The Research-Practice Gap On Accounting in The Public Services

PUBLIC SECTOR
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The Research-Practice
Gap on Accounting in
the Public Services
An International Analysis
Laurence Ferry
Iris Saliterer
Ileana Steccolini
Basil Tucker
Public Sector Financial Management
Series Editors
Sandra Cohen
Athens University of Economics and Business
Athens, Greece
Eugenio Caperchione
Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
Modena, Italy
Isabel Brusca
University of Zaragoza
Zaragoza, Spain
Francesca Manes Rossi
Department of Management and Innovation Systems
University of Salerno
Fisciano, Italy
This series brings together cutting edge research in public administration
on the new budgeting and accounting methodologies and their impact
across the public sector, from central and local government to public
health care and education. It considers the need for better quality account-
ing information for decision-making, planning and control in the public
sector; the development of the IPSAS (International Public Sector
Accounting Standards) and the EPSAS (European Public Sector
Accounting Standards), including their merits and role in accounting har-
monisation; accounting information’s role in governments’ financial sus-
tainability and crisis confrontation; the contribution of sophisticated ICT
systems to public sector financial, cost and management accounting
deployment; and the relationship between robust accounting information
and performance measurement. New trends in public sector reporting and
auditing are covered as well. The series fills a significant gap in the market
in which works on public sector accounting and financial management are
sparse, while research in the area is experiencing unprecedented growth.
More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15782
Laurence Ferry • Iris Saliterer
Ileana Steccolini • Basil Tucker
The Research-Practice
Gap on Accounting in
the Public Services
An International Analysis
Laurence Ferry Iris Saliterer
Durham University Business School Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg
Durham University Freiburg, Germany
Durham, UK
Basil Tucker
Ileana Steccolini UniSA Business School
Newcastle University London University of South Australia
London, UK Adelaide, SA, Australia
Public Sector Financial Management

ISBN 978-3-319-99431-4 ISBN 978-3-319-99432-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018957073
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Prisma by Dukas Presseagentur GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo
This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
An International Analysis of the
Research-Practice Gap on Accounting in
the Public Services
Summary
Purpose—This book considers how the practical and public policy rele-
vance of research might be increased, and academics and practitioners
can better engage to define research agendas and deliver findings rele-
vant to accounting and accountability in the public services.
Design/Methodology/Approach—An international comparative analy-
sis of the research-practice gap on accounting in the public services has
been undertaken. This involved academic perspectives from 21 coun-
tries and practitioner perspectives from the heads of the public services
at 3 leading international professional accounting bodies actively
involved in the public services arena.
Findings—Research can be useful to inform practice, but engaging at a
high level of policy engagement has been primarily by a small group of
experienced researchers. For other researchers, the impact accomplished
may not always be valued highly in the academic community relative to
other, more scholarly, activities.
Research Limitations/Implications—The book covers a broad range of
countries in an attempt to get a detailed comparative analysis of the
extent to which academic research is seen to resonate, engage, and
impact public sector practice. The main coverage is relatively advanced
western liberal democratic countries from Europe, alongside Australia,
and North America (Canada and the USA). However, importantly, as
part of a broader comparative analysis, it also includes contributions
v
vi AN INTERNATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP…
from Africa—Nigeria and Ghana, South America—Brazil, and Asia—

Malaysia and Thailand. Nevertheless, it does not cover other developing
economies, where findings could be different and are worthy of
investigation.
Originality/Value—The book is both ambitious and innovative in build-
ing on calls to address the research-practice gap through engaging a
broad cross-section of academics and practitioners at an international
level.
Acknowledgements
We would specifically like to thank Ron Hodges (Emeritus Professor of

Accounting, Birmingham University, UK), Aileen Murphie (Director at
National Audit Office (NAO), UK), Pete Murphy (Professor of Public
Management, Nottingham Trent University, UK), Lee Parker (Professor
of Accounting, RMIT, Australia, and University of Glasgow, Scotland,
UK), and all of the other colleagues who supported in the development
of this book.
vii
Contents
1 Concerns About the Research-Practice Gap on Accounting

in Public Services 1
2 Where There’s a Will… The Research-Practice Gap

in Accounting 9
3 A Global View of the Research-Practice Gap in a Public

Sector Context 33
4 We Build Too Many Walls and Not Enough Bridges 115
5 Closing Reflections 129
Index 135
ix
About the Authors
Laurence Ferry is a Professor of Accounting at Durham University

Business School (UK) and a prestigious Parliamentary Academic Fellow in
public accountability 2018–2019. He is a well-recognized international
expert in public financial management.
Iris Saliterer is a Professor of Public and Non-Profit Management at the
Albert-Ludwigs University in Freiburg (Germany) and was Schumpeter
Fellow at Harvard University (USA) in 2015–2016. Her main research
interests include performance management, public sector accounting and
financial management (reforms), financial and administrative resilience,
and innovative forms of public service delivery.
Ileana Steccolini is a Professor of Accounting and Finance at Newcastle
University London (UK) and the chair and founder of IRSPM Accounting
and accountability special interest group. Her research develops at the
interface between accounting and public administration.
Basil Tucker is currently a senior lecturer in the School of Commerce,
UniSA Business School (Australia). He has published extensively on the
relevance of academic research, and in particular, the research-practice
‘gap’ in management accounting.
xi
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Mapping current engagement—bridging the academic-practice

gap (Dudau et al. 2015) 4
Fig. 4.1 Making sense of the research-practice gap 120
xiii
CHAPTER 1
Concerns About the Research-Practice Gap

on Accounting in Public Services
Abstract What does the impact of research on practice look like? Why is
it important? How might it be achieved? What are the benefits to research-
ers in ‘speaking’ to practice? These are all questions that have been debated
not only in accounting research forums, journals, conferences, and semi-
nars, but also in the wider academic landscape. In this chapter, we outline
the journey that we as researchers with a particular interest in bridging the
research-practice gap have travelled in our consideration of these ques-
tions. For us, this book represents another important step in this journey
by bringing an international perspective to this vexing issue, and in this
chapter, we outline our intent in unpacking some of these questions, and
how this book contributes to this end.
Keywords Research-practice gap • Accounting • Accountability •

Public sector • Academics • Practitioners
Laurence Ferry
Durham University Business School, Durham University, Durham, UK
Iris Saliterer
Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Ileana Steccolini
Newcastle University London, London, UK
Basil Tucker
UniSA Business School, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
© The Author(s) 2019 1

L. Ferry et al., The Research-Practice Gap on Accounting in the
Public Services, Public Sector Financial Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1_1
2 L. FERRY ET AL.
A significant challenge for academia is to be, and be seen to be, relevant to

practice, and for practice to have, and be seen to have, the legitimation of
being theoretically robust. As Paarlberg (1968) highlighted, ‘Practice is
brick; theory is mortar. Both are essential and both must be good if we are to
erect a worthy structure’. However, all too often, the worlds exist sepa-
rately, undermining the potential contributions that can be made from a
closer relationship between theory and practice. The situation has become
particularly evident in accounting research, where academics and their
research are often seen as cut off from what is happening in the so-called
real world outside of the ivory towers of universities, and the practical as
well as societal relevance of research has been questioned (Laughlin 2011;
Parker et al. 2011; Tucker and Parker 2014; Chapman and Kern 2012).
Concerns about a (widening) research-practice gap have been raised in
much of the recent accounting literature (Evans et al. 2011; Modell 2014;
Tucker and Lowe 2014; Tucker and Parker 2014; Tucker and Schaltegger
2016). It has been argued that current international trends in journals’
rating and benchmarking are amplifying this situation, additionally risking
the relevance and quality of accounting research (Parker and Guthrie
2010), and contribute to an increasing narrowness and fragmentation in
terms of methods and perspectives (Guthrie and Parker 2016; Humphrey
and Miller 2012).
Aside from a sustained interest in public services accounting research,
recent reviews of the literature have also raised similar concerns for this
field (Broadbent and Guthrie 2008; Goddard 2010; Jacobs 2016; Jacobs
and Cuganesan 2014). Indeed, the engagement of academic research with
practitioners, although central to the production of knowledge in public
administration, has nevertheless been described as challenging (Buick
et al. 2015), having been recognized as a ‘perennial problem’ (Reed 2009,
p. 685). Pointing to the challenges and ‘wicked’ problems both practitio-
ners and academics have to face, an increasing number of scholars call to
action for (interdisciplinary) accounting researchers ‘to reflect on what
these turbulent times means for society and to ensure that their academic
endeavours make a contribution to practice, policy and a wider societal
good’ (Guthrie and Parker 2016) and to ask if and how accounting
accounts for, but also impacts on, issues of wider social relevance (Steccolini
2016). Guthrie and Parker (2014), reflecting on what constitutes a global
accounting academic, highlight how engaging with the profession and
society can give impact to academic’s teaching and research both in their
own countries and internationally.
CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP ON ACCOUNTING… 3
It is within this motivation of interdisciplinary accounting research in

the public services that embraces the public interest and engagement
through bringing together academics and practitioners that this book is
situated, as a comparative analysis to highlight the potential of construct-
ing an enabling accounting for the wider societal good. This book there-
fore addresses potentials for and barriers to bridging a research-practice
gap in (public service) accounting research that is a long debated issue
with uncertain and no definitive solutions (ter Bogt and Van Helden
2012). In so doing, the book does not have the ambition to definitively
bridge the practice-academia gap, but represents a further effort to try to
narrow it by presenting and contrasting the views from 21 different coun-
tries and representatives of 3 international professional accounting
bodies.
While the different contributions provide evidence of engagement
between academics and practitioners, they also reveal that the engagement
remains at the margins and that more can be done in accounting research
in general and in a public service context in particular.
The origins for this book that considers a comparative analysis of
research and practice on accounting in the public services is found in the
International Research Society of Public Management (IRSPM) Special
Interest Group on Accounting and Accountability. This was established in
2011 with the aim of contributing to and influencing the ‘international’
debate on accounting, accountability, and performance measurement sys-
tems in the public sector. Part of this role involved developing a distinc-
tive, interdisciplinary research approach which embraced theoretical,
methodological, and geographical diversity as well as engagement with
public policy and practice communities.
Over the past seven years, the group has organized an annual workshop
with the objectives to build a network of researchers in the area of account-
ing and accountability in the public services and to lay the foundations for
developing future research strategies and projects that are useful for prac-
titioners and researchers. In the third workshop at the Nottingham
Business School, Nottingham Trent University, in 2015, the overarching
theme ‘Engaging Academia with Practice and Policy: A Step Forward’ was
addressed within two parallel discussion sessions: (i) ‘What topics could
we focus on to increase the practical relevance of our research?’ and (ii)
‘How can we (academics) better engage with practitioners to define
research agendas and deliver/communicate research findings?’
4 L. FERRY ET AL.
In a proactive effort to address how to narrow the research-practice

gap, the group consequently spent a stimulating two days debating the
aforementioned themes. It identified current topics that could increase
the practical relevance of our research as being related to financial sustain-
ability, financial conformance and operational performance, accountabil-
ity and transparency, role of the accounting profession (and other
professions) in public finance and administration, effects of New Public
Management, and International Public Sector Accounting Standards
(IPSAS)/Accrual accounting adoption. A host of ideas on how academics
and practitioners could better engage were also discussed. This included
identifying bridging activities (e.g. research, consultancy, teaching) and
groups of boundary spanners (e.g. professional associations, think thanks,
informal communities) as well as highlighting criteria for interaction (e.g.
proactive personal contact, co-definition of emerging themes and proj-
ects/co-production/co-authorship) and rethinking dissemination (e.g.
common language, straightforward pieces, use of non-academic outlets
like blogs, tweets, professional journals, briefings, contributions to public
consultations). Figure 1.1 provides a summary of mapping current
engagement for bridging the academic-practitioner gap.
As part of making sense of the debate and emerging themes, it was sug-
gested in a discussion between Laurence Ferry and Ileana Steccolini that
members of the network may want to consider these issues in a ‘ polyphonic
Research Bridging Practice
Provider-initiated engagement
Research Practitioners
Consultancy
(Senior Executives)
Academics
Teaching (executive, students)
Outlets Policy-makers
User-initiated engagement
CONTINGENCIES
− Discipline (level of Professional
application-orientation) associations
− Incentive schemes Media
− Importance and influence
of buffer organisations Think tanks
− Gap between academia
and practice Informal
− Accessibility of communities Society
publications (meetings)
Research providers / producers Boundary spanners Research users / addressees
Fig. 1.1 Mapping current engagement—bridging the academic-practice gap

(Dudau et al. 2015)
debate’ as part of ‘a collective desire to leave a trace of the discussion’

regarding the research-practice gap between academics and practitioners
in public services accounting across comparative countries (Ahrens et al.
2008). Subsequently, practitioners were defined as those who are directly
involved in policy development and in the management of the public sec-
tor. This extends across all tiers of government, to other public bodies, the
accounting profession (insomuch as its activities relate to public services),
and to the business sector that works with the public sector. Academics
were defined as those employed in universities who were engaged in
research across accounting, public management, public administration,
and other disciplines interested in accounting in the public services.
Initiating the process, an email was sent out with an invitation to people
who had been at those first meetings, including the scientific committee,
workshop hosts, guest speakers, and practitioners. A traditional academic
journal paper would not work with an unusually large number of co-
authors who are dispersed primarily (although not exclusively) across
Western Europe. So, a different form of collective writing was decided
upon that reflected the original discussions, which would ultimately form
this book. It involved a simultaneous process in which academics worked
collegiately in country-focused teams to contribute a target of around
600–800 words within a three-week deadline. The contribution was to be
based on their experiences and asked them to describe for their country:
‘(i) the type and extent of impact of academia on practice, policy, and the
professions and (ii) the types and extent of relationships of academics with
practitioners, policy makers, and the professions? Are there (desirable or
current) evolutions in this?’ The responses were then made available to all
academic participants so that any additional points could be made and
responses clarified. After this group exercise, invited practitioners from
international professional accounting bodies leading on the public sector
provided their independent reflections.
Later, responses from invited academic groups and practitioners went
through a further round of revision whereby contributions from countries
and professional bodies increased to around 1000 words and covered four
areas for consistency being (i) Specific features of the country context
which in their view affect the research-practice gap issue in the country;
(ii) The role of institutions in widening/narrowing the gap; (iii) The roles
of academics in widening/narrowing the gap; and (iv) Examples of good
practice.
6 L. FERRY ET AL.
From this coherent overview, and based on a broader review of the lit-
erature examining the problems and issues identified in the ‘research-
practice gap’, we offer an evaluative framework for analysing the national
similarities and differences (and the contexts that produce them), with the
intent of helping to make sense of the research-practice gap on a global
scale. This framework builds upon the categorization of factors identified
by our contributors by level of influence to theorize a broader conceptu-
alization of the obstacles as well as facilitators to achieving a closer rela-
tionship between research and practice.
The book will now set out the literature review, the detailed responses
from each country and professional accounting bodies that the compara-
tive analysis is based upon, and the comparative analysis and findings, fol-
lowed by some concluding thoughts. In this book, we do not purport to
‘solve’ the question of how academic research might become a closer com-
panion to practice. Rather, the narratives contained and the analysis we
offer provide ‘food for thought’ and an invitation to researchers, who,
through their research, are seeking to make a contribution to the practice
of accounting for public services.
References
Ahrens, T., Becker, A., Burns, J., Chapman, C. S., Granlund, M., Habersam, M.,
Hansen, A., Khalifa, R., Malmi, T., Mennicken, A., Mikes, A., Panozzo, F.,
Piber, M., Quattrone, P., & Scheytt, T. (2008). The future of interpretive
accounting research-a polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
19(6), 840–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2006.07.005.
Broadbent, J., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Public sector to public services: 20 years of
“contextual” accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 21(2), 129–169.
Buick, F., Blackman, D., O’Flynn, J., O’Donnell, M., & West, D. (2016). Effective
practitioner–scholar relationships: Lessons from a coproduction partnership.
Public Administration Review, 76(1), 35–47.
Chapman, C. S., & Kern, A. (2012). What do academics do? Understanding the
practical relevance of research. Qualitative Research in Accounting and
Management, 9(3), 279–281.
Dudau, A., Korac, S., & Saliterer, I. (2015). Mapping current engagement –
Bridging the academic-practice gap, IRSPM SIG Accounting and Accountability.
Nottingham Trent University.
Evans, E., Burritt, R., & Guthrie, J. (Eds.). (2011). Bridging the gap between aca-
demic accounting research and professional practice, Academic leadership series
(Vol. 2). Sydney: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and the
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability.
Goddard, A. (2010). Contemporary public sector accounting research – An inter-
national comparison of journal papers. The British Accounting Review, 42(2),
75–87.
Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (2014). The global accounting academic: What
counts! Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 27(1), 2–14.
Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (2016). Whither the accounting profession, accoun-
tants and accounting researchers? Commentary and projections. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(1), 2–10.
Humphrey, C., & Miller, P. (2012). Rethinking impact and redefining responsibil-
ity: The parameters and coordinates of accounting and public management
reforms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(2), 295–327.
Jacobs, K. (2016). Theorising interdisciplinary public sector accounting research.
Financial Accountability & Management, 32(4), 469–488.
Jacobs, K., & Cuganesan, S. (2014). Interdisciplinary accounting research in the
public sector: Dissolving boundaries to tackle wicked problems. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(8), 1250–1256.
Laughlin, R. C. (2011). Accounting research, policy and practice: Worlds together
or worlds apart? In E. Evans, R. Burritt, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Bridging the gap
between academic accounting research and professional practice (pp. 23–30).
Sydney: Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability, University of
South Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia.
Modell, S. (2014). The societal relevance of management accounting: An intro-
duction to the special issue. Accounting and Business Research, 44(2), 83–103.
Paarlberg, D. (1968). Great Myths of Economics. New York: The New American
Library Inc.
Parker, L. D. (2011). University corporatisation: Driving redefinition. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 22(4), 434–450.
Parker, L. D., & Guthrie, J. (2010). Editorial: Business schools in an age of glo-
balization. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(1), 5–13.
Parker, L. D., Guthrie, J., and Linacre, S., 2011. Editorial: the relationship
between academic accounting research and professional practice. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24 (1), 5–14.
Reed, M. I. (2009). The theory/practice gap: A problem for research in business
schools? Journal of Management Development, 28(8), 685–693.
Steccolini, I. (2016). Public sector accounting: From “old” new public management
to a paradigmatic gap: Where to from here? APIRA conference, Melbourne.
ter Bogt, H., & van Helden, J. (2012). The practical relevance of management
accounting research and the role of qualitative methods therein: The debate
continues. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 9(3), 265–273.
8 L. FERRY ET AL.
Tucker, B. P., & Lowe, A. D. (2014). Practitioners are from Mars; academics are
from Venus? An empirical investigation of the research-practice gap in manage-
ment accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(3),
394–425.
Tucker, B. P., & Parker, L. D. (2014). In our ivory towers? The research-practice
gap in management accounting: An academic perspective. Accounting &
Business Research, 44(2), 104–143.
Tucker, B. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). Comparing the research-practice gap in
management accounting: A view from professional accounting bodies in
Australia and Germany. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(3),
362–400.
CHAPTER 2
Where There’s a Will… The Research-

