by means of an online survey and described in detail in Duff and Marriott (2015); Hancock et al. (2017); and Lubbe and Duff (2020).

Instrument validation

For the purposes of this research four analytic steps were used to validate the scores yielded by the inventory and explain variation within the sample. The first step involves internal consistency reliability coefficients for the posited scales. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) suggest a cut-off of around 0.6 for coefficient alpha is adequate especially when used alongside other methods (e.g. confirmatory factor analysis) that ‘allow for an empirical evaluation of the assumptions underlying them’ (Yang & Green, 2011, p. 377).

The second step uses confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the ability of survey items to describe a model consisting of eight first-order factors and another consisting of eight first-order factors and two second-order factors. This involves an analysis of the relationship between the items (observed variables) and the first-order factors (unobserved variables) and in the case of the second-order model the relationship between the first-order factors and their higher-order counterparts. The standardised factor loadings (SFLs) for each of the first-order factors are examined and SFLs less than 0.4 are removed as they have limited ability to represent the factor. After careful qualitative consideration of their relationship to other factors, rejected items are offered to other first-order factors to see how well they load. The retained items are then used to create a composite measure for each first-order factor. A one-factor model is also tested for comparison purposes.

In the third step, the relationship between the two second-order factors and the first-order factors and their constituent items was assessed. Fourthly, the goodness-of-fit of the model to the data was considered. This involves the creation of competing models. A careful consideration of the goodness-of-fit statistics allows the selection of the most theoretically and empirically compelling model. To evaluate the fit of the measurement models, the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) is used in tandem with the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1998) and MacCallum and Austin (2000). For samples N < 500, the combinational rule SRMR < .11 and RMSEA < .08 is considered ‘extremely sensitive in detecting models with mispecified factor covariances’ (Hu & Bentler, 1999, p. 26).

Finally, the results of an analysis to test the equivalence of the variance-covariance matrices across the three countries are reported. The proposition that the number of factors underlying the teaching–research gestalt model is invariant across country (i.e. an eight-factor model or an eight first-order factor two second-order factor model) is tested. The premise that all the measurement scaling units (i.e. factor loadings), error variances, factor variances, and factor covariances for each of the eight factors (and two-second order factors), are equivalent across each country.

Data sources

The findings reported below originate from the data collected when the instrument was tested in the three respective regions. The response rates were as follows: UKI study: 17.7%; AZN study: 15.6%; and SA study: 19.2%. The respective data sources used the same inventory items, comprising of 32 items with eight subscales, analysed using a five-point Likert scale. The instrument has two ‘defining’ scales of Positive Aspects of the TRN and Negative Aspects of the TRN.

Responses by participants from the three respective regions are included in the findings below, illuminating the challenges and tensions experienced within each region. The model specifications and fit are explained further below.

Findings

Model fit

Four models are tested for comparison purposes – see Table 1. First, a one-factor model (Model A). Second, an eight lower-order, one higher-order factor (Model B). Third, an eight-factor model (Model C). Finally, a two second-order and eight first-order model (Model D). The eight-factor model (Model A) achieved a good overall fit according to the fit indices. the χ² was statistically significant, the statistic was the lowest of the three models (1891.109), but the χ²/df ratio of 1.602, RMSEA (0.038) and associated 95% confidence intervals (0.034–0.041) and SRMR (0.0938) are indicative of excellent fit.

Table 1. Goodness-of-fit statistics for a three-group sample.

Model A: One-factor model
χ2 (1215) = 4089.729; χ^2/d.f. = 3.366 p <.001; RMSEA = .075 (.072-.077); SRMR = .166.
Model B One second-order factor, eight first-order factor model
χ2 (1191) = 2046.250; χ^2/d.f. = 1.718 p <.001; RMSEA = .041 (.038 -.044); SRMR = .136.
Model C: Eight-factor model
χ2 (1131) = 1812.055; χ^2/d.f. = 1.602 p <.001; RMSEA = .038 (.034-.041); SRMR = .094.
Model D: 2 second-order factor, eight first-order factor model
χ2 (1188) = 1891.109; χ^2/d.f. = 1.592 p <.001; RMSEA = .037 (.034-.041); SRMR = .104. Constraining measurement weights in Model D χ2 (1232) = 1948.893; χ^2/d.f. = 1.582 p <.001. Δ χ2 (44) = 57.783; p < .08; χ^2/d.f. = 1.582; ΔRMSEA = <.001; ΔSRMR = .006

The data also yielded a good overall fit to eight first-order factor and two second-order factor model (Model D). The χ² statistic was marginally larger than the first-order factor model alone (1891.109) and was also statistically significant. However, the χ²/df ratio of 1.592 is marginally preferable to the first-order factor model. The RMSEA (0.037) and associated confidence interval (0.034–0.041) and SRMR (0.1039) are also indicative of excellent fit, although the SRMR statistic suggests the first-order factor model may be preferable. However, the nested model of Model D is selected on grounds of parsimony.