Practice Gap in Accounting
Abstract In this chapter, I engage with recent empirical research I have

been involved with in investigating the important question of how research
may become a closer companion to practice and address three questions
central to the research-practice debate:
. How prevalent is the research-practice gap?

1
2. How has the research-practice gap been investigated?
3. How, if at all, might research become a closer companion to practice?
These questions are by no means restricted to the public sector, and

their consideration in a more general context may be valuable for both
researchers and practitioners interested in the nexus between research and
practice.
Keywords Research-practice gap • Accounting • Research relevance •

Public sector • Research policy
Basil Tucker

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1_2
10 L. FERRY ET AL.
2.1 Overview
As reported on the website of Founded in November 1984, the Search for
Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, the SETI programme was
to begin operations on February 1, 1985. The SETI programR was ranked
as the most thorough effort ever made to search the skies for radio signals
from nonhuman civilizations. NASA had planned to fund the SETI pro-
gramme through to at least the year 2002. In 1993, Nevada Senator
Richard Bryan successfully introduced an amendment that eliminated all
funding for the NASA SETI programme, citing budget pressures as his
reason for ending NASA’s involvement with SETI. At an annual cost of
only $12 million, the programme was less than 0.1% of NASA’s annual
budget, amounting to about a nickel per taxpayer per year (SETI Institute
2017).
In terms of a need to demonstrate the practical relevance of its endeav-
ours at least, the science of cosmology is not alone! The opening passage
offers two crucial and related lessons illustrating the importance of the
necessity of academic research to in some way inform, engage with, or
contribute to practice. First, public scrutiny of the value of research and its
perceived value to society can have critical ramifications—even for the
direction and indeed, sustainability of what might arguably be regarded as
the greatest scientific enterprise of our time (Tarter 2001), in terms of its
profound importance, significance, and potential consequence to human-
kind (Billingham 1998). Second, insofar as public sector funding is con-
cerned, the (perceived) return on investment on research is inevitably
evaluated in the context of competing priorities within an environment of
finite resources.
Such lessons are not profound. However, their implications are. As
observed by Scapens and Bromwich (2010, p. 77), the nature and extent
of the gap between academic research and practice ‘raises fundamental
questions not only about the relationship between academics and practi-
tioners; but more generally, about the role of academic research in soci-
ety’. Indeed, resonating with the opening passage of this chapter, it has
been argued that the very legitimacy of academic research depends largely
upon its ability to demonstrate its policy and practice relevance
(Baldvinsdottir et al. 2010).
This chapter proceeds by addressing some fundamental issues that serve
to problematize the research-practice gap in accounting in terms of five
fundamental questions:
WHERE THERE’S A WILL… THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP IN ACCOUNTING 11
. How prevalent is the research-practice gap?

1
2. How has the research-practice gap been investigated?
3. What challenges does the research-practice gap pose for a public sec-
tor audience?
4. What are the problems with engagement?
5. Is the problem of relevance soluble?
2.2 How Prevalent Is the Research-Practice Gap?

In view of the public scrutiny of research investment, competing priorities
for research funding, and disciplinary legitimacy, it is hardly surprising that
apprehensions about how effectively academic research speaks to practice
have been raised by scholars within a diverse range of ‘practiced-based’ or
applied disciplines (Short et al. 2009; Van de Ven and Johnson 2006).
Indeed, calls to more effectively link research to practice have been made
in management (Shapiro et al. 2007; Vermeulen 2005); human resources
(Keefer and Stone 2009); economics (Ormerod 1994); finance (Trahan
and Gitman 1995); medicine (Denis and Langley 2002); public health
(Philip et al. 2003); social work (Kondrat 1992); nursing (Fink and
Thompson 2005); speech pathology (Fey and Johnson 1998); organiza-
tional psychology (Hodgkinson et al. 2001); education (Abbott et al.
1999); management information systems (Lee 1989)—as well as in
accounting (e.g. see Mautz 1978; Baxter 1988; Mitchell 2002; Inanga
and Schneider 2005; Scapens 2006, 2008; Hopwood 2007; Baldvinsdottir
et al. 2010; Laughlin 2011; van Helden and Northcott 2010; Unerman
and O’Dwyer 2010; Parker et al. 2011; Kaplan 2011; Balakrishnan 2012;
Lapsley 2012; ter Bogt and van Helden 2012; Cooper and Annisette
2012; Lindsay 2012; Merchant 2012; Moser 2012; amongst others).
Most of these commentaries are predicated on an underlying concern
that the need for academic research is crucial to the future health, vitality,
and construction of a distinctive identity of the discipline. In terms of the
accounting academy, Parker (2012, p. 1173) offers a pointed and porten-
tous warning, ‘…this must be addressed if we are to avoid becoming an
incestuous, self-referential species whose existence becomes a matter of
ever declining importance’.
However, apart from the concerns expressed by accounting researchers,
the imperative for academic research to engage more effectively with prac-
tice has been accentuated by recent research rating exercises across the
12 L. FERRY ET AL.
globe. For instance, the Australian government’s Excellence in Research

for Australia (ERA), the UK government’s Research Excellence Framework
(REF), and the New Zealand government’s Performance Based Research
Fund (PBRF) are becoming an increasingly common fixture in the envi-
ronment within which public universities operate. This trend has been
mirrored in countries such as Denmark, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the
Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy, Hong Kong, and Canada (Parker 2012).
The rating of academic research outputs forms part of an overall
national government research management system designed to allocate
public funding to universities’ research efforts by measuring, monitoring,
and evaluating academic research ‘impact’, ‘relevance’, or ‘usefulness’.
Such systems signal to university management and researchers the type of
research that is valued and rewarded (Wren et al. 2007), and in so doing,
directly influence not only the quality and concentration of research
endeavours (Middlehurst 2014), but also universities’ quest for reputa-
tions and financial inflows.
Although less reliant on public funding than their Australian and
European counterparts (Chevaillier and Eicher 2002), North American
Universities are not exempt from the need to legitimize their research
investment decisions, and with this reliance comes a need to legitimize
their spending on research by demonstrating the return it generates
(Rousseau and McCarthy 2007). As with the scenarios in Australasia and
Europe, North American higher education institutions are increasingly
reliant on private monies for their continued survival (Bartunek and Rynes
2014). Thus, the production of academic research that is or is seen to be
‘relevant’ carries with it a financial imperative for universities on both sides
of the Atlantic and Pacific (Yang 2003). It is both an important and timely
issue for university leaders, academic researchers of all disciplinary persua-
sions, and other parties with a stake in the construction, propagation, and
application of academic research.
2.2.1 A Public Sector Perspective

Although commentaries on the divide between academic research and its
application in practice have proliferated in the general academic literature,
and across most applied disciplines (Rynes et al. 2001), trepidations
voiced specifically in relation to the research-practice nexus within a pub-
lic sector context have been surprisingly limited (van Helden and
Northcott 2010). This is at odds with the expectation that the practical
relevance of academic research would be of interest to public sector man-
agers (Pettigrew 2005). At least three observations may be thought to
underpin this expectation. First, long-standing criticism of the public sec-
tor for being insufficiently effective and efficient (van Helden et al. 2010)
has led to quite significant transformations in this sector over the past
three decades. Perhaps the most significant transformation has been the
New Public Management (Hood 1995), characterized by increased
accountability and control practices, and extensive and measurable indica-
tors of performance to ensure more efficient resource use but at the same
time seeking to maintain or improve the quality of service delivery
(Arnaboldi et al. 2015). It is fair to say that both the conceptual founda-
tion and implementation of the New Public Management have been con-
troversial (Jacobs and Cuganesan 2014), but this controversy has also
created scholarly interest and potential opportunities for academic research
(Arnaboldi 2013).
A second factor suggesting that academic research and its contribution
may be germane to the public sector is the inherent complexity of public
services, agencies, and instrumentalities. Complexities associated with the
sector are well documented. They result from sectorial responsibilities for
quite abstract and contestable outcomes related to justice, responsibility,
equity, democracy, and change (Lapsley and Skærbæk 2012). In such an
uncertain and complex environment, it is not inconceivable that public
sector managers might turn to findings from academic research to reduce
uncertainty and complement experience-based practices (Hemsley-Brown
2004).
Finally, some evidence shows that although a majority of public sector
managers do not engage extensively with academic research, a sizeable
minority of them do use academic research in their policy-related work
(Newman 2014). Thus, rather than existing as isolated ‘silos’, it may be
that public sector and academic communities possess links that can further
encourage the use of research in policy making.
Although arguably of lower profile than in disciplinary conversations,
when considering the nexus between academic research and practice, it is
important to remember that under the umbrella of the generic term ‘the
public sector’ are entities charged with the responsibility of delivering a con-
siderable diversity of services, programmes, and agendas typically encom-
passing emergency services, infrastructure, utilities, telecommunications,
14 L. FERRY ET AL.
transport, education, and health care. The size of the divide between aca-
demic research and practice varies from discipline to discipline (Brennan
2008; Short et al. 2009; Van de Ven and Johnson 2006; McKelvey 2006),
with some academic domains experiencing strong knowledge uptake, while
other disciplines are only beginning to promote knowledge sharing actively
to close the research-practice gap (Tsui et al. 2006). There is no reason to
believe such variations would not also apply across the portfolio of public
sector agencies. To draw definitive inferences about the ways in which aca-
demic research informs or is informed by practice would therefore reduce
the discussion to a naive and unsophisticated level, and distort the veracity of
any conclusions reached. That said, particular public sector domains have
varied in the attention they have directed and the importance they have
afforded to the research-practice gap. The health sector in general, and the
nursing profession in particular, has developed an ‘Evidence-Based Practice’
(EBP) tradition that has as its aim the utilization of the ‘best available’
research evidence from management, medical, biological, and behavioural
sciences to inform and underpin nursing practice, policy, and education
(Tucker and Leach 2017).
As a profession, the advances that nursing has made in bridging the
gap between academic research and practice through EBP1 is an obser-
vation that has been repeatedly noted (e.g. see Reay et al. 2009;
Brennan 2008; Rousseau and McCarthy 2007; Hemsley-Brown and
Sharp 2003). Admittedly, the nursing profession has an established his-
tory dating back to the 1970s in seeking to integrate academic research
and practice (Abdellah 1970; Lindeman 1975); nevertheless, the
achievements and progression that nursing has achieved point to one
realm of the public sector that may be considered to be at the forefront
of such discussions. Interestingly, and as will be discussed later in this
chapter, the reasons attributable to, and implications of, the divide
between research and practice in nursing are remarkably consistent
with those articulated in general commentaries (see Tucker and Leach
2017).
1
For example, through the move to tertiary-trained nurses, incorporation of research as a
component of training, engagement with research as a prerequisite for continued registration
or accreditation, and the establishment of academic journals such as Evidence-Based Nursing,
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, dedicated
to publishing expositions on this aspect of nursing.
2.3 How Has the Research-Practice Gap Been

Investigated?
As we have seen, the nature, extent, and implications of the research-
practice nexus have attracted the attention of numerous academics over
the past few decades. Indeed, the relationship between academic research
and practice as it pertains to accounting generally has been the subject of
recent special issues of leading academic journals,2 editors’ forums,3 as well
as conference plenaries or proceedings.4 Nevertheless, in spite of the con-
siderable extent to which the use and usefulness of academic research to
practice have been debated, the relevance of academic research as a topic
of research enquiry in its own right remains in its infancy. We make this
claim based on two key characteristics of the articles and book chapters
that directly address the relevance of academic research—collectively, the
so-called relevance literature (Nicolai and Seidl 2010). First, while the
majority of these writings are based on the reflections of senior, learned,
and respected academics, and offer a point of departure for further thought
on this topic, they are nevertheless essentially speculative (Tucker and
Lowe 2014) and predominantly reflect anecdotal perceptions (Tucker and
Parker 2014). This is not to undervalue the observations of such learned
academics—quite the opposite, it is these very insights that motivate and
provide the point of departure for further enquiry of the disengagement
between academic research and practice. Nevertheless, the absence of
empirical evidence has direct implications for the cross-validation of find-
ings and ideas across studies, and the prescriptions offered, leading to calls
for empirical questioning and substantiation rather than normative opin-
ion on this subject (see Kieser et al. 2015; Bartunek and Rynes 2014).
2
For example: Accounting & Business Research, 2014, Vol. 44, No. 2; Qualitative Research
in Accounting & Management, 2012, Vol. 9 No. 3; Management Accounting Research,
2010, Vol. 21 No. 2; Australian Accounting Review, 2010, Vol. 20 No. 1.
3
For example, Ratnatunga (2012), Parker et al. (2011), and Scapens and Bromwich
(2010).
4
For example, American Accounting Association (Management Accounting Section),
Florida, 2014; Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting, Kobe, 2013; Accounting
and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, 2012; Centre for
Accounting, Governance and Sustainability, Adelaide, 2011; Management Accounting
Research Group, London School of Economics, London, 2009; and, the Global Management
Accounting Research Symposium, Sydney, 2005.
16 L. FERRY ET AL.
A second characteristic of much of the relevance literature is the dis-

jointed diagnoses, and divergent remedies proposed in studies that have
examined the nature, significance, and underlying explanations of ‘the
gap’ (Rynes et al. 2001; Lee 1989). If a legitimate outcome of academic
research is to inform practice (Inanga and Schneider 2005), then the use
of a theoretical frame of reference to organize and explicate the underlying
arguments and concerns about barriers preventing or impeding this out-
come would be an important contribution (Parker et al. 2011). The adop-
tion of a theoretical framework is likely to better enable a systematic view
of the ‘research-practice gap’ by providing a means by which factors that
may be contributing to the gap may be recognized and evaluated.
However, attempts to theorize tensions underlying the adoption of aca-
demic research in practice, and the use of theory as a means of problema-
tizing, framing, or interpreting the ways in which academic research may,
does, or even should speak to practice, are the exception rather than the
norm in academic musings on this topic.
2.3.1 A Deeper Reflection on the Research-Practice Gap

Markides (2010, p. 122) observes that: ‘…wherever there is a problem,
there must be (proposed) solutions, and over the years, academics have
not shied away from offering their remedies’. Nevertheless, the schism
between research and practice endures, and according to some commenta-
tors, it is becoming greater over time (Laughlin 2011; Bennis and O’Toole
2005). Certainly, for those advocating the closer engagement of research
with practice, such contentions are somewhat disheartening. However,
these observations do offer the opportunity to reflect on at least three
questions pivotal to understanding the nature, extent of the divide, and
challenges involved in bringing the worlds of research and practice closer
together (Banks, et al. 2016).
First, what evidence exists for claims about a disconnect between
accounting research and practice? How academic research should engage
with practice is a discussion comprising at least two parties: academics on
the one hand, practitioners on the other. As has been noted, although
empirical evidence has been largely neglected from the academic conversa-
tions on this subject, recent investigations from both frames of reference
support a definite disengagement between academic research and the uti-
lization of research findings by practitioners. In a study of 64 senior man-
agement accounting academics from 55 universities in 14 countries
exploring the extent to which academic management accounting research

does and should inform practice, Tucker and Parker (2014) found that
while 30% of the academics interviewed believed that research is not too
isolated from practice, 40% perceived it is. Moreover, while around 30% of
the sample believed that research should be based on practice, 40% did not.
Further, almost 30% of academics perceived research is based upon prac-
tice, yet around 37% held a contrary view. These results reflect disparate
views on the perceived extent of the gap between academic research and
practice, and its importance, at least from the perspective of the senior
management accounting academics comprising their sample.
From the practitioner-based perspective, in a questionnaire survey and
follow-up interviews with 19 representatives of the four principal profes-
sional accounting bodies in Australia, the findings of Tucker and Lowe
(2014) indicated that academic research is perceived to be somewhat
remote from practice. Extending this study to an investigation of 14 rep-
resentatives of German professional accounting bodies (Tucker and
Schaltegger 2016), and subsequently to 18 US state and national profes-
sional accounting associations (Tucker and Lawson 2017), similar conclu-
sions were reached in that the extent to which academic research informs
practice is perceived to be limited. Clearly, these findings cannot be
regarded as globally generalizable; however, they are indicative of a per-
ceived gap between the worlds of research and practice in the UK,
Australia, Germany, as well as the USA from the vantage point of
practice.
The second question that warrants the attention of those interested in
the relationship between research and practice is whether this disconnect
is a problem for academics, practitioners, and other scholars. As we have
already seen, much discussion in the accounting literature has centred on
the need to direct greater attention to the practical relevance of academic
accounting research (e.g. Merchant 2012; Laughlin 2011; Kaplan 2011;
Scapens and Bromwich 2010; Parker and Guthrie 2010; Scapens 2006,
2008; Hopwood 2007). Tucker and Parker (2014), as outlined above,
corroborated these concerns. However, an important finding of Tucker
and Parker was that although a majority of the academics canvassed in
their study held that the ‘gap’ between academic research and the practice
is significant, widening, and of considerable concern, a minority yet sig-
nificant number of academics indicated that a divide between academic
research and practice is appropriate, and that efforts to bridge this divide
are unnecessary, untenable, or irrelevant. The arguments mounted for the
18 L. FERRY ET AL.
maintenance of a separation between research and practice by this ‘minor-

ity group’ of academics were based on issues relating to ‘… independence
in research choices, autonomy and objectivity in how research was con-
ducted, and the identification of further stakeholders in addition to prac-
titioners as ‘consumers’ or potential beneficiaries of academic research’
(Tucker and Parker 2014, p. 124).
The studies of Tucker and Lowe (2014), Tucker and Schaltegger
(2016), and Tucker and Lawson (2017) are all consistent in their conclu-
sions that the disconnect between academic research and practice is seen
to be of limited concern to practitioners. However, despite this disinterest,
professional accounting bodies in all three countries did indicate practitio-
ners were likely to be open to greater engagement with the findings of
academic research. Unsurprisingly perhaps, these professional bodies
expressed a belief that they were well positioned to act as a conduit
between researchers and practitioners.
The third question posed by Banks et al. (2016) addresses the need to
clarify the reasons underlying the disconnect between research and prac-
tice. In the relevance literature as it applies to accounting generally, numer-
ous causes have been attributed for the apparent detachment between the
worlds of academia and practice. For example, the tendency of academic
research to neglect questions of relevance to practitioners (Baldvinsdottir
et al. 2010; van Helden and Northcott 2010; Malmi and Granlund 2009;
Scapens 2008; Hopwood 2007; Inanga and Schneider 2005); the inco-
herent way in which research is typically presented (Werner 1978), and
pretentious jargon it contains (Baxter 1988); its orientation towards other
academics rather than practitioners (Malmi and Granlund 2009); the long
incubation period of academic publications as compared with the short-
term problem-solving needs of practitioners (Inanga and Schneider 2005);
the inaccessibility of academic accounting research journals for practitio-
ners (Scapens 2008; Inanga and Schneider 2005); the failure of research-
ers to contextualize research to enable its utilization by practitioners
(Laughlin 2011); and the absence of incentive structures for academics to
directly engage with practice (Merchant 2012; Lindsay 2012; ter Bogt
and van Helden 2012).
In the four studies outlined above, empirical support was found for
three major barriers to effective utilization of academic research: (i) the
failure to develop questions of practical relevance to practitioners (Germany
and the USA); (ii) presenting the findings of academic research in a form
that is intelligible and lucid for practitioners (Australia and Germany;
Australia and the UK); and (iii) ensuring practitioners can access research
findings through appropriate media, distribution, or communication
channels (Australia and the USA; Australia and the UK). In all countries,
however, a pivotal and arguably more fundamental barrier was that of
incentives for academics to undertake practice-relevant research. Merchant
(2012, p. 11) succinctly identifies an underlying reason that may explain
this barrier:
Most academics are focused on getting ‘hits’ in top journals and building
their academic citation counts. We receive little or no rewards for presenta-
tions to, or publications for, practitioners, so we do not reach out to them.
To paraphrase Hopwood (2002, p. 777), albeit in a different context,

‘if only there were simple solutions, but there aren’t…’ Our deeper reflec-
tion on bringing academic research closer to practice has suggested there
is empirical evidence to suggest a disconnect between the world of the
researcher and that of practitioners. This is seen to be of concern to most
(but by no means all) researchers, but largely inconsequential to practitio-
ners. Reasons for the disconnect are many and varied, but appear to con-
verge to issues of researchers asking the right questions, presenting their
findings in a ‘user-friendly’ way, and ensuring accessibility to the research
they are doing, the findings they have generated, and the implications they
see for practitioners. Underlying these barriers, however, is the question of
motivating academics to meaningfully engage with practice in the first
place. This discussion leads to a consideration of how, if at all, research
may become a closer companion to practice. It is towards this question
that our attention now turns.
2.4 Accounting Research and Practice: Closer

Companions?
The question of whether it is possible for academic research to become a
closer companion to practice is, of course, rhetorical. At least two observa-
tions support this stance. First, there is a precedent for academic research
to engage with practitioners. For instance, the origin of the works of many
best-selling business and management authors such as Handy (1976),
Porter (1980), Peters and Waterman (1982), Kanter (1983), Senge
(1990), Kaplan and Norton (1996), and Covey (1989) is grounded on
academic or consultancy-based research but popularized through
20 L. FERRY ET AL.
s uccessfully tailoring their messages to a non-academic community. Such

examples demonstrate that it is indeed possible for academic research to
directly engage with and arguably significantly influence practice.
A second observation that dispels the notion that research and practice
communities and interests are diametrically opposed is that the separation
of academic research from its practical application is a false dichotomy, and
a function of the way in which the relationship between research and the
use or usefulness of research has been framed—as a ‘gap’, ‘schism’, ‘divide’,
or ‘rigor/relevance tension’. There exists no intrinsic reason why rigorous
research and its relevance to practice cannot be complementary. Gulati
(2007, p. 788) reminds us that ‘…the key architects of some of the most
influential theories in the social sciences were also actively involved in
shaping the societies in which they lived’. Citing Weber, Durkheim and
Marx (sociology), Lewin and Freud (psychology), and Smith and Keynes
(economics), Gulati points to the considerable influence these scholars
have had on mainstream public policy, suggesting that researchers who
adopt an either–or approach to the relationship between research and
practice ‘have lost touch with their roots’ (Gulati 2007, p. 779). An
emphasis on practice relevance reinforces conventional conceptualizations
of the research-practice gap that in essence positions the work of research-
ers against that of practitioners, treating them as polar opposites, and mak-
ing integration of them problematic. Under such conditions, to gain more
of one implies a loss of some proportion of the other. In such a zero-sum
view, researchers perceive they are faced with mutually exclusive choices:
either–or decisions as to whether or not their research is designed to
engage with practice (Gulati 2007).
Thus, on the basis of these arguments, if (i) academic research is (or has
the potential to be) of interest to practitioners and (ii) academic research has
a demonstrable tradition in informing practice, what does this suggest for
those interested in increasing the extent to which academic research engages
with practice? Perhaps a point of departure is to acknowledge a point under-
scored by Tucker and Parker (2014). That is, not all research should neces-
sarily have as its aim an intent to inform practice. Conversations about the
relevance of academic research have generally framed the issue of relevance
in terms of the extent to which academic research does or should inform
practice. While practitioners, policy makers, and regulators clearly consti-
tute important stakeholders in the relevance debate, by no means are these
constituencies the only ‘consumers’ or potential consumers of academic
research. Other academics, students, professional associations, and industry

bodies are all examples of groups that have a legitimate interest in the appli-
cation of academic research findings. That said, for those researchers who
have identified a preference to contribute to practice, policy, or regulation,
the barriers preventing such engagement cannot be ignored. The question
facing such researchers becomes one of how can these barriers be sur-
mounted? The four specific barriers perceived to underlie the disconnect
between academic research and practice as identified in this chapter do not
purport to represent an exhaustive list of hurdles impeding a closer nexus
between research and practice. They do, however, provide a starting point
for answering this question and, as they are based on empirical findings,
warrant reflection. Each of the four barriers is considered in turn in the
ensuing discussion.
2.4.1 The Failure to Develop Questions of Practical Relevance

to Practitioners
The question investigated by researchers may very well be relevant to an
academic audience, but can also be appropriate to practitioners.
Obviously, a means to generate research questions of relevance to both
academics and practitioners is through collaboration. Joint research
projects involving industry, government, or commercial partners pro-
vide not only a compelling motivation for a particular study, but is also
likely to directly meet practitioner needs. Common to most national
research assessment exercises is the need to demonstrate engagement,
impact, and ‘relevance’ of research (Broadbent 2010). Research funding
is often a condition of satisfactorily demonstrating such relevance (Otley
2010). In collaborating with industry partners, not only is the probabil-
ity of receiving funding enhanced, but the findings resulting from the
research are likely to be directly relevant to the needs of practice, policy,
or regulators.
In addition to such external collaborations, other means by which ideas
for ‘practical’ research projects can be developed include discussions with
professional accounting bodies (Ravald and Grönroos 1996), listening to
students (especially mature-age, MBA students) (Burke and Rau 2010),
reviewing professional/practitioner journals (Bromwich and Scapens
2016), and scrutinizing the ‘Implications for practice’ sections of publica-
tions in academic journals (Bartunek and Rynes 2014).
22 L. FERRY ET AL.
2.4.2 Presenting the Findings of Academic Research in a Form

That Is Intelligible and Lucid for Practitioners
Dostaler and Tomberlin (2013, p. 121) argue that ‘…if research was
undeniably relevant, not much effort would be needed to sell it to mem-
bers of the business community’. It is difficult to dispute such an assertion;
however, unless the subject of the sale is impenetrable in the language it
uses, and the expression in which it is presented, it is unlikely that it will
be recognized, let alone utilized. Academic research is generally written in
a style characterized by abstract, esoteric, or obscure language (Chapman
and Kern 2012; Mitchell 2002), replete with technical jargon (Parker
2011), and indecipherable to most professional management accountants
(Hopper 2013). Although the ‘language of academia’ by no means invali-
dates the content of the message, it may obfuscate it. The barrier of the
presentation of research confuses substance with form. As researchers are
aware in the design of their studies, the data that can be collected, the
analytical methods employed, and the theoretical perspective adopted,
‘there are many ways to skin a cat.’ There is no reason why this flexibility
cannot (or should not) be adapted in the communication of their research.
Of course, journal articles require stringent adherence to academic writing
conventions; however, journal articles are by no means the only vehicle by
which research can be communicated.
Tailoring the message to a target audience (in this instance, practitio-
ners) is not a call to ‘dumb down’ research. Just as a consultation with a
medical practitioner does not typically involve that practitioner recounting
Anatomy 101 to the patient, conveying the essence of research findings
can and should be well within the literacy capabilities of academics. Like
patients, it may be that practitioners and others without research training
or background may simply seek a diagnosis, prognosis, and prescribed
treatment to the problem they have encountered.
The question of academics ‘dumbing down’ research is a point that has
been recurrently raised in various guises in the relevance literature (e.g. see
Leisenring and Johnson 1994; Wilkerson 1999; Bolton and Stolcis 2003;
McKelvey 2006; Pronovost and Wachter 2006; Baskerville 2009).
Although useful as a means to describe the adaptation of academic research
writing to facilitate greater comprehension by practitioners who have not
had the opportunity to receive training in how to decipher academic prose,
it may be that the metaphor of ‘dumbing down’ academic research has
limited traction for researchers who seek to engage with and impact
practice. The idea of ‘dumbing down’ research arguably evokes an almost
patronizing or condescending image in which the academic occupies a
privileged intellectual position, with practitioners relegated to one of less
intellectually gifted. In fact, rather than representing a differential in the
intelligence stakes, academics and practitioners may be thought to speak
‘different languages’ in a sense. The key word here is ‘different’—not bet-
ter, or superior or more adept. Researchers seeking to engage with and
impact practice would be well advised to reflect on the observation attrib-
uted to Einstein, ‘If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it
well enough’.
2.4.3 Ensuring Practitioner Access to Research Findings

Through Appropriate Media, Distribution, or Communication
Channels
As Mitchell (2002, p. 281) notes, ‘practitioners do not directly access the
management accounting research journals’. As alluded to in the immedi-
ately preceding sub-section, in addition to the comprehensibility of
research papers published in academic journals, there are numerous
potential outlets through which research may be disseminated. For exam-
ple, chapters in texts, book reviews, conference papers and proceedings,
discussion papers, edited texts, consultants’ reports, the Internet, mono-
graphs, newspaper/television/radio/videos, professional journals, popu-
lar journals, submissions to government/regulators, poetry, and teaching
(Gray et al. 2002).
This is not an exhaustive list. On the basis of the empirical findings
outlined earlier (Tucker and Lowe 2014; Tucker and Parker 2014; Tucker
and Schaltegger 2016; Tucker and Lawson 2017), presentations at indus-
try forums, professional accounting bodies, specific targeted organiza-
tions, and webinars are further avenues researchers might use to circulate
and publicize their research. The key message is clear: providing practi-
tioners with access to research findings need not be an impediment for
those seeking to propagate their findings. In fact, it could very well be
said that ‘necessity is the Mother of invention’—which brings us to the
fourth predominate barrier, that of incentives to academics to engage
with practice.
24 L. FERRY ET AL.
2.4.4 Incentives for Academics to Undertake Practice-Relevant