Finally, as expected, the one-factor model (Model A), tested purely for comparison purposes, produced fit indices indicative of poor fit. The one-factor model had the highest χ² statistic (4089.729), χ²/df ratio (3.366). The RMSEA (0.075) and SRMR (0.1538) are also indicative of poor fit.

Model re-specification and selection

The investigation considered the potential modifications that could be made to both the first-order and second-order factor models. Modification indices (MIs) propose cross loading of items onto additional factors other than those assumed. However, such changes were not adopted as they were not supported by prior research considering attitudes towards research and teaching relations.

MIs were considered for each of the three samples. In the case of ANZ, no significant cross-loadings of items onto other factors were identified. In the case of SA, an item from factor III, Research dissonance from the curriculum, ‘students rarely see staff research as valuable to their own learning’ cross loaded negatively with Factor V (Research-led teaching). In the case of the UKI sample, this same item was found to negatively cross-load with Factor II (Research promoting critical analysis) and Factor VII (Students value contact with researchers).

Other cross-loadings were evident with the UKI sample. These included the item ‘faculty who seek promotion publish in academic journals at the expense of other activities’, from Factor I: Extrinsic rewards of research, was found to positively cross load with Factors II (Research dissonance from curriculum), IV (Tension between research and professional curriculum) and VII (Research and teaching different attributes). Empirically, these changes made little difference to the data fit to the model and were not supported by the ANZ and SA data, and were consequently not included.

Both models fit the data well. However, each had potential areas of misfit indicated by a statistically significant chi-square estimate. Of the models tested the eight-factor (first-order) model was selected on the grounds of overall model fit.

Factorial invariance

First, the two higher-order and eight lower-order factor model was tested on the three country samples. The model fit for: the ANZ sample, χ²(376) = 537.035; χ²/df = 1.428_; RMSEA =  0.071; SRMR = 0.084; the SA sample χ²(376) = 548.410; χ²/df = 1.459_; RMSEA = 0.075; SRMR = 0.093; and the UKI sample χ²(341) = 696.260; χ²/df = 1.852_; RMSEA =  0.037; SRMR = 0.072. The fit can be considered good for each of the three countries, the better fit in UKI in part reflecting a larger sample size. The generalizability and stability of the eight-factor and eight first-order, two second-order models are evaluated by the application of several progressively constraining models. First, the factor loadings are constrained to be equal across groups. If this model fit is inadequate, then additional constraints are imposed on other parameters estimates.

When the factor loadings of the eight first-order factor, two higher-order factor model are constrained (Δχ²= 57.783; Δdf = 44 p = 0.080; ΔRMSEA < 0.001; ΔSRMR = 0.004) the difference was not statistically significant. Consequently, no further testing is necessary, and we can be confident that the model operates equivalently across the three samples by country.¹ In sum, the preferred Model D models operate equivalently across countries.

Final factor analytic model

Table 2 reports the factor loadings for three samples for the eight first-order factors of Model D. Similarly, the measurement weights for the two second-order factors are reported in Table 3.

Table 2. Standardised regression weights for three countries for an eight-factor model.