Research
The question of incentives for academics to undertake practice-relevant
research is a necessary antecedent for undertaking research that informs
with, and impacts upon, practice. As we have seen, however, the absence
of formal incentive structures (Merchant 2012), need to establish net-
works of practitioners and colleagues from other disciplines (Mohrman
and Lawler 2012), and the peer review processes in academic journals that
primarily rely on academic standards, rather than the practical relevance of
the study (Nicolai et al. 2011), represents definite deterrents to undertake
this type of research.
Nevertheless, the increasing emphasis on research assessment in its vari-
ous forms in universities across the globe may have changed this tradi-
tional state of affairs. Such research assessment exercises are designed to
measure, monitor, and evaluate academic research ‘impact’, ‘relevance’, or
‘usefulness’ and have placed considerable pressure on academics and uni-
versities to generate research outcomes that directly impact practice
(Parker et al. 2011). By the same token, however, the recognition that
research published in professional journals, and oriented towards address-
ing practical problems, can be of comparable quality to research published
in peer-reviewed academic journals is a very real assumption upon which
such research assessment exercises are based (van Helden et al. 2010).
Related to the advent and emphases of research assessment exercises are
university strategies designed to generate external revenue. Such strategies
include, for example, establishing joint venture research programmes with
corporations, obtaining research grant funding from industry sources, and
undertaking contract research. Securing such sources of external funds is
likely to be more attractive if proposed studies can demonstrate their prac-
tical relevance and applicability (Parker et al. 1998).
In addition to these institutionally based incentives, there are ample
opportunities to undertake research on this fundamentally important
topic. Other than designing and undertaking studies of both theoretical
significance and practical importance, researchers might consider that
investigations of the relationship between academic research and its use or
usefulness to practice can in itself be an area of scholarly enquiry in its own
right (Bartunek and Rynes 2014; Kieser et al. 2015). As we have seen,
although speculative, discussions, observations, and reflections on the
relationship between academic research and practice abound in the
academic literature, empirical studies investigating this relationship are

extremely rare. This provides researchers with a fertile field of exploration
using different ontologies, epistemologies, theoretical vantage points, and
methods. Contextualized studies that examine the connection between
academic research outcomes and practice in different countries, industries,
and organizations over time would add much-needed empirical evidence
for bridging the gap between academic research and practice. An example
of research that is particularly germane to this book is an investigation of
the extent to which research may inform (and be informed by) public sec-
tor organizations. This chapter has not explicitly addressed this issue but,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, has assumed negligible differ-
ences in the relevance of academic research as applied to public, not-for-
profit, and private sectors. However, absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence, and whether or not this assumption is valid has yet to be deter-
mined. Such investigations by those researchers particularly interested in
public sector management would certainly be worthwhile by offering
much-needed sectorial-based evidence relating to the nexus between aca-
demic research and practice, and what might be done to narrow what
appears to be a prevalent gap.
References
Abbott, M., Walton, C., Tapia, Y., & Greenwood, C. R. (1999). Research to prac-
tice: A ‘blueprint’ for closing the gap in local schools. Exceptional Children,
65(3), 339–352.
Abdellah, F. G. (1970). Overview of nursing research 1955–1968 (v 3). Nursing
Research, 19, 239–252.
Arnaboldi, M. (2013). Consultant-research in public sector transformation: An
evolving role. Financial Accountability & Management, 29(2), 140–160.
Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Performance management in
the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability &
Management, 31(1), 1–22.
Balakrishnan, R. (2012). Commentary: Journal of management accounting
research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 9(3), 274–275.
Baldvinsdottir, G., Mitchell, F., & Nørreklit, H. (2010). Issues in the relationship
between theory and practice in management accounting. Management
Accounting Research, 21(2), 79–82.
Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., Bochantin, J. E., Kirkman, B. L., Whelpley, C. E., &
O’Boyle, E. H. (2016). Management’s science-practice gap: A grand challenge
for all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 2205–2231.
26 L. FERRY ET AL.
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and
unlike: The paradoxes of academic–practitioner relationships. Journal of
Management, 40(5), 1181–1201.
Baskerville, R. (2009). Preparing for evidence based management (editorial).
European Journal of Information Systems, 18(6), 523–525.
Baxter, W. T. (1988). Accounting research–academic trends versus practical needs.
Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 98–104.
Billingham, J. (1998). Cultural aspects of the search for extraterrestrial intelli-
gence. Acta Astronautica, 42, 711–719.
Bolton, M. J., & Stolcis, G. B. (2003). Ties that do not bind: Musings on the spe-
cious relevance of academician research. Public Administration Review, 63(5),
626–630.
Brennan, R. (2008). Theory and practice across disciplines: Implications for the
field of management. European Business Review, 20(6), 515–528.
Broadbent, J. (2010). The UK research assessment exercise: Performance mea-
surement and resource allocation. Australian Accounting Review, 20(1),
14–23.
Bromwich, M., & Scapens, R. W. (2016). Management accounting research: 25
years on. Management Accounting Research, 31, 1–9.
Burke, L. A., & Rau, B. (2010). The research-teaching gap in management.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(1), 132–143.
Chapman, C. S., & Kern, A. (2012). What do academics do? Understanding the
practical relevance of research. Qualitative Research in Accounting and
Management, 9(3), 279–281.
Chevaillier, T., & Eicher, J.-C. (2002). Higher education funding: A decade of
changes. Higher Education in Europe, XXVII(1–2), 89–99.
Cooper, C., & Annisette, M. (2012). Critical perspectives on accounting.
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 9(3), 282–283.
Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Free Press.
Denis, J. L., & Langley, A. (2002). Introduction to the forum. Health Care
Management Review, 27(3), 32–34.
Dostaler, I., & Tomberlin, T. (2013). The great divide between business school
research and business practice. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(1),
115–128.
Fey, M. E., & Johnson, B. W. (1998). Research to practice (and back again) in
speech-language intervention. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(2), 23–34.
Fink, R., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Overcoming barriers and promoting the use
of research in practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35(3), 121–129.
Gray, R., Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (2002). Rites of passage and the self-
immolation of academic accounting labour: An essay exploring exclusivity ver-
sus mutuality in accounting scholarship. Accounting Forum, 26(1), 1–30.
Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-
relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal,
50(4), 775–782.
Handy, C. (1976). Understanding organizations. London: Penguin Books.
Hemsley-Brown, J. (2004). Facilitating research utilisation: A cross-sector review
of research evidence. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(6),
534–552.
Hemsley-Brown, J. V., & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to improve profes-
sional practice: A systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education,
29(4), 449–470.
Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P., & Anderson, N. (2001). Re-aligning the stake-
holders in management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organiza-
tional psychology. British Journal of Management, 12, 41–48.
Hood, C. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a
theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 93–109.
Hopper, T. (2013). Making accounting degrees fit for a university. Critical
Hopwood, A. G. (2002). If only there were simple solutions, but there aren’t:
Some reflections on Zimmerman’s critique of empirical management account-
ing research. European Accounting Review, 11(4), 777–785.
Hopwood, A. G. (2007). Whither accounting research? The Accounting Review,
82(5), 1365–1374.
Inanga, E. L., & Schneider, W. B. (2005). The failure of accounting research to
improve accounting practice: A problem of theory and lack of communication.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(3), 227–248.
Jacobs, K., & Cuganesan, S. (2014). Interdisciplinary accounting research in the
public sector: Dissolving boundaries to tackle wicked problems. Accounting,
Kanter, R. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kaplan, R. S. (2011). Accounting scholarship that advances professional knowl-
edge and practice. The Accounting Review, 86(2), 367–383.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Putting strategy into
action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Keefer, J. M., & Stone, S. J. (2009). Practitioner perspectives on the gap between
research and practice: What gap? Advances in Developing Human Resources,
11(4), 454–471.
Kieser, A., Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2015). The practical relevance of management
research: Turning the debate on relevance into a rigorous scientific research
program. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 143–233.
28 L. FERRY ET AL.
Kondrat, M. E. (1992). Reclaiming the practical: Formal and substantive rational-
ity in social work practice. Social Service Review, 67(2), 237–255.
Lapsley, I. (2012). Commentary: Financial accountability & management.
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 9(3), 291–292.
Lapsley, I., & Skærbæk, P. (2012). Why the public sector matters. Financial
Accountability & Management, 28(4), 355–358.
Sydney: Centre for Accounting, governance and sustainability, University of
Lee, T. A. (1989). Education, practice and research in accounting: Gaps, close
loops, bridges and magic accounting. Accounting and Business Research,
19(75), 237–253.
Leisenring, J. J., & Johnson, L. T. (1994). Accounting research: On the relevance
of research to practice. Accounting Horizons, 8(4), 74–79.
Lindeman, C. A. (1975). Priorities in clinical nursing research. Nursing Outlook,
23, 693–698.
Lindsay, R. M. (2012). We must overcome the controversial relationship between
management accounting research and practice: A commentary on ken
Merchant’s “making management accounting research more useful”. Pacific
Accounting Review, 24(3), 357–375.
Malmi, T., & Granlund, M. (2009). In search of management accounting theory.
European Accounting Review, 18(3), 597–620.
Markides, C. (2010). Crossing the chasm: How to convert relevant research into
managerially useful research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1),
121–134.
Mautz, R. K. (1978). Discussion. In A. R. Abdel-Khalik & P. F. Keller (Eds.), The
impact of accounting research on practice and disclosure. Durham: Duke
University Press.
McKelvey, B. (2006). Response Van de Ven and Johnson’s ‘engaged scholarship’:
Nice try, but…. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 830–832.
Merchant, K. A. (2012). Making management accounting research more useful.
Pacific Accounting Review, 24(3), 1–34.
Middlehurst, R. (2014). Higher education research agendas for the coming
decade: A UK perspective on the policy–research nexus. Studies in Higher
Education, 39(8), 1475–1487.
Mitchell, F. (2002). Research and practice in management accounting: Improving
integration and communication. European Accounting Review, 11(2), 277–289.
Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E., III. (2012). Generating knowledge that drives
change. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 41–51.
Moser, D. V. (2012). Is accounting research stagnant? Accounting Horizons,

26(4), 845–850.
Newman, J. (2014). Revisiting the “two communities” metaphor of research utili-
sation. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(7), 614–627.
Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2010). That’s relevant! Different forms of practical rele-
vance in management science. Organization Studies, 31(9–10), 1257–1285.
Nicolai, A. T., Schulz, A.-C., & Göbel, M. (2011). Between sweet harmony and a
clash of cultures: Does a joint academic-practitioner review reconcile rigor and
relevance? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1), 53–75.
Ormerod, P. (1994). The death of economics. London: Faber and Faber.
Otley, D. T. (2010). Research assessment in the UK: An overview of 1992–2008.
Australian Accounting Review, 20(3), 3–13.
Parker, L. D. (2012). Beyond the ticket and the brand: Imagining an accounting
research future. Accounting and Finance, 52(4), 1153–1182.
Parker, L. D., & Guthrie, J. (2010). Editorial: Business schools in an age of glo-
balization. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(1), 5–13.
Parker, L. D., Guthrie, J., & Gray, R. (1998). Accounting and management
research: Passwords from the gatekeepers. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 11(4), 371–402.
Parker, L. D., Guthrie, J., & Linacre, S. (2011). Editorial: The relationship
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper
& Row.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2005). The character and significance of management research
on the public services. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 973–977.
Philip, K. L., Backett-Milburn, K., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Davis, J. B. (2003).
Practising what we preach? A practical approach to bringing research, policy
and practice together in relation to children and health inequalities. Health
Education Research, 18(5), 568–579.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and
competitors. New York: Free Press.
Pronovost, P., & Wachter, R. (2006). Proposed standards for quality improvement
research and publication: One step forward and two steps back. Quality Safety
Health Care, 15(3), 152–153.
Ratnatunga, J. (2012). Ivory towers and legal powers: Attitudes and behaviour of
town and gown to the accounting research-practice gap. Journal of Applied
Management Accounting Research, 10(2), 1–19.
Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship market-
ing. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19–30.
30 L. FERRY ET AL.
Reay, T., Berta, W., & Kohn, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on evidence
based management? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 5–18.
Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S. (2007). Educating managers from an evidence-
based perspective. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(1),
84–101.
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, D. L. (2001). Across the great divide:
Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy
of Management Journal, 44(2), 340–355.
Scapens, R. W. (2006). Understanding management accounting practices: A per-
sonal journey. The British Accounting Review, 38(1), 1–30.
Scapens, R. W. (2008). Seeking the relevance of interpretive research: A contribu-
tion to the polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(6),
915–919.
Scapens, R. W., & Bromwich, M. (2010). Editorial. Practice, theory and para-
digms. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 77–78.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & Practice of the learning organiza-
tion. London: Rando House.
SETI Institute. SETI—Frequently asked questions. http://www.seti.org/faq#ata4.
Accessed 28 Sept 2017.
Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and
solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(2), 249–266.
Short, D. C., Keefer, J. M., & Stone, S. J. (2009). The link between research and
practice: Experiences of different professions and implications for HRD.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(4), 420–437.
Tarter, J. (2001). The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Annual
Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39, 511–548.
ter Bogt, H., & van Helden, J. (2012). The practical relevance of management
accounting research and the role of qualitative methods therein: The debate
continues. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 9(3), 265–273.
Trahan, E., & Gitman, L. (1995). Bridging the theory-practice gap in corporate
finance: A survey of chief financial officers. Quarterly Review of Economics and
Finance, 35(1), 73–87.
Tsui, L., Chapman, S.-A., Schnirer, L., & Stewart, S. (2006). A handbook on
knowledge sharing: Strategies and recommendations for researchers, policymakers,
and service providers. Alberta: Community-University Partnership for the Study
of Children, Youth, and Families.
Tucker, B. P., & Lawson, R. (2017). Moving academic management accounting
research closer to practice: A view from US and Australian professional account-
ing bodies. Advances in Management Accounting, 27, 167–206.
Tucker, B. P., & Leach, M. (2017). Learning from the experience of others:
Lessons on the research–practice gap in management accounting – A nursing
perspective. Advances in Management Accounting, 29, 127–181.
394–425.
Tucker, B. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). Comparing the research–practice gap in
362–400.
Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2010). The relevance and utility of leading account-
ing research, research report 120. London: The Association of Chartered
Certified Accountants.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.
van Helden, G. J., & Northcott, D. (2010). Examining the practical relevance of
public sector management accounting research. Financial Accountability and
Management, 26(2), 213–241.
van Helden, G. J., Aardemab, H., ter Bogtc, H. J., & Groot, T. L. C. M. (2010).
Knowledge creation for practice in public sector management accounting by
consultants and academics: Preliminary findings and directions for future
research. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 83–94.
Vermeulen, F. (2005). On rigor and relevance: Fostering dialectic progress in
management research. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 978–982.
Werner, C. A. (1978). Discussion. In A. R. Abdel-Khalik & P. F. Keller (Eds.), The
University Press.
Wilkerson, J. M. (1999). On research relevance, professors’ ‘real world’ experi-
ence, and management development: Are we closing the gap? Journal of
Management Development, 18(7), 598–613.
Wren, D., Halbesleben, J. and Buckley, R. (2007), “The theory–application bal-
ance in management pedagogy”, Academy of Management Learning and
Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 484–492.
Yang, R. (2003). Globalisation and higher education development: A critical anal-
ysis. International Review of Education, 49(3–4), 269–291.
CHAPTER 3
A Global View of the Research-Practice Gap

in a Public Sector Context
Abstract In this chapter, we present the views and reflections of academ-

ics in 21 countries about the research-practice gap in a public sector con-
text as it applies within their countries. Authors of these accounts have
varied backgrounds, experience, and interests. However, a common theme
uniting them is their interest in public sector accounting research and, in
particular, the practical relevance of accounting research. The commentar-
ies form the basis for a comparative global analysis of the research-practice
nexus as it applies in the public sector accounting context.
Keywords Countries • Research-practice gap • International comparison
3.1 The Research-Practice Gap in Public Sector

Accounting in Australia1
3.1.1 Contextualizing the Discussion
Accounting and management research is often conceived as applied
research in that the focus of study is made up of technologies and technical
1
Lee Parker
RMIT, Melbourne VIC, Australia and The University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
James Guthrie
Macquarie University, North Ryde NSW, Australia

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1_3
34 L. FERRY ET AL.
practices used by practitioners in social and organizational settings. This

stands in marked contrast to the physical sciences where the focus of study
is mainly fundamental processes in matter, space, and time. At the interna-
tional level, research is a requirement for academic career progression, and
an important contributor to the development of knowledge and scholar-
ship (Evans et al. 2011).
The impact of research in some disciplines is easy for the layperson to
comprehend, such as in medicine, where advances in medical procedures
and development of new drugs may result in benefits to society. For
accounting, this impact is not so easy to discern (Guthrie et al. 2014). For
instance, in the field of accounting, there have been claims that research
has become too far removed from the interests of the profession and prac-
titioners. Researchers in turn point to the shortcomings of current profes-
sional practices. Indeed, some in the accounting research community go
so far as to consider that many practical issues of concern to professional
accountants do not warrant the attention of researchers (Evans et al.
2010).
The main purpose of this brief chapter is to explore engagement, as
Australian public sector researchers over the past three decades, and pos-
sible impact on policy and practice. We do this by focusing on three main
themes. First, the features of the Australian public sector. Second, the role
of institutions, and third, our role as academics in narrowing any gaps.
Our main conclusion is that within Australia, the relationships between
public management and accounting researchers and their professional
practising counterparts, and the impact of the former on sector policy and
practice in Australia, have been a tale of scattered individual-level relation-
ships and opaque impact.
Specific Features of the Country Context

3.1.2
Our first theme in more detail. Australia has been through the ‘New Public
Management’ trend in public sector organizations (Broadbent and Guthrie
1992) with its attendant commercialization, corporatization, outsourcing,
and public–private partnerships (PPPs) (Guthrie et al. 2003) and more
general attempts to reduce the size and scope of the public sector and its
involvement in the direct delivery of services to the community. Similarly,
the non-profit sector has experienced massive changes in within-sector
A GLOBAL VIEW OF THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP IN A PUBLIC SECTOR… 35
competition for both funds and stakeholders, an emergent role as

outsourced arms of government, and development of profit centre pig-
gybacking for financial survival.
In Australia, as in many countries, public management and accounting
researchers have been assiduously observing, researching, and critiquing
these major changes, with particular reference to accrual accounting,
financial reporting, sustainability reporting, public accountability, perfor-
mance auditing, strategic management, and corporate governance aspects.
Their publications have appeared in the leading international research
journals, but with little observable impact on the Australian public and
non-profit sectors.
3.1.3 The Role of Institutions in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

Our second theme is the role of institutions. Generally, in Australia,
government and university scoring and funding systems drive academ-
ics in search of highly ranked journal publications. This is seen as an
end in themselves, so that incentives and reward systems do not
encourage engagement with or focus on policy and practice communi-
ties and impacts (Parker 2012, 2013). Furthermore, the massification
of business school education in Australian universities has led to enor-
mous teaching pressures upon public and non-profit research and
teaching academics, such that their available time for external engage-
ment is highly constrained (Parker 2007, 2012, 2013). Given the pres-
sures for journal research output, academics often pursue desk-bound
research that avoids the time commitments of personally engaging in
the field (Guthrie et al. 2017). This saves the time needed for deep-
level assimilation and diagnosis of real-world complexities and restricts
their attention to issues well canvassed in the literature (Parker 2005,
2007), not necessarily engaging the attention of priorities of policy
makers and practitioners in the public and non-profit sectors (Guthrie
and Parker 2016).
The Roles of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

3.1.4
Our third theme is the role of academics. As an indicator of the commu-
nity of Australian public sector scholars, for example, a search of the most
36 L. FERRY ET AL.
regularly cited Australian-based public sector researchers, for example,

reveals less than 20 leading contemporary researchers along with a smaller
group of scholars deceased or retired. For example, currently, active
researchers include Professors Carlin, Christensen, Cuganesan, Dumay,
Guthrie, Hoque, Jacobs, Mack, Newberry, Parker, Pilcher, Potter, and
Tooley. Subject areas covered include general public sector management
reform, asset management, accrual accounting, local government account-
ing, non-financial information performance, sustainability reporting, per-
formance auditing, public accountability, higher education institutions,
and performance evaluation. The non-profit sector management and
accounting research community are more thinly spread, with more promi-
nent names including Irvine, Mack, Parker, Saj, Steane, Tooley, and
others.
Engagement of researchers with policy and practice communities in
these sectors tends to be at a highly individualized level. Examples include
Professor James Guthrie’s consultancies to the OECD, Commonwealth of
Australia election costing review panel, committees on public accounts,
and Industrial Relations Commissions. Professor Zahirul Hoque has past
involvements in public sector annual report award judging, university-
public sector working parties, public sector manager workshops, and eco-
nomic impact studies. Prior to his death in February 2018, Professor
Kerry Jacobs served on audit and risk committees for the States of Victoria
and Queensland Auditor-General offices, and worked with Professor Lee
Parker and with the cooperation of all Auditor-Generals in Australia,
investigating trends in performance audit policy and practice. Parker has
also delivered public sector management seminars, judged public sector
accountant and annual reporting awards, given periodic media interviews
on public sector matters, and conducted a strategic planning consultancy
practice across the non-profit sector.
3.1.5
Examples of Good Practice
It is difficult to visualize and measure a researcher’s impact and research.
We will provide a short, in-depth illustration to highlight possible contri-
butions, using Guthrie as a case study. Over the past three decades, he
has been influential nationally and internationally about ‘New Public
Financial Management’ (NPFM) reforms, which have been adopted in
the past three decades in many countries (Guthrie et al. 1997). This
empirically based work highlights the problems of trying to explain such
developments through simplistic explanatory variables and emphasizes

the need for alternative modes of analysis, more closely rooted in the dif-
ferent national traditions and values associated with the provision of pub-
lic services (Olson et al. 2001).
Another illustration is an Australian Research Council (ARC) linkage
grant and the comments by the Victorian Auditor-General at the time: ‘I
would like to thank you and the research team for their work on the ARC
Linkage Project: “Developing a Model for the Evaluation of Australian
Public-Private Partnerships”. Your research efforts, the many stimulating
conversations that they generated by the team’s work, and the final paper
that you provided in December 2008, are appreciated and will assist our
future endeavours in this important area’ (Pearson 2010).
In conclusion, thus, despite over three decades of public and non-profit
sector research and scholarship in Australian universities, the corpus of
active researchers remains quite small, their relationships with their profes-
sional counterparts in these sectors remain largely individualized and scat-
tered, and the impact of their research on policy and practice is difficult to
detect. Furthermore, Tucker and Parker’s (2014) study of academics’ per-
ceptions of the research-practice gap found that many perceive a serious
and widening gap, aggravated by incentive structures that mitigate against
their bridging it, while a sizeable minority consider that the gap is unim-
portant, given their predilection for focussing on other personal agendas.
At the same time, the Australian federal government is increasingly focus-
sing on the assessment of research impacts on practice and the delivery of
value for taxpayer investment in the higher education sector (Martin-
Sardesai et al. 2017). How such governmental and societal expectations
will impact on the interaction between academic research and public pol-
icy remains to be seen.

Accounting in Austria2
3.2.1 Specific Features of the Country Context
The traditional picture of academic–practice engagement in Austria has
been strongly shaped by the context in which scholars and practitioners
Sanja Korac
2
Alpen-Adria University, Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria

38 L. FERRY ET AL.
operate. Most public management departments at universities are part of

the faculty of business administration; however, public policy aspects play
a minor role in research and in teaching. Although the number of scholars
in public management has slightly grown in recent decades, few are inves-
tigating public sector accounting in particular.
On the practice side, Austrian public administration is characterized by
a strong legalistic tradition and a dominance of the legal profession in the
public sector workforce. Governmental budgeting and accounting stan-
dards are, in general, set by law and laid down in different regulations,
decrees, or administrative rules. Austria’s federal structure leads to a great
variety of budgeting and accounting frameworks for the three layers of
government, although a certain degree of harmonization is warranted
through a compulsory structure of the budget and the financial statements
of the ‘Länder’ and local governments (Rauskala and Saliterer 2015).
3.2.2 Roles of Institutions in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

In general, the engagement of public management/accounting academia
with policy and practice occurs through teaching, (applied) research, and
academic consulting. Although this represents a multifaceted interaction,
engagement with practitioners takes a more institutionalized form only in
teaching, through executive programmes, practitioner-led classes, intern-
ships, and so on.
Traditionally, reforms of public sector accounting have been practitioner-
led. For example, during the latest round of public sector budgeting and
accounting reforms at the federal level in the 2000s (Steger 2010), recom-
mendations, guidelines and best practices by international organizations
(e.g. OECD, IMF, IPSASB) also played a crucial role in shaping the
reform agenda. In this context, practitioners often work together in more
or less institutionalized networks, while researchers have no particular
role. In the context of the ongoing public budgeting and accounting
reforms at the federal and sub-national levels, the picture is slightly chang-
ing (e.g. Meszarits and Saliterer 2013).
Austrian universities however do not incentivize academics to engage
with practitioners and accord little credit to such outputs. While some
university frameworks recognize contributions aimed at practitioners, the
pivotal (i.e. budget and career relevant) indicators mainly rest on publish-
ing in international academic journals. In this context, the journal
Öffentliches Haushaltswesen needs to be mentioned. Established in 1959,
it covers a variety of topics in the fields of Public Finance/Public Financial

Management (PFM) and serves as an outlet for practitioners as well as
academics. Although this journal primarily aims to attract/support new
researchers, the number of respective contributions is steadily decreasing.
Although the narrow view on research outputs is gradually changing
internationally, it remains to be seen whether future measurement of aca-
demic performance in Austria will incorporate or encompass the societal
impact of academic research.
3.2.3
Roles of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap
and Best Practices
Given the institutional context described above, most forms of engage-
ment can be described as rather non-institutionalized and mainly impetus-
driven and/or actor-driven, for example, through reforms, individual
research interests/orientation, and demand by policy makers and
practitioners.
In particular, the implementation of the latest budgeting and account-
ing reform (starting in 2007) led to an increasing collaboration between
academics (public sector accounting and public management scholars)
and practitioners. The various forms of engagement include comprehen-
sive reform evaluations, advice on specific aspects or technical matters (e.g.
specific valuation standards, allocation rules) as well as the joint develop-
ment of regulations, guidelines for implementation, and so on. Hence,
academic impact on practice becomes more visible, and there are some
attempts to develop more institutionalized forms of collaboration with
practitioners and professional associations. In this regard, we can observe
an increasing number of events where practitioners initiate a dialogue with
scholars as experts, where knowledge is blended, and both sides benefit
from mutual insights. In the past, events that brought together academia
and practice were limited to a few national conferences and workshops
organized by universities or university departments that alternately cov-
ered different public management topics, thus placing accounting as one
aspect among many others.
3.2.4
However, a major point of critique in academic interactions with policy
and practice is that most research is not accessible to practitioners, and/or
40 L. FERRY ET AL.
often written in a style more geared towards an audience of scientific peers

than practitioners, and concerned with problems of a theoretical or con-
ceptual nature rather than practical ones. Becoming visible to practitioners
and policy makers requires publishing handbooks and commentaries, con-
tributions to practitioner journals, and publication of opinion pieces or
white papers, which in turn calls for close and often time-consuming
engagement with practice.

Accounting in Belgium3
Policy making in post-war Belgium took place in a neo-corporatist culture
as a tri-partite arrangement in setting economic policy between the state,
business, and labour. When faced with complex policy issues, policy mak-
ers resorted to grand political compromises between competing societal
interests. Evidence was seldom used in these large package deals.
For negotiators, it was difficult to reconcile the uncompromising claims
to the truth of academic evidence with the hard-fought deals of corporat-
ist decision-making. Once decisions were made, the use of evidence in
policy making was difficult. Scientific critique of part of the compromise
threatened to endanger the compromise as a whole. As a result, all too
often research was used to legitimate policy measures already taken. In
high-profile and high-stakes cases, evidence was often neglected. Not all
policy measures were controversial, however. In less controversial settings,
research has had much more leeway to facilitate and inform public debate
and policy making.
Today, the post-war corporatist structures are gradually breaking down.
The political cleavages that have structured political decision-making and
deal-making for half a century no longer reflect societal interests. The
corporatist structures and ideologies are losing their grip on politics and
society. The transition of Belgium to a post-corporatist society is one of
3
Wouter Van Dooren
University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium
Marleen Brans
University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
the most fundamental processes affecting the use of evidence in policy

making. Research finds its way to policy making through many more
interfaces. Post-corporatism allows for a much broader range of interests
and sources of evidence to exist. The key challenge today is not so much
that evidence does not exist or that it runs counter to envisaged policies.
The challenge for policy makers is not to get lost in the diverse and often
conflicting sources of evidence.
3.3.2 Roles of Institutions in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

In Belgium, interaction between academia and practice is growing.
Traditionally, roles were segmented, with academics publishing research,
whilst the policy community was left to interpret results in a knowledge-
driven model (Weiss 1979). This gap has narrowed. The Belgian gov-
ernment decided to reconfigure the traditional provider–consumer
relationship in the early 2000s by investing in significant amounts of
commissioned research to address specific policy agendas. Unlike in,
for instance, the Netherlands, capacity for policy research in Belgium
was created at universities rather than planning bureaus and research
units at arms-length of government. Furthermore, the development of
professional associations provided new interfaces between research and
practice. In fields ranging from public governance, spatial planning, and
poverty research, professional associations serve to bridge practice with
academia by bringing together government, civil society, and research-
ers. Private consultancies also participate in these professional associations.
Additionally, the court of audit also reaches out to the research commu-
nity when the court conducts performance audits. Finally, the increasing
demand for executive education further adds to creation of professional
identities spanning both research and practice. The diversification of inter-
faces between research and practice overall seems to have strengthened
feedback between research and practice, enabling the development of a
more collaborative rather than instrumental model of interaction.
3.3.3 Roles of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

The growth in interfaces between research and practice offers opportuni-
ties and threats. A major difficulty for policy makers and academics alike is
to cope with contested knowledge. Specialization in disciplines and
increased complexity in society often lead to diametrically opposed
42 L. FERRY ET AL.
research findings. At the same time, it is clear that research is not value-free
and that the valuation of research findings depends on researchers’ norma-
tive perspective on society. Examples of the foci of contested knowledge
are often large infrastructure projects, but also calculation of the forest
acreage or the impact of immigration. For researchers, contestation of
knowledge involves recognition of normative foundations behind research
findings. It also necessitates interdisciplinary dialogue to make sense of an
increasingly diffuse knowledge base. Contestation of knowledge also
enforces a different role upon practitioners. Today, practitioners mention
opposing findings as one of the main reasons for not using evidence (Blum
and Brans 2017). Practice wants clear answers to increasingly complex
issues. However, this desire for unequivocal and easily digestible knowl-
edge will become even more difficult to satisfy as the number of contradic-
tory findings increases. The users-and-providers model of knowledge has
probably passed its use-by date and academics, and practitioners will
increasingly need to co-create knowledge rather than to produce and
consume.
3.3.4
Good practice today implies that evidence leads to researchers and practi-
tioners making sense together (Hoppe 1999). While joint sense making is
not standard practice yet, some promising examples exist. One of the most
controversial policy dossiers in Belgium is the Oosterweel highway around
Antwerp (Wolf and Van Dooren 2017). In 1995, a new highway was
planned to complete the ring road close to the city. In the 20 years that
followed, controversies over this large infrastructure project escalated,
with proponents and opponents both seeking the evidence that fits their
policy frames. A complete standstill in policy making was the result. In
order to get the policy process back on the rails, a high-profile interna-
tional architect was appointed as a neutral third party with recognized
expertise. Today, action committees and government agencies share ideas
and evidence in order to design an infrastructure project that satisfices
concerns for both traffic flows and liveability of the city. Government and
action groups are making sense together of the complex and contested
knowledge that can be applied to large infrastructure projects. The evi-
dence in this process is mostly applied knowledge, provided by consultants
or technology institutes of governments. Yet, academia also plays an
important role. Academics have contributed to policy formulation and
agenda setting, a contribution which is more conceptual than instrumental

(Nicolai and Seidl 2010). An important academic project in this regard
was a citizen-science initiative to measure air quality at the street level. The
project was a collaboration between several universities and an action
committee. On 2000 locations, citizens were administrating small-scale
measurement equipment for air quality, making this one of the largest
citizen-science projects in Europe. Not only did the research team acquire
air quality data, air quality figured more prominently on the agenda.
‘Making sense together’ in this way extends from policy makers and inter-
est groups to the citizenry.