Item and description of factor			ANZ		SA	UKI
Factor I: Extrinsic rewards of research (P1).[−-ve] α = .85
Research, rather than teaching is rewarded by promotion at my institution			.868		.757	.889
Research is valued more highly at my institution			.671		.645	.706
Teaching is not a significant factor in faculty rewards			.687		.460	.753
Promotion policies fail to recognise good accounting and finance teaching			.733		.674	.660
Faculty who publish research are better rewarded than those who spend their time on teaching			.783		.725	.698
Faculty who seek promotion, publish in academic journals at the expense of other activities			.764		.713	.626
As a result of the demands of research activity, I cannot spend as much time supporting my students			.470		.368	.412
Factor II: Research promoting critical analysis (P2).[+ve] α = .85
Integrating research into teaching promotes students’ critical enquiry			.886		.818	.832
Using research as part of a holistic approach to learning assists students’ critical thinking skills			.851		.697	.863
Research-active academics provide students an exemplar of a questioning approach to learning			.785		.811	.795
Research activity contributes to updating the curriculum			.597		.766	.615
Factor III: Research dissonance from curriculum (P3).[−ve] α = .76
Increased specialisation of knowledge means research is remote from what students need to know	1.	2.	.779	3.	.718	.810	4.
Inclusion of an academic’s research overloads an already cramped curriculum	5.	6.	.868	7.	.701	.777	8.
Researchers can distort the curriculum with their own research at the expense of subject coverage	9.	10.	.454	11.	.544	.608	12.
Including specialised research leads to lecturers pitching the course too high	13.	14.	.460	15.	.585	.536	16.
Students rarely see staff research as valuable to their own learning	17.	18.	.675	19.	.489	.546	20.
Factor IV: Tension between research and professional curriculum (P4).[−ve] α = .63
accounting profession’s influence on the curriculum creates tension if linking research to teaching			.736		.774	.437
Inclusion of research at the expense of professional syllabus coverage leads to gaps in the curriculum			.808		.594	.789
Factor V: Research-led teaching (P5)[+ve] α = .81
Teaching staff involved in research are more committed to student learning			.928		.867	.823
Teaching staff who are involved in research are more enthusiastic about their teaching			.971		.785	.879
Research active staff adopt a more holistic and interpretative approach to their teaching			.623		.701	.505
Factor VI: Researcher stimulation of ideas (P6).[+ ve] α = .73
Teaching can stimulate research			.731		.639	.547
Integrating teaching and research increases research productivity			.642		.661	.681
‘Some of my best research ideas have come out in the course of teaching in an area.’			.368		.430	.410
Teaching and research are mutually beneficial			.765		.710	.768
Time devoted to teaching is conducive to research output			.584		.495	.605
Factor VII: Research and teaching: Different attributes (P7).[−ve] α = .75
It is unreasonable to expect good teachers to be good researchers and vice-versa			.701		.819	.674
Teaching and research are different roles requiring different qualities			.869		.630	.892
Factor VIII: Students value contact with researchers (P8).[+ve] α = .89
My students consider my course is up-to-date because of my research activity			.855		.897	.838
My students perceive me as enthusiastic about my course because of my research activity			.893		.881	.920

Table 3. Summary of two second-order factors.

	Standardised regression weights
Item and description of factor	ANZ	SA	UKI
Panel A: Positive gestalt
Factor II: Research promoting critical analysis (P2).	.735	.952	.747
Factor V: Research-led teaching (P5)	.795	.780	.798
Factor VI: Researcher stimulation of ideas (P6).	.758	.792	.546
Factor VIII: Students value contact with researchers (P8).	.816	.695	.827
Panel B: Negative gestalt
Factor I: Extrinsic rewards of research (P1).	.578	.572	.436
Factor III: Research dissonance from curriculum (P3).	.935	.870	.946
Factor IV: Tension between research and professional curriculum (P4).	.621	.832	.540
Factor VII: Research and teaching: Different attributes (P7).	.809	.689	.678

The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 4. As expected, the positive gestalt factors are significantly negatively correlated with the negative gestalt factors (−0.46).

Table 4. Descriptive statistics – all samples.

Factor	Mean	Std Dev	I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII
I	2.16	.79
II	2.22	.75	−.22
III	2.73	.77	.40	−.45
IV	2.64	.82	.22	−.17	.49
V	3.11	.96	−.30	.55	−.39	−.16
VI	2.65	.69	−.16	.41	−.26	−.15	.39
VII	2.73	1.10	.36	−.31	.52	.35	−.35	−.26
VIII	2.64	1.01	−.22	.59	−.43	−.17	.52	.39	−.30
Factor	Mean	Std Dev	I
A	2.82	.72
B	2.63	.63	−.46

Note: p < .01 r > .14.

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

Table 5 reports the findings of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with country as the fixed factor. Six (of eight) gestalt factors yield statistically significant differences with a small to medium effect size.

Table 5. Comparisons between countries using MANOVA.