Accounting in Brazil4
Despite the increasing and well-documented importance for academic–
practitioner engagements, the successful case instances are mostly initia-
tives by individuals, and there are few institutional incentives supporting
them in Brazil.
The research on public sector accounting and finance by full-time
scholars is concentrated in a few research-oriented universities. As in many
other countries, academic career progression in universities is associated
with publication in high-impact factor journals. But, as this situation is
quite new (10 years), one should not associate the gap in Brazilian context
just with incentives to publish. The rhetoric about the importance of
engagement with society, to support changes, is also new. As academia
directs its agenda to solving practitioners’ demands, both groups have
worked together.
The Role of Institutions in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

3.4.2
A number of institutional factors are attributable to the divide between
research and practice in Brazil. First, the low mobility between governmental
4
André Carlos Busanelli de Aquino
FEARP-USP, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
Ricardo Lopes Cardoso
FGV-EBAPE, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
44 L. FERRY ET AL.
and academic careers. Practitioners, in general, are public sector employ-

ees, employed in tenured careers. At the federal level, senior staff in the
Congress, Supreme Court, Ministries, or at state and local level are pursu-
ing a well-defined track to top positions. On the other hand, young talents
at research-oriented universities are driven from the very beginning of
their career to publish in prestigious journals. Once future professionals
choose one track, the incentives to ‘cross the river’ and engage with the
other side decrease. This segregation seems to have increased from the last
decade, resulting in barriers separating academic and practitioner careers
in the public sector accounting and finance domain.
A second feature accentuating the divide is that public sector account-
ing and finance are generally neglected by accounting and public adminis-
tration undergraduate and graduate courses. For 30 years (1970–2000),
Brazil has had only one PhD programme in Accounting, and very few
scholars teach public sector accounting. The annual certification exam
applied by the Brazilian Accountants Association covers public sector
accounting issues only superficially. As knowledge on legal requirements
and best practices in public finance and budgeting, public sector account-
ing, and auditing is confined outside the research-oriented universities,
individuals aiming to achieve success in competitive public exams to access
public sector posts spend years in special training programmes rather than
in university programmes.
Another barrier arises by virtue of the regulation and culture of public
universities. There are severe restrictions to scholars in allocating time on
consulting and professional training initiatives. For example, in some
departments, involvement in consulting services is discouraged, since the
full-time contract requires exclusive dedication to the university. The con-
text is different to private universities, where scholars are pushed and sup-
ported to participate in consulting projects or applied research.
3.4.3
Practitioners’ demand and academics’ results could broadly interact in
conferences and seminars, but are typically structured in such a way that
the interaction is not effective. Academic journals’ peer review is con-
ducted exclusively by scholars, who care more about the appropriateness
of scientific methods, but not about its practical relevance. Therefore,
research published in academic journals does not reach the practitioner
‘real world’. Similarly, applied journals are exclusively edited by practitio-
ners, leading to an emphasis on best practice with considerations of aca-
demic rigour being of secondary priority.
3.4.4 Examples of Good Practice

There are, however, important initiatives and examples that have served
to bridge the gap. For example, one recent instance of a researcher
‘crossing the river’ has demonstrated that the worlds of academic research
and practice are able to overlap. In this instance, the entire department
of accounting and control for the Rio de Janeiro city hall was managed
for a decade by a former professor from Rio de Janeiro State University
and book writer (Silva 2004), and a senior staff member from the
Ministry of Finance developed and started to implement a cost account-
ing regulation for the central government based on his PhD thesis
(Machado 2002). Although few academics have ‘crossed the river’, these
examples illustrate that such flexibility is not only possible, but may also
prove successful.
Moreover, some researchers have realized the advantages to be closer
to media and practitioners. In such cases, they built networks with news-
paper editors to disseminate the impact from their research to a broader
audience. They regularly write short articles for newspapers and are
interviewed during radio or television shows. Other examples emerge
more by chance, when one enthusiastic practitioner meets an interven-
tionist researcher, and they start to work together to solve specific prob-
lems, even in the absence of specific institutional incentives. A possible
example, among dozens, is a project conducted by a federal university
from the North, the Ministry of Transparency, and the regional govern-
mental audit institution to monitor local governments’ transparency
(CGU 2018).
Regarding institutional initiatives, there are three useful examples. In
2009, the Ministry of Finance and Escola de Administração Fazendária
(ESAF) organized a series of seminars about cost accounting in the public
sector where many academics were invited either to participate as keynote
speakers or on workshops. Some ideas developed in those seminars were
published in a special issue of Revista de Administração Pública (RAP), the
most prestigious academic journal focused on public administration in
Brazil (Rezende et al. 2010). In 2010, the Ministry of Finance and the
Brazilian Association of Accountants invited a group of 11 scholars to
supervise the translation of the IPSAS Handbook to Portuguese language
(Feijó 2013). In 2011, universities started to launch professional master
programmes, equivalent to American universities’ MBA but focused on
public sector accounting or administration. There are very few incentives
46 L. FERRY ET AL.
for practitioners to take a PhD, as it does not count to promotion schemes,

is poorly supported by directors and supervisors (even not being explicitly
prohibited), and it is an individual endeavour. However, master programmes
attract public servants, who write thesis on questions relevant to their orga-
nizations. A positive spillover of such professional masters is that former
students keep the access opened for data and interviews, and for future
speeches on practitioners’ conferences, advisory, or consultancy.
Another good example of institutional initiative includes national
prizes, granted by governmental audit institutions, such as the Ministry of
Budgeting and Planning, School of Finance Administration, School of
Public Administration, and the Brazilian Accountants Association, for the-
ses on public sector finance and innovation. These institutions also invite
academics to participate on working or technical boards that debate prac-
tical problems and end up with either solutions, working plans, or applied
research projects.
Thus, the precedent exists for a closer engagement between research
and practice—and one which will hopefully gather momentum in the fore-
seeable future.

Accounting in Canada5
The relationship between accounting research and practice in Canada can
be seen as being both relatively distant and close, depending on the differ-
ent aspects of research that are considered. At the risk of over-simplifying
the description of the accounting field of research, let’s assume for a
moment that any research activity involves three essential components
which appear in the following order: (i) financing; (ii) field access; and (iii)
dissemination of knowledge. For each of these components, we portray in
what follows what we believe to be the state of the situation regarding
accounting research and its connection to practitioners.
5
Marie-Soleil Tremblay
Ecole Nationale D’Publique Administration, Québec, Canada
Bertrand Malsch
Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

In terms of financing, accounting research in Canada relies on a relatively
strong governmental support through annual competition for research
grants. More than 200 million dollars ($CAN) of public funds are thus
distributed, although this form of support has been declining over the last
decade. Reliance on private partners, including big four firms and profes-
sional bodies, is therefore increasing. For example, CPA Canada provides
support to the Canadian Academic Accounting Association who provides
funding for publications, activities, and conferences. Provincial and
regional CPA bodies offer financial support for CPAs pursuing accounting
PhDs. CPA Ontario has recently funded the accounting faculty at Smith
School of Business to support specific research in governance with a strong
focus on not-for-profit organizations. Because of the important role of
universities in Canada to prepare students for the accounting profession
and, in particular, for professional examinations, the big four firms have
been historically involved with the development of accounting academia.
Research chairs or scholarships financed by KPMG, Deloitte, PWC, or EY
can be found in almost every school throughout the country.
The accounting industry in Canada has also its own research and business
agenda aimed at transforming government through accounting technologies.
For example, KPMG claims to ‘work to deliver meaningful results through a
deep understanding of the issues, an intimate appreciation of how the public
sector works’ (KPMG 2017). In this respect, all accounting firms finance,
conduct, and disseminate their own research on the public service sector.
Contrasting with the significant involvement of the profession in pro-
viding accounting research with financial support, access to the field for
accounting researchers, that is, access to firms’ activities and auditors’
practices, remains quite a challenge. Accounting academics are strongly
encouraged to engage with the standard setting processes and to study
education and development issues affecting the accounting profession
and the assessment of professional competence (Jones 2017). However,
when it comes to furthering our collective understanding of practices,
public sector organizations are still relatively reluctant to let researchers
observe their day-to-day activities as well as strategic actions from the
inside. Similar difficulties also restrain access to provincial and federal
general auditors. Although both parties frequently recognize the need
for increased collaboration, the relations between academics and public
service accountants have remained relatively distant.
48 L. FERRY ET AL.
3.5.3 The Roles of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

Last, but not least, the quality of the relations between practitioners and
academia is highly dependent on the ability of accounting researchers to
communicate their knowledge within the accounting community in a com-
prehensive and positive light. Interestingly, one of the key criteria to obtain
financing from the government now requires a plan to explain the impacts
and benefits of the intended research to the community. However, one of
the most common criticisms made by practitioners in North America
relates to the perception of a significant gap between the cryptic world of
academia and industry’s need for applied and concrete findings (Santiago
and Carmona 2016). On the one hand, auditing papers are generally
viewed as useful by auditors when they possess a relatively high degree of
applicability and low potential of threat to the legitimacy of the auditing
profession (Gendron and Bédard 2001), and on the other hand, academics
are increasingly pressured into responding to institutional pressures with
regards to journal and university rankings (Humphrey and Gendron 2015)
which promotes the disconnect between academics and practitioners.
3.5.4 Examples of Best Practice

As shown above, in sum, there appears to be a love/scepticism relation-
ship between academia and accountants in Canada. From the examples
provided above, both are willing to work together. The profession is will-
ing to offer financial support, and researchers are committed to train
future accountants. However, good faith and promises tend to vanish
when researchers knock at the door of firms to observe and collect data,
while accounting academics struggle in the transfer of knowledge that
makes sense and connects to practitioners’ professional challenges.

Accounting in Denmark6
Higher education in Denmark is offered by eight universities spread across
the country. These universities and other research institutes create a plat-
form that enables academic–practitioner interaction, in various forms.
Caroline Aggestam Pontoppidan

6
Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

During the last decade, the political and social interest in strengthening
academic–practitioner engagement in Denmark has been increasing in the
broader area of business administration. This means universities increas-
ingly echo their particular attention to collaborations with business and
society and a focus on producing research that is relevant to society and its
actors. An emphasis is thus on research that, for example, provides insights
and analytical approaches that can influence practices of businesses and
society. Interaction and engagement between practitioners and researchers
work both at institutional, organizational, and individual levels across the
country.
From a broader public sector perspective, Denmark has undertaken
numerous administrative and structural reforms of its government during
the last 20 years. Carsten Greve has made contributions that deepen our
understanding of such reforms, for example, highlighting the corporatiza-
tion and privatization of public enterprises, as well as the involvement of
private for-profit and non-profit organizations in the delivery of public
services (see Greve 2003; Greve et al. 1999). In the specific area of
accounting, researchers such as Peter Skærbæk carry out studies that are
oriented towards understanding the role of public sector accounting inno-
vations in their social and institutional contexts (See Skærbæk 2005;
Christensen and Skærbæk 2010; Skærbæk and Tryggestad 2010). This
work signifies the traditional relationships between academics and prac-
tice, where academics are granted access to data, sites, and actors that are
required for research to be carried out.

There is however less trace of interactions between academia and practice
where research projects are established to facilitate them working together
in mutually beneficial ways. Typically, institutions in the public sector will
turn to consulting firms, rather than academics, for accounting and
accounting-change-related projects. This seems also to be the case at a
European level. The development of European Public Sector Accounting
Standards (EPSAS) in the EU seems to be strongly supported by work
carried out by consulting firms.
Funding can operate as a mechanism that reduces the research-practice
gap. In Denmark, the Danish Research Council (DFF) allocates funding
for research and provides research advice to government and parliament. A
challenge, in using these funding opportunities to further strengthen col-
laboration between practice and academia, is that there is not a tradition to
prioritize research that is orientated towards practitioner engagement.
50 L. FERRY ET AL.
Instead, researchers’ performance is measured, in part, by their emphasis

on research that is theoretical in nature, thus publishable in higher ranked
journals. There are however funds and funders that principally support
practitioner-oriented research, carried out by academics. One example is
funding provided through the professional body FSR (the Danish associa-
tion for the audit profession), who funds accounting and audit research.
Funding is often granted for research projects that can show a connection
between the interests of practitioners, the profession, and those of academ-
ics. They do also fund doctoral students. However, it should be high-
lighted that the professional body (FSR) primarily supports private
sector–based projects.
3.6.3 The Roles of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

Academics in Denmark do, at times, contribute to parliamentary work
calls on matters relating to public management. It is however more of a
rarity for such collaborations in the area of accounting and financial report-
ing in the public sector.
Universities in Denmark engage practitioners as external lecturers,
which facilitates the research-practice link in a teaching context. The
work of Elm-Larsen (2001, 2010) on public sector accounting and
auditing in Denmark marks a contribution to linking of practice and the
local higher education field. Elm-Larsen, a former director in the Danish
national audit office, has throughout his career engaged in academic
work.
3.6.4
Narrowing the gap between research and practice is in sum primarily
facilitated through formal mechanisms, such as the granting of access to
research sites, funding, and the collaborative network of external lec-
tures. There are, however, also numerous less formal activities that take
place supporting engagement between academia and practitioners in the
field of public sector accounting. These less formal activities include net-
working events that involve a broad variety of stakeholders, including,
academia, professional bodies, accounting firms, and government
institutions.

Accounting in Finland7
The main specific feature of the Finnish context affecting the research-
practice gap issue is the governmental steering model. The Government
of Finland and the Ministry of Education and Culture steer the activities
of the Finnish higher education system, science agencies, and research
institutes. In recent years, the Finnish university sector has faced big
changes and moved from autonomy towards managerialism. The auton-
omy to the Finnish government has meant direct legislative and budget-
ary control. Now the higher education system and especially the
university sector has moved towards a practice that avails itself to modern
managerial tools, including instilling an entrepreneurial culture and
actively seeking private funding and donations. This shift from tight and
direct legislative control towards independence and flexibility is to foster
new opportunities, react more quickly to changes in the operational
environment, diversify funding bases, and compete for international
research funding.

3.7.2
However, Finnish universities are either independent legal entities under
public law or privately founded and financed. Despite freedoms afforded
to universities in being able to organize their own internal administration
independently, they are nevertheless subjected to four-year performance
agreements with the Ministry of Education and Culture, which sets opera-
tional and qualitative targets and resources. Ministry of Education and
Culture also steers and negotiates performance agreements with science
agencies and research institutions under the branch of the ministry such as
the Academy of Finland that is a major source for funding in scientific
research. Thus, the Ministry of Education has a significant role in steering,
financing, and contracting the higher education system and the research
institutions under the branch of the Ministry. Currently 62% of university
Anniina Autero, and Harri Laihonen

7
University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

52 L. FERRY ET AL.
funding was based on budget funding from the Ministry. Other major
funding sources were Academy of Finland (9%), Business Finland—the
Finnish Funding Agency of Innovation (4%), other domestic funding
(6%), and the EU (4%). Furthermore, donations and return on invest-
ments yielded 4% of the funding, and 9% came from various business
engagements.
Financing the higher education institutions affects the research-prac-
tice gap in a sense that the pressure to examine alternatives to govern-
mental sources of income and search for strategic finance, to tie tighter
collaboration with the economic life, and to develop co-production
finance models has grown. Finnish Parliament decides and the Ministry
of Education and Culture allocates the amount of core funding to the
universities and universities of applied sciences. Universities have col-
lected private sector donations actively between 2014 and 2017, since
the state promised to capitalize the donation euros triply to the univer-
sities if an objective of 50 million Euros was gained (Ministry of
Education and Culture 2017). Universities have launched donation
campaigns and exceeded the objective with almost over three times.
Universities and researchers with practical orientation and economic life
connections are in a better position to collect donations. Private sector
donators ask for the practical value and benefit of the donations, and
because of the practical orientation, accounting scholars have a better
position. In addition, the accounting students are mostly employed by
the private sector companies, and therefore, this strengthens the con-
nections to the practical world. However, it is considerable that the
number of donations is still rather small compared to the allowance of
the higher education. The donation procedure has however narrowed
the research-practice gap and strengthened the dialogue between prac-
tical actors and researchers.
The so-called the third mission of societal engagement to the practical
world, which obligates especially universities to interact with society and
promote the impact of research findings and artistic activities, still exists.
From a practice perspective, such broadly defined expectations result in
different interpretations across universities and research institutions, with
many public debates. It engenders a divergence of opinions among aca-
demics. Some consider practical relationships valuable and stress the prac-
tical relevance of their research. Some are more reserved and stick with a
more traditional view of a researcher as an external observer. However, the
growing role of external funding including donation procedures forces

research institutions to develop their communication and stakeholder
management skills narrowing the research-practice gap.
3.7.3
The Role of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap
It would be important to acknowledge that social engagement narrowing
research-practice gap is a continuous activity in Finland. The higher edu-
cation field affects and is affected by society. From an educational perspec-
tive, it is a fundamental task to develop capable knowledge workers with
up-to-date skills and competences for the needs of society. In general, the
Finnish education system operates in close interaction with various institu-
tions. Societal engagement also takes place through research projects and
training programmes. Academics demonstrate their impact on society
through the various expert roles they serve. The most important is that
the students are educated as the future professionals in both research and
practice world.
Sometimes social engagement leads to direct benefits for society in the
form of innovations, but more typically, impacts are diverse and multifac-
eted in nature. In addition to direct and measurable outputs, impacts are
perceived in the form of mutual learning. Recently, most Finnish universi-
ties underlined the importance of social engagement and impacts in their
strategies. Dialogue between different actors is increasingly considered an
important success factor for the country.
3.7.4
Finland provides a good environment narrowing the research-practice gap
because of the small size of the country and the easy access to both public
and private sector organizations. Organizations in both sectors are also
interested in participating in research projects and teaching as well. Visiting
lecturers, practice-driven group work, and various mutual-learning oppor-
tunities are continuously explored and tested for good practices in the
country. Organizations are also ready to invest in research, which is
encouraged and even required by many national funding programmes.
Public research funding is increasingly contingent on the participation of
private organizations and their investments in the research project.
54 L. FERRY ET AL.

Accounting in France8
Central to analysing the research-practice gap in public management and
accounting in France is a historical reading of specific models of practice,
education, decision-making, and policy making in the public sector,
including a more recent turn towards new public management, enacted in
August 2001 through the Organic Law on Laws of Finance (LOLF). As
this commentary seeks to illustrate, the intensity and impact of this rela-
tionship appear to be different at the central and local levels.
Specific Features of the Country Context

3.8.1
Whether we are discussing the education system creating elites for the
public administration (ENA),9 the history of public accounting and man-
agement, or the weight and status of civil service in society, the case of
France is distinctive. There are competing traditions in the accounting for
the public sector in France (one based on law, the other based on econom-
ics) that are currently shaping the dialogue between practice and research.
Recent evolutions in the legislation (the organic law10 on finance voted
in 2001, and applied starting January 1, 2006) are rethinking the role
and management of the public sector and are opening forums of discus-
sion that should stimulate the dialogue between researchers, practitio-
ners, and policy makers. One interesting consequence of the new logic is
a new representation of the State as an economic actor, differentiating
from the traditional paradigm. The Public Sector Accounting Standards
Council (CNoCP) was established by the annual Budget Act at the end
of 2008, with a major role in standard setting, as part of this process. Six
professors from the higher education are part of the Advisory committee
8
Raluca Sandu
Skema, Paris, France
Yves Levant
University Lille II, Lille, France
9
ENA (Ecole Nationale d’Administration) is a highly selective school of administration,
created in 1945 with the purpose of democratizing access to the civil service.
10
Organic laws (under article 46 of the Constitution of France) have the purpose to specify
the organization and operating of public authorities in accordance to the provisions of the
Constitution.
for orientation (Bernard Colasse from Dauphine University and Evelyne

Lande from Poitier University are representing the accounting expertise
in the committee), showing that academics are valued and included in the
political arena.
On the other hand, it seems that these reforms of the public sector
accounting and management are still not, or just slowly changing, prac-
tices in organizations (Eyraud 2016). Research could further play a signifi-
cant role in the current transformation of practices, by identifying and
circulating best practices, providing recommendations, testing effects of
regulation, and so on.

One direct leverage for narrowing the gap is through research grants and
funding. Public research is broadly targeting public R&D organizations
(EPST and EPIC11), public higher education and research institutions,
university hospitals, and research centres.
Furthermore, there are national policies to encourage cooperation
between various organizations and research centres. For example, the
ANRT (the National Association for Research and Technology) created a
specific type of doctoral research fellowship linking doctoral students with
companies and research laboratories.
In addition, local authorities are funding research, as part of the decen-
tralization policy. The mission of some higher education organizations is
explicitly linked to the local economy and to serve as a career path for
graduates wishing to pursue the professional route (business schools such
as Grande Ecoles, or Instituts d’Administration des Entreprises as univer-
sity schools of management). Academics from these organizations some-
times undertake research (and especially action research), benefiting local
communities, local government, the public healthcare sector, and so on.
Academics are sometimes called to give an expert view on public account-
ing and management issues. However, even if there are specific mechanisms
of participation to the law-making process (specific consultation committees
11
EPST (Etablissement Public à caractère Scientifique et technologique) is a specific type
of research institute, and EPIC (Etablissement Public à caractère Industriel et Commercial)
is a specific type of public entity of a commercial and industrial nature, including research
institutes, in France.
56 L. FERRY ET AL.
like the CNESER: National Council of Higher Education and Research),

academics are not extensively involved. Instead, academics are more likely to
be engaged in the accounting standard setting process (e.g. the above-
quoted example with CNoCP). Moreover, the French Authority of account-
ing standards (ANC), as well as the International Accounting Standards
Board, is explicitly acknowledging the role played by research in the stan-
dard setting process. Academics are therefore directly and actively involved
at several levels in the ANC boards and committees, specialized commis-
sions, working groups, and so on.
3.8.3
Traditionally, the roles of accounting academics in France are primarily
focused on teaching and research, through which they are indeed shaping
future practices. Moreover, even if academics can be directly involved in
the policy making process, for instance with an advisory role in various
committees, there is little evidence on how it relates to their research, and
it remains more a question of recognized expertise. Therefore, the general
impression in France is that research in public management and account-
ing does not have significant direct impact on policy making, practice, and
the professions, but despite this, there are individual cases where impact
has been demonstrated, especially if research was of a normative nature.
Examples of indirect impact include where academics cooperate with
the accounting profession and associations; they can be members in their
Board of Directors, and in national and regional offices. They also sit on
evaluation committees for the chartered accountancy examinations or civil
service examinations. Academics may sometimes publish in practitioners’
journals or participate in joint publications with practitioners. The profes-
sional associations can organize prizes and challenges with universities and
business schools; they can sponsor master theses, chairs, workshops,
roundtables, and other type of events, and can offer research grants based
on their research agenda.
3.8.4
The impact of academia on practice, policy, and profession seems higher
when it answers a specific call for research or grant. Moreover, there is
likely a stronger impact when research is undertaken within a framework
that brings together academics, policy makers, and members of practice.
For example, L’Académie (the Academy of accounting and finance sci-

ences and techniques) was created in France in September 2004, with the
purpose of building a strong network (currently 65,000 members) and a
discussion forum for both public and private actors.
The specific French associations called ‘observatories’ are another
example of best practice. These are a specific type of organization wide-
spread in France, covering a variety of themes (like quality of accounting,
investor relations, immaterial capital, feminization of companies, etc.).
They can act as think tanks, or they can constitute administrative bodies of
the central or local administration. Some have a statistical bent; others
have a more proactive role, helping to circulate best practices, or even help
in moments of crisis. When academics are part of such structures, their
impact is likely to be substantial and directly linked to their research. Such
an encouraging example would be the very recent Observatory of finance
and local public management (OFGPL, August 7, 2015), with a purpose
of identifying and diffusing best practices in public management. Its tech-
nical and scientific committee is a forum for dialogue for administrations,
public agencies, associations of elected representatives, institutional part-
ners, and researchers.
Another best practice is organizing conferences that welcome both aca-
demics and practitioners (like the joint workshops of AFC: Association of
French Speaking Accounting and AFIGESE: Association Finance-
Management-Valuation of territorial authorities), examining topics like
performance of public organizations, management control of public orga-
nizations, and so on.
Valuing impact on practice and local environment is also a way of
encouraging further dialogue. As an example, BSIS (Business School
Impact System) was conceived in France and can be applied internation-
ally, within the cooperation between FNEGE (French Foundation for
Management Education) and EFMD (European Foundation for
Management Development). An increasing number of business schools
are embracing it in France, as it facilitates identification and measurement
of positive externalities, as well as managing and reporting impact, includ-
ing of research.
In conclusion, both practitioners and academics have elevated the issue
of academic impact, in a country having a strong culture of the civil ser-
vice, and specific models that are replicated through elite higher education
institutions. The new performance-oriented approach in public adminis-
tration gives a fresh dynamic to the research-practice dialogue in France.
58 L. FERRY ET AL.
Another will consider the way in which assessment institutions take into
account impact and service to society as criteria. From an academic per-
spective, producing meaningful research and efficiently disseminating
results should help further reducing the gap.
3.9 The Research-Practice Gap in Accounting

in the Public Sector in Germany12,13

The German public sector consists of up to 15 ministries at the federal
level, a similar range of political institutions at the level of each of its 16
states, 17 audit courts at both levels, and also the authorities of local self-
government, responsible for delivering public services to around 11,000
municipalities. The Public and Non-Profit Management (NPPM) research
context itself illustrates a case of academia–practice collaboration where
the bridging effect of think tanks is highly important. Conversely, the role
of academia in securing a connection with practice remains ambiguous.

3.9.2
One important mode of translating insights from theory to practice is
represented by practitioner-based networks and think tanks, which, at the
local level, are predominantly organized by a municipality-funded, non-
profit organization (KGST/Local Governments’ Joint Agency for
Municipal Management). Such think tanks are responsible for supporting
public sector organizations in implementing reforms and innovation, for
example, developing manuals or consultancy activities. They involve pre-
dominantly practitioners, who work together in highly structured and
well-recognized, hence institutionalized, forms of experience exchange on
either political or administrative topics. Within such activities, there is no
particular role for academics, which may be occasionally involved if their
expertise is relevant to the specific think tank.
12
Hans-Jürgen Bruns
Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany
13
This vignette benefits from ideas and research activities as described by Silke Boenigk,
Bernhard Hirsch, Ulf Papenfuss, and Rick Vogel. Thanks to all of them.
Conversely, in the area of public finance, and especially at the federal/

state level, academics from a diversity of disciplines, including Finance,
Politics, and Law, are generally involved in policy advice and their transla-
tion into political decision-making, but often in informal, ad-hoc, and not
institutionalized ways.
Visibility and the practical focus of academic research are institutional
mechanisms complementary to individualized academia–practice collabo-
rations. For German academics, visibility of their research in the world of
practice (e.g. attending conferences for practitioners) is a well-established
mechanism for signalling expertise and interests to the practical audience.
Simultaneously, however, academics are increasingly subjected to pressure
to publish in international journals and gain visibility at international con-
ferences, and this is changing their incentives and goals.
The above patterns indicate that the role of academia–practice collabo-
rations is weakly institutionalized, notwithstanding that the value of spe-
cific, ad-hoc relationships is well-recognized. Accordingly, the term
‘windows of opportunity’ is particularly suitable to describe the academia–
practice collaboration practices in Germany.
3.9.3
As suggested above, the ‘windows of opportunity’ may become appreci-
ated as a relevant mechanism for transforming the theory–practice inter-
section into a joint collaboration. This often takes place in the presence of
a short-term partnership focused on a practical problem (e.g. public
leadership, donative behaviour), which allows the academic to perform a
well-identified role in addressing it (e.g. training, consultancy, evaluation
reports). Research interests can be loosely coupled to such matters, per-
haps just focusing on issues supporting theoretical concerns (e.g. ‘data
supply’ for an inquiry). The instrumental characteristics thus indicate a
transactional, one-off, mode of a collaboration. By contrast, in other cases,
collaboration may become more comprehensive, involving (i) an ongoing,
perhaps formally structured partnership (e.g. appointing a managing
board) that (ii) incorporates various thematic sub-fields, actors, and activi-
ties. For example, German federal and state-level authorities have initiated
an inter-organizational advisory board, which is headed and encouraged
by academic leadership, in order to develop methods (e.g. risk manage-
ment, accounting) for modernizing public institutions (e.g. federal minis-
tries, Federal Employment Agency). This more transformational mode
60 L. FERRY ET AL.
accentuates reciprocal characteristics of the theory–practice intersection

and, hence, two distinct academic roles: conceptual development and
management.
3.9.4
In Germany, the introduction of accrual output-based budgeting is (still)
an ongoing reform, so far mainly addressing the state and local levels of
government. Such reform may be seen as an example of academia–practice
collaboration, whereby academics and practitioners worked through inde-
pendent but mutually supportive activities amalgamating their reciprocal
expertise. This allowed development of (i) an accounting system which
was designed by distinguished public management and accounting schol-
ars and then validated in practice (e.g. Lüder 1999, 2001), (ii) a conceptu-
ally grounded managerial idea (the ‘New Steering Model’, formulated by
both public management scholars and practitioners, e.g. KGSt), and (iii)
the reform of legal regulations (politicians/civil servants initiating new
budget laws). It is also worth mentioning that during the implementation
phase, the tight network of ideas, concepts, and activities spreads into vari-
ous ‘good collaboration’ practices.

Accounting in Ghana14
3.10.1 Specific Features of Country Context
In Ghana, the curricula and sources of materials for teaching accounting
courses are based on principles derived, mainly, from the UK and US cases.
Public sector accounting practices in Ghana are also based on PFM laws
and other public sectoral laws. The absence of structures to facilitate regu-
lar interaction between academic work and public sector practice creates a
gap between the two. Unlike the public sector, private sector accounting
reporting is not affected to the same degree because the private sector
14
Cletus Agyenim-Boateng
University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Kojo Oduro
Durham University, Durham, UK
practices are driven by international regulations and conventions such as

the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
Related to the above, recruitment policies on accountancy positions in
the public sector create special enclosures that appear to be protected from
academic influence and professional developments. Formal professional
accountancy qualifications are not required to practice as a public sector
accountant in Ghana. Adequate knowledge of the PFM laws and practices
is sufficient to occupy senior accountancy positions in the public sector, a
reality which is further supported by recruitment policies that do not
restrict public sector accounting positions to professional accountants.
The public sector scheme of service attempts to ensure that the post of
Accountant General is occupied by a qualified accountant with more than
15 years’ experience, but at the discretion of the executive, this require-
ment could be ignored. In a sense, these add to the findings in Ohemeng
(2011) that the use of legislation to foster performance in public organiza-
tions in Ghana can be problematic as there can be exceptions to the rules.
In the universities, courses are designed and taught by academics, who
often do not have practice experience. The situation is more pronounced
by the limited number of academics with public sector accounting practice
experience in Ghana. It may be suggested that reforms can be activated to
involve academics in public sector accounting practice experience. This
can be done through involving academics in, for example, consultancies in
order to bridge the gap between theory and practice. However, as
Ohemeng and Anebo (2012) find, successive governments in Ghana con-
tinuously rely on expatriates as consultants and advisors, a practice that
they find to have consistently undermined reforms. Also, growing politici-
zation of the public service (Ayee 2013) can further constrain any attempt
at increasing the number of academics with public sector practice
experience.
The Role of Institutions in Widening or Narrowing

3.10.2
the Gap
There public service attempts to restrict promotions based on academic
qualifications through the human resource management practices. There
is a concern that serving staff would expect to be promoted after obtaining
academic qualification which would lead to an oversupply of qualified
staff. Firstly, the number of sponsored training opportunities is limited by
the budget available, and secondly, staff are required to get prior approval
62 L. FERRY ET AL.
for undertaking courses before their qualifications are recognized for pro-
motions. Accounting and accountability in the public services are topics
that public service officials are not ready or feel uncomfortable to discuss
with academics. Administrative politics and bureaucratic rules ensure that
active serving public sector staff remain reticent and do not expose official
secrets to academics researchers who may use their research findings to
comment on corruption and financial mismanagement in the public sec-
tor. It is almost impossible for researchers to get access to public sector
institutions, involved in public sector financial management for research
data, without sufficient prior engagement with institutional gatekeepers.
In the few instances where access is granted, a researcher is most unlikely
to get senior officials to interview. For example, a researcher who was
studying corporate governance practices in regulatory institutions in
Ghana was told to interview a receptionist as the ‘bosses’ (directors) did
not have time to be interviewed after several rescheduling of booked
appointments for interview with board members. Also, another researcher
studying how PPP transactions are accounted for was told to change the
topic to the benefits of PPPs. All these add to Bawole et al.’s (2013) obser-
vation that public services in Ghana are fraught with superstition and fear.
Research activities by the Institute of Chartered Accountants Ghana
(ICAG) appear to be limited for a variety of organizational challenges,
including funding. The ICAG is mandated to be the standard setter for
the public service in Ghana, but it has not had much impact. The institute
attempted to develop a Ghana Public Sector Accounting Standards, but it
was not published. The ICAG standard setting activities in the private sec-
tor are equally limited because of the widespread adoption of IFRS in
private sector financial reporting. Clearly, ICAG faces issues which are evi-
dent to everyone in ICAG, and the importance is universally acknowl-
edged. Therefore, as Niven (2002) indicates that the need to improve
performance provides a strong rationale for using a Balanced-Score-Card
BSC approach, it makes sense that ICAG would use BSC to bridge the gap
between theory and practice.
3.10.3 The Role of Academics in Widening or Narrowing

the Gap
The natural consequences of the role of institutions in widening the gap
are, at least, in twofolds. One: that academics tend to use anecdotal
data, with some worrying implications. First, they are not able to benefit
from the rich details that face-to-face unstructured interview offers.