Clustering variable	ANZ (N = 82)		SA (N = 81)		UKI (N = 245)
	Mean	St. Dev	Mean	St. Dev	Mean	St. Dev	F, (2, 406). p	Partial η^2	Inequality
Panel A: Positive gestalt
II Research promoting critical analysis	2.46	0.81	2.34	0.83	2.10	0.68	11.172, <.001	.05	ANZ, SA > UKI
V Research-led teaching	3.39	0.98	2.85	1.01	3.11	0.92	7.033 < .001	.03	ANZ, UKI > SA
VI Researcher stimulation of ideas	2.76	0.72	2.56	0.77	2.64	0.65	1.533, n.s.	–
VIII Students value contact with researchers	2.78	1.04	3.04	1.02	2.47	0.96	11.898, < .001	.06	ANZ, SA > UKI
Panel B: Negative gestalt
I Extrinsic rewards of research	2.05	0.79	2.09	0.75	2.23	0.81	2.311, n.s.	–
III Research dissonance from the curriculum	2.73	0.75	2.30	0.65	2.88	0.77	19.711, < .001	.09	ANZ, UKI > SA
IV Tension: research and professional curriculum	2.73	0.83	2.25	0.81	2.73	0.79	11.407, < .001	.05	ANZ, UKI > SA
VII Research and teaching: Different attributes	2.63	1.07	2.30	1.07	2.90	1.11	9.998, < .001	.05	ANZ, UKI > SA

Note: Standardised means and standard deviations on a scale: 4 = strongly agree to 0 = strongly disagree.

The MANOVA reveals three important findings. First, considering the positive gestalt factors, the UKI rates two (of four) factors lower than both ANZ and SA (p < .001). The southern hemisphere regions view Research Promoting Critical Analysis (I), and Students Value Contact with Researchers (VII) higher than their counterparts in UKI. ANZ and UKI accounting academics also rate the benefits of Research-led Teaching (V) higher than their colleagues in SA (p < .001). Second, ideas of Research-led teaching (Factor V) have had little traction in SA, relative to ANZ and the UKI. It is likely that the significant control of the accounting curriculum and its delivery by the PAB (the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants), which is much more invasive than its counterparts in ANZ and the UKI, have quashed or limited the development of research having a significant bearing on what is taught in universities in SA. Third, considering the negative gestalt three (of four) factors identify that the ANZ and UKI samples consider Research Dissonance from the Curriculum (III); Tension: Research and Professional Curriculum (IV); and Research and Teaching: Different Attributes (VII) more significant challenges than accounting academics in SA (p < .001).

Discussion

This study has three objectives. First, to confirm that the empirical model of Duff and Marriott (2017a) sampling UKI accounting academics operates equivalently when sampling accounting educators in other countries. Second, to compare the findings across the three regions: ANZ, SA and UKI. Third, to identify and describe the regional challenges to inform the international fostering of the TRN in accounting in universities.

The first objective of this study is to confirm the appropriateness of an empirical model developed using a sample of UK accounting academics to examine the relationship of teaching to research and vice versa. An important finding is that the empirical model developed for the UK population of accounting academics operates almost equivalently for the population of accounting academics in ANZ and SA. This implies that it is the teaching and researching of accounting as an academic discipline that is important in understanding these relationships rather than the geographic and economic environment in which it is located. While there were some small adjustments to the model when applied in ANZ and SA these were minor and primarily due to smaller sample sizes. Overall, we conclude that conceptions of the relationship between research and teaching in ANZ, SA and the UKI are increasingly similar. So, despite differences in the mix of national and international students (cf. ANZ) and large differences in the social backgrounds and economic resources available to students (cf. SA) it is apparent that the discipline of accounting is a dominant factor, rather than contextual and environmental national differences. That is, accounting education is bounded by a curriculum dominated by professional accounting bodies with increasingly international reach and accounting research with a focus on international research is more influential than the educational context of the nation it is being conducted in. Or alternatively, internationally accounting education is becoming increasingly homogenous.

Significant differences in higher education and accounting education exist in the three regions. These are considered in the second objective of this study, when comparing the results. Specific differences identified include the teaching environment, the profile of the academics, their research experience and the level of tension and dissonance identified between teaching and research. The following responses emphasise the challenge of not focussing on research:

I think where we have gone wrong is not focussing on practical research as some disciplines do. I think a lot of professionals are operating from poor intellectual base because they have not been challenged to think. Accounting and finance are completely cut off from real world issues affecting society. (SA respondent)

Teachers need experience of both teaching and research to understand both aspects and their relative importance for senior management roles. (ANZ respondent)

I think a problem … is that we focus at the extremes - the super teacher … and the detached researcher who publishes obscure stuff in journals. There is a middle ground and we do not develop this because are too busy climbing over each other to get ahead. (UKI respondent)

ANZ has very large numbers of undergraduate students with class sizes of more than 1,000 commonplace, with very significant numbers of international students. SA has equally large numbers of undergraduate students (similar to ANZ) with a more diverse student profile. In ANZ and the UK, diversity is often described as international students having to study in a foreign language within a different culture (Lawson et al., 2014). In SA, diversity is associated with the socio-economic, cultural and language differences as is evident in the mixed local population. Higher Education in SA is distinguished by its racial diversity and highly heterogeneous patterns of inclusion, employment patterns and opportunity. SA student cohorts are diverse among socio-economic background, culture, and language. The challenges of teaching first-generation students are emphasised in this response:

I believe the huge focus in South Africa on the first-generation students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the impact of apartheid and the need for a love of teaching to become an accounting academic imply that very few academic are unaware of this tension. (SA respondent)

The UKI has smaller class sizes but is noted by its longstanding research assessment exercises dating back to 1989 and the declining influence of the PABs in delivering accounting education, with a PhD qualification necessary for a career as a teaching and research academic. While SA accounting academics are influenced by the requirements of the profession (Venter & de Villiers, 2013), there is an increased tendency among SA accounting academics to produce research output and to hold a PhD. This is similar to Paisey and Paisey (2017) findings that identified a trend in the UKI towards the development of PhD holders, rather than recruiting professionally qualified staff, which according to Gebreiter (2021) appears to being reversed today with increasing numbers of professionally-qualified teaching and scholarship academics with the ability to boost National Student Survey (NSS) scores.

The profile and demographics of accounting academics play a significant role in predicting group membership as illustrated in the differing characteristics of the participants that completed the surveys. Even though there is a dwindling number of professionally qualified accounting academics in the UK (Paisey & Paisey, 2017), Australian universities struggle to recruit and retain quality academics due to the significant research pressures placed on emerging academics (Pop-Vasileva et al., 2014). However, in SA the dominant PAB (SAICA) insists that the majority of accounting academics teaching on accredited programmes are professional accountants (Venter & de Villiers, 2013).

In the ANZ and UKI samples, the most senior staff were those most opposed to acknowledging and endorsing a teaching–research nexus. Specifically, the SA sample includes larger numbers of professionally-qualified academics relative to the dwindling numbers of accounting academics with professional qualifications in the UK (Paisey & Paisey, 2017) and ANZ. Accounting education in SA is notable for the imperial position held by the national PAB in determining what is taught and how it is imparted. The SA sample also reports a relatively young academic cohort, compared to the ageing profile in UKI (Duff & Marriott, 2017b) and ANZ (Hancock et al., 2017). This points to the dominance of accounting education in SA universities by professional accountants (CAs) who are relatively novice in terms of their research careers. This would explain the criticism of SA accounting academics focussing on teaching technical skills and allowing the profession to dictate the university curriculum with less scope for TRN (Samkin & Schneider, 2014b; Venter & de Villiers, 2013; Verhoef & Samkin, 2017).

A further difference identified is the level of research experience by accounting academics. The professional accountants that dominate accounting faculty in SA universities are largely novice researchers, as explained in this response:

Learning to research is a whole new skill set. No other job would require you to be a professional in research and teaching and social impact and admin. (SA respondent)

Some SA accounting academics are undertaking masters and doctoral study after having completed their professional examinations to secure a post in a university, however, the focus is predominantly on the teaching of professional accountants in line with the national PAB that has strong connections with academia (Venter & de Villiers, 2013; Verhoef & Samkin, 2017). This low research orientation by SA academics is supported in the results of the positive gestalt Research-led teaching (V) where the SA survey results indicate a larger difference, compared to the UKI and ANZ. Unlike SA, the accounting academics in the UKI and ANZ have been working in a political environment where there have been national exercises measuring and comparing the quality of research. The results of these exercises are included in published league tables that rank universities and their academic departments. These exercises impact accounting academics (as it does all academics) and the pathway to promotion in ANZ and UKI has been heavily weighted on research performance.