Second, they are not able to understand very well the what, why, and
how of accounting practices in the public service in order to evaluate
and reflect accounting practices in the public sector in curriculum devel-
opment. Especially, as the institutional as well as the social characters of
public sector accounting processes and practices tend to be less empha-
sized. Two: academics tend to pursue desktop and market-based research
using econometric modelling, also with some disturbing implications.
In particular, ignoring accounting practices in the public sector. No
wonder there are very few research studies on accounting in the public
service in Ghana.
The courses do not reflect the needs of the public sector. Though neo-
liberal agenda has been visited on the public sector, there is little empha-
sis on neo-liberalism context in the teaching of accounting. Research
funding is restricted in Ghanaian universities. There is a culture of cram-
ming facts to pass examinations, termed ‘chew-pour-pass’ in quantitative
subjects such as accountancy, sometimes without understanding the
underlying principles. The UPSA15 MBA, for example, tests students
through multiple choice questions and fill-in-the-gap type of question-
ing. In order to overcome these, academics’ performance can be evalu-
ated using the BSC because in that way, academics would find it imperative
to satisfy the needs of their customer and address their internal business,
learning and growth, and financial perspectives of the BSC (see Botes and
Sharma 2017).

Retired civil servants with public sector accounting experience teach on
GIMPA16 courses. In the last two decades, GIMPA has evolved to bridge
the gap between academic teaching and practice, but there is still a long
way to go. In 2009, the office of the Accountant General attempted to set
up a practice–academic link with the University of Cape Coast where prac-
titioners would design the courses with academics, and both would con-
tribute to the teaching of the course. The courses were to be designed to
15
This is University of Professional Studies Accra, one of the Public Universities in Ghana.
16
Ghana Institute of Public Administration, an institution established to train public ser-
vice staff.
64 L. FERRY ET AL.
be more practical than theory, but this initiative did not receive sustained
interest from the government. The University of Ghana Business School
in the last three years has done at least three things in its attempt to bridge
the theory–practice gap. First, there has been meetings of academics and
practitioners on how the two could collaborate effectively. Second, there
are executive-in-residence programme where experienced practitioners
come to share their experience with faculty and students. Third, faculty are
encouraged to draw out policy briefs from their research findings and dis-
seminate to practitioners.

Accounting in Greece17
In order to understand the practice-research gap in accounting in general,
and in public sector accounting in particular, it is important to sketch the
state of play regarding the relations of Greek academia with the business
and public sectors.
Traditionally, Greek academia has developed mostly ad-hoc relations
with the business sector. This is not only due to the structure of the Greek
economy (mostly small-sized and medium-sized enterprises hardly present
in international markets), but also because of bureaucratic blockades and
a long-held ideology about ‘public interest-oriented science’ that should
not be ‘commercialised’. There are, of course, exceptions, especially in the
natural sciences and polytechnics, medicine and pharmacology, or in some
schools of economics and business. Yet, the whole picture is far from
reaching the standards of more competitive EU nations. In 2015, the total
spending in R&D in Greece was 0.96% of GDP, while private sector R&D
spending was 0.32% of GDP. The corresponding figures in the EU (28)
were 2.03% and 1.30%, respectively.
17
Nikolaos Hlepas
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Constantinos Caramanis, and Sandra Cohen
Athens University of Economics and Business, Athina, Greece
3.11.2
The Role of Institutions in Widening/Narrowing
the Gap
Concerning the public sector, there is a lack of technocratic influence on
policy making, even within public administration. The Greek state admin-
istration has always been extremely party politicized. In contrast with
other European nations, no bureaucratic and academic elite could emerge
that would be in a position to exercise a strong influence over decision-
making. Academics are often invited to participate in commissions, boards,
and working groups, but are mostly chosen according to party affiliation
and/or personal loyalties. Their advice is often prescribed by political
guidelines, and even then, final decisions are often moderated, because of
political bargaining and technical improvisation. In general, the relation-
ship between academia and the state is characterized by instability and
fluctuation of outcomes sought. Evidence-based policy is a rare practice in
Greece both in accounting and in general. In recent years, the Spraos–
Yannitsis reform of the pension system represented a case of evidence-
based policy supported by academics that was eventually blocked by
politicians, while another political solution, the Kallikratis reform of local
and regional governance that was also supported by academia, was imple-
mented for the most part.
Universities rely on state grants in order to cover their expenses.
‘Good’ performance in research is not taken into account when state
grants are allocated. In general, there is a lack of incentives for research
performance. The assessment framework of Greek academics has also a
role in this research-practice gap. The salaries of the academics are flat
irrespective of discipline and are differentiated solely on the basis of time
in office and their rank in the academic ladder. Moreover, the criteria
used for promotions are not homogeneous among universities (e.g. there
is not a nationally accepted list of ranked journals) which results in flexi-
ble assessment standards, used on an ad-hoc basis. On the other hand, the
law allows for academics to work as freelancers provided that they notify
the university about their simultaneous occupation and pay a percentage
of their revenues as fees to the university they are affiliated with. The low
salaries of academics, which have been squeezed during the recent crisis,
have driven many of them to spend (more) time on income-earning con-
sultancy work, while others have emigrated abroad (brain drain).
66 L. FERRY ET AL.
Although this could potentially narrow the gap between research and
practice, there are no studies available to provide evidence whether this
has actually happened.
3.11.3 The Roles of Academics in Widening/Narrowing

the Gap
During the past few years, the influence of Greek academia on public policy
has diminished as the most important political decisions on public policies
and reforms were taken in close cooperation with the Troika. In this realm,
individual academics are often asked for advice on a personal and ad-hoc
basis, and they act as experts in technical assistance missions. For example,
a team of academics working with professionals developed a reform pro-
gramme that was included in the first Memorandum of Understanding
signed between Greece and the Troika. The reform consolidated and mod-
ernized an outdated, fragmented, and dysfunctional accounting system for
the private sector. It is noted though that this reform was mostly driven by
international developments in accountancy rather that in research-based
evidence stemming from the Greek business context.
The diminished status of current academics belies the fact that many top
politicians in Greece have an academic background. For instance, two distin-
guished ex-professors went on to become Prime ministers (Andreas
Papandreou, 1981–1989, 1993–1995 and Kostas Simitis, 1996–2004) as
well as two professors have served as Presidents of the Republic. In addition,
key ministerial posts are often occupied by academics (e.g. it is rather com-
mon for the Ministers of Finance to be academics). The unusual political
success of academics can be attributed to their strong acceptance and author-
ity amongst the electorate. Another important factor is the extreme party-
politicization of academia and universities (Bozionelos 2014), which
represents a source of budding politicians seeking to launch political careers.
Lately, the relations between academia and the accounting profession
have become closer mainly due to the accounting change in the private
sector and the eminent changes in public sector accounting. For example,
the committee responsible for planning the accounting reform regarding
the adoption of IPSAS-like accounting standards in the Greek General
Government included academics in its ranks (EY 2017). It is also worth
mentioning that academics have been appointed as the head of the Hellenic
Accounting and Auditing Standards Oversight Board for the last three
terms.

Lastly, we cannot deny that there are some good examples that reflect
efforts to bridge the practice-research gap. There are big private sector
companies and organizations that set up competitions and financial awards
related to new entrepreneurial ideas—in most of the times, the projects are
related to innovation and technology where short-listed ideas come from
academic institution research teams and new researchers. Also, universities
act as incubators offering support to researchers and potential young
entrepreneurs (including accounting-related support) in order to develop
innovative business ideas and bring them to the market. Finally, in Greece,
there are non-for-profit research centres that conduct studies regarding,
among others, topical economic matters (e.g. Foundation for Economic
and Industrial Research, Dianeosis) that involve academic researchers in
their projects.

Accounting for Italy18
The Italian public sector is characterized by a vertical fragmentation, with
four levels of government (central, regional, provincial, and municipal)
dealing with different policy areas, and a horizontal fragmentation, with
many organizations (often of small size) responsible for the same services.
As an example, in Italy, there are more than 8,200 local authorities and
most of them (about 90%) with less than 15,000 inhabitants. Besides,
historically the Italian public sector has a Napoleonic tradition, ruled by
administrative laws and where the formalization of activities is at the base
of its activities.
Italian universities are characterized by a lack of big research depart-
ments that focus on public sector accounting and management. The num-
ber of degrees on the topic is limited, and researchers in the field are
fragmented.
18
Enrico Bracci
University of Ferrara, Ferrara Italy
Salvatore Russo
University Ca’ Foscari Venice, Venezia, Italy
MariaFrancesca Sicilia
University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
68 L. FERRY ET AL.
These contextual characteristics make it complex to liaise with public

sector organizations, to find common platforms to work on together, and
to engage them in research projects (Cepiku 2011) with the consequence
of a very low rate of return of questionnaires and/or availability for inter-
views. At the same time, the presence of small research groups do not
allow for the attainment of a critical mass to attract research funding or to
build research centres that are recognized as a point of reference by public
sector officials and managers.
As a consequence, the impact of academia on practice can be repre-
sented as a duality. For instance, the recent public administration reforms,
promoted by the current government, have seen important contributions
by public administration and public management scholars coming from
different universities. At the same time, at the regional level, many have
ongoing collaborations with academics. From a policy-making perspective,
thus, academia–practice relations appear to be intense. Academics tend to
search for such collaboration as a source of institutional recognition and
legitimation, while politicians and/or practitioners ask for academic sup-
port in order to increase acceptability and legitimacy of their policies.
3.12.2 The Role of Institutions in Widening/Narrowing

the Gap
At a more local level, focusing on operational/managerial perspectives, it
is possible to observe an increasing separation between academia and prac-
tice due to a lack of mutual interest. Indeed, while practitioners are con-
cerned with the relevance of research findings, they often are uncomfortable
with academic styles of communication. In addition, much of public
accounting and management research is published in international jour-
nals in English. This reduces the likelihood that such research will be read
by Italian practitioners. At the same time, scholars are not provided with
incentives to properly engage with the problems and challenges faced by
local public sector organizations. As such, a hands-on approach by
researchers is often seen as being time consuming, with limited opportuni-
ties for scientific publications and of little consequence to their career.
The evolution of the divide between academia and practice at the local
level is uncertain as it is affected by different factors that act in opposite
directions. Tenure and promotion are increasingly based on the quality of
research outputs that as shown by the last VQR (Research Quality
Valuation) is measured through the impact factor of journals in which they
are published, regardless of the content of the paper. Opportunities for

promotion on the basis of substantive engagement with practice and/or
providing services to the public and the profession are not only limited,
but also suffer from negative evaluations that indicate ‘low level of com-
mitment to pure research’. Since 2010, the austerity measures imple-
mented by central government have significantly reduced resources
available to local governments, health care organizations, and public agen-
cies for research and training, with a knock-on effect for academia.
An important innovation that could serve to bridge the gap between
academia and practice is the introduction, in 2014, of an additional crite-
rion in the evaluation of Italian universities (called third mission)—this
criterion reflects on universities’ ability to disseminate knowledge and
demonstrate impact on practice, culture, and society (Rolfo and Finardi
2014). Performance indicators proposed under this criterion include (but
are not limited to) the number of patents, spin-offs, and overall funding
raised through consulting activity. Such innovation represents a likely
turning point compared to the past and might facilitate reconciliation
between academia and external stakeholders, in particular, for-profit, non-
profit, and public organizations. Although it is too early to evaluate the
effects of this reform, it is probable that its success will depend on (i) the
ability of universities to increase their connections with practitioners oper-
ating in their area and (ii) the development of a proper portfolio of incen-
tives that stimulate collaboration between scholars and practitioners.

the Gap
Relationships between academia and practice are more common at the
training, coaching, and counselling level, where three different actors have
played an active role in promoting them (Arnaboldi 2013). Firstly, the
Department of Public Function in the Presidency of the Council of
Ministers (Italian: Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri) has involved spe-
cialists from academia with the aim of supporting managers in innovating
in public administrations. Secondly, the activity carried out by the National
School of Administration (Scuola Nazionale di Amministrazione) has pro-
moted training courses to support the reform process in public adminis-
tration. In this regard, the faculty of the school is composed of both
professors and practitioners and is marked by a multidisciplinary approach.
Finally, the schools of management, prevalent in the North Italy, are more
70 L. FERRY ET AL.
committed to research and the ‘third mission’, with respect to the tradi-
tional research department. In this sense, academics play the role of medi-
ators who transfer and transform research results into the operational
context, while interacting with public managers, by trying to identify criti-
cal issues and find out solutions. Similar to this activity, further practices
came from professional initiatives carried out by academics in the area of
‘auditing’ and ‘performance evaluation’ in public organizations. Several
financial auditors or performance evaluators are coming from academia,
and this represents a constructive occasion to open an exchange of ideas
on skills and experience.

We end on a note of hope that the academic–practice gap can and will
eventually be bridged. Irrespective of current strictures imposed for pro-
motion and institutional evaluation, academics should come to realize
that being relevant is a core element of their job and as such try to
develop research programmes that are at once scientifically sound and
relevant for practice. Being relevant requires translation of research find-
ings in order to make them more understandable and useful for practitio-
ners. While this might require additional effort from scholars, it will
nevertheless be worthwhile as it can make a valuable contribution to
society and not simply circulate knowledge amongst an introverted com-
munity of academics.

in the Public Sector in Malaysia19

In 2015, the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia reported that a
significant number of university graduates failed to secure job within two
years after their graduation, of which a lack of soft skills such as communi-
cation and low English proficiency has been identified as reasons that need
Zamzulaila Zakaria
19
International Islamic University Malaysia, Gombak, Selangor, Malaysia

Zarina Zakaria
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
to be tackled by various parties. Such phenomenon was also largely attrib-

uted to the mismatch of universities’ curriculum with the skills required by
employers as well as the extent to which academic research undertaken
fails to connect with issues prevalent in a practice context.
The gap between academic research and practice has been a long-
standing issue in Malaysia. For this reason, threats facing industry in
ensuring supply of human capital prevail. Such was mooted by a represen-
tative of the Islamic Finance industry in Malaysia recently, and it is very
important to ‘create a culture of greater collaboration and respect between
the world of academia, regulators and industry players’ (The Malaysian
Reserve 2017). A similar point was raised by the governor of Central Bank
of Malaysia who urged better engagement between industry players and
academia to foster the development of Islamic finance in the country. He
stated:
‘You will likely need to work with others to make this happen. Therein lie
my earlier point that I alluded, that we need to create a culture of greater
collaboration and respect between the world of academia, regulators and
industry players. My hope is that applied research and the development
Islamic finance becomes mutually-reinforcing, a “virtuous circle”, where
extensive research translates itself into great solutions which can then be
used to propel Islamic Finance to a new level of excellence. But it will require
us to strengthen the linkages in transforming research insights into practice’.
(Central Bank of Malaysia 2017)

the Gap
At the national level, engagement between academia and industry has been
the key ingredient of the National Education Blueprints (Higher Education)
2015–2025. When launching the National Education Blueprint, the Prime
Minister of Malaysia, in his foreword statement, encouraged the private
sector to actively participate in curricula design—in refining outcomes
expected in their university courses that are tightly linked to the required
job skills, to co-fund research, and to work very closely with students dur-
ing their university years. Such engagement should be at the forefront in
transforming the education system of the country. This is because collabo-
ration between academia and industry is yet to be strongly developed.
Academics have reported difficulties in connecting with industry, and espe-
cially the reluctance of industry to participate in research initiatives. For
72 L. FERRY ET AL.
example, noted a lack of research knowledge and research orientation