The perception is they are linked but the reality is that keeping your job and moving up is based on research while for the University to survive they need students numbers to teach. (ANZ respondent)

Finding balance between research and teaching is very hard to do. (UKI respondent)

The high research orientation by ANZ and UKI academics is supported in the result of the positive gestalt of Research-led teaching (V) where the ANZ and UKI results were much higher than the SA results. This may be another factor influencing the low research orientation of SA academics.

However, it is in the negative gestalts that the tension between research and teaching in SA is more noticeable, with larger disagreements in the negative gestalts of Tension: research and professional curriculum (IV), and Research and teaching: Different attributes (VII). The SA survey results indicate the highest-ranked factor was the negative gestalt of Research Dissonance from the Curriculum (III), a finding that might be expected where the curriculum is professionally and technically orientated without any research component (Lubbe, 2017). Even if the accounting academic is research active it is likely that their research will be distant from the traditional curriculum being delivered. The SA accounting curriculum also lacks a rigorous research exercise, which explains the low score on Extrinsic Rewards of Research (I) and Research-led teaching (V).

The third objective is to identify the regional challenges to inform the international fostering of the TRN in accounting in universities. UKI and more recently ANZ have established systems of research assessment. Although it is impossible to directly relate research assessment to the findings of this survey, it is notable that accounting educators in ANZ and the UKI report higher ratings to the negative gestalt of the TRN than SA accounting faculty. Issues relating to Extrinsic rewards of research (I), Research dissonance from the curriculum (III), Tension: research and professional curriculum (IV), and Research and teaching: different attributes (VII) all include items which reference the divisions created between research and other academic activities created by research assessment and similar metrics.

Research is what differentiates Universities from TAFE, training, etc. (ANZ respondent)

Promotion comes from research. But whether research active or not you still have to teach. Being as good teacher can only bring personal reward not financial or promotional. (UKI respondent)

In the SA study, the largest cluster identified tends to rate positive and negative aspects of the TRN equally, reflecting the relatively nascent role of research in the SA accounting academy. However, the imperial position of the PABs in SA accounting education, relative to UKI and ANZ, is reflected in the lower rewards of research in the negative issues such as that research is dissonant from the curriculum and that research requires different attributes than teaching, for example:

Students really cannot be bothered about our research - they are here to pass the SAICA syllabus. (SA respondent)

My teaching is research informed not research led. I love my research but it is not that relevant to my teaching as it is constrained by professional accreditation requirements. (UKI respondent)

The aim of this paper has been to bring together several strands of empirical work conducted across different jurisdictions. In this exercise, two significant limitations are identified. First, the work considers academics’ perspectives rather than students’ perspectives. As the TRN relies on a symbiosis between faculty and students, students’ views would also be worthwhile. Duff (2021) have undertaken similar work using a student-oriented inventory. Second, the work focuses on three developed countries with strong Anglo-origins. It would be interesting to understand how the TRN is understood in other European nations, in the Far East or less-developed economies.

Conclusions

A fundamental issue that this research uncovers is that the TRN is much more than an individual academic promoting their own research in the classroom, contrary to Gebreiter’s (2021) analysis. The descriptions provided reflect Neumann’s (1994) categorisations of the tangible, intangible, and global benefits of the TRN. Ideally, an effective TRN goes beyond the lecturer talking about their own research, it is a tangible dynamic which includes students as active creators of knowledge and occurs at individual departmental, institutional, professional and community levels.

This study described and compared the TRN in the academic discipline of accounting in universities in three international regions (UKI, ANZ and SA) using a factor analytic model. Acknowledging the existence of a TRN supports the global standing of the accounting academic profession to ensure it does not become a teaching-only activity with limited research opportunities and a stagnating curriculum driven by the needs of professional accounting bodies who operate internationally. Unlike some disciplines, accounting graduates often enter the profession where it is important for them to not only be technically competent but also familiar with, and able to access, relevant research.

The first objective of the study is to confirm that the empirical model operates equivalently in other countries which was a future research objective specified by Duff and Marriott (2017a). Second, this study set out to identify and describe significant differences in accounting education in the three regions of UKI, ANZ and SA. Third, the international challenges to fostering the TRN in accounting in universities are identified and described. These objectives were achieved by applying the empirical model to the data obtained from the three regions and ensuring that the empirical model developed for the UK population of accounting academics operates almost equivalently for the population of accounting academics in ANZ and SA.

A significant finding is that the empirical model developed for the UKI population of accounting academics operates almost identically for the population of university-based accounting academics in ANZ and SA. The purpose of this study, namely, to establish whether the TRN empirical model developed by Duff and Marriott (2012) applies across different global regions, is answered and it is positive. The relevance of the TRN in accounting confirms that knowledge in accounting is not merely technical but is strongly supported by research. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that it is the teaching and researching of accounting as an academic discipline that is important in understanding these relationships rather than the geographic and economic environment in which it is located. This is one of the main contributions of this study.

The TRN has positive and negative gestalts. These are recognised and widely understood. On the positive gestalt panel, the results show that UKI has a more negative view on three of the four clustering variables, while on the negative aspects, SA has a less negative view. This could be that the views of UKI respondents have been influenced by over thirty years of regular research exercises. The influence, or lack of influence, of national research measurement exercises, is also evidenced with the differences in the results from SA compared to UKI and ANZ. The negative tensions in the TRN in SA are more noticeable where the accounting curriculum is more heavily influenced by the PAB and where a limited national research measurement exercise is in place.

However, in the accounting discipline, the combined impact of the influence of the PABs and the various performance measures applied to universities mean that any positive synergies from the TRN are being eroded if not lost completely. This is detrimental to the academic development of the subject of accounting which risks jeopardising the standing of the profession across the globe and the learning experiences of students. The study of accounting at some universities is being relegated to a teaching-only profession with a focus on technical content and less on the development of critical thinking in students that the TRN can offer. For example, in Australia only 19 of 39 public universities submitted accounting for assessment in the 2018 national research assessment exercise compared to 28 in 2010. This is some evidence of the erosion of the research activity of many accounting staff in Australia given their heavy teaching loads. In the UK, accounting has been subsumed into a business and management unit of assessment and is no longer separately identifiable. In SA, the focus remains the teaching of the professional accounting curriculum that is strongly aligned with the local PAB accreditation criteria.

What can we do to address the erosion of the status of accounting research? Gebreiter (2021) offers three reflections on this issue. These are ensuring accounting researchers are active in leadership roles: recruit teaching fellows who have an interest in research and finally persuade senior managers in universities as to the value of accounting research. If accounting departments in universities are to avoid being teaching only then we need to persuade our key stakeholders like professional accounting bodies to lobby senior managers in universities on our behalf as they are likely to have more success. We also need to have professional accounting bodies sponsoring more accounting research especially in accounting education where they can see a more direct benefit for future members. This could include scholarships, mentoring opportunities as well as direct research funding.

Literature investigating the TRN in accounting has focused on quantitative data and qualitative descriptions. This study uses a quantitative model that demonstrates that at least in the westernised, Anglo domains of ANZ, SA and UKI there is a commonality of how the teaching–research nexus is understood. This suggests that there is significant scope for other accounting researchers in other jurisdictions or using different methodologies to continue to understand how teaching and research relations can be better used to enhance the quality of accounting education. This study has focused on the TRN in accounting across three international regions. There are other culturally similar geographic regions where this work can be extended, most notably North America. Correspondingly, it would be interesting to extend the work to regions with less Anglo-Saxon influence such as Asia, South America or the Middle East. There are other subjects like accounting where the curriculum is either influenced by professional bodies (e.g. psychology, law, etc.) and/or are becoming increasingly dominated by teaching only faculty (e.g. design and creative arts, humanities and social studies, business and management studies, education, etc.). Similar investigations using the instrument developed (or refinement) for other academic disciplines is to be encouraged, especially as the influence of research exercises and other university performance indicators increases. The sector’s response to the pandemic and the pedagogic challenges means that best practise is only just being started to be shared in the peer-reviewed academic press. This should be a significant feature of the research output that can be expected in the months and years to come.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Given the applicability of the eight-factor model (Model C), when the factor parameters were constrained (Δχ² = 54.258; Δdf = 44 p=.138; ΔRMSEA = .001; ΔSRMR = .004) the difference was not statistically significant. Consequently, Model C also operates equivalently across the three samples by country & would be worthy of consideration by researchers in other fields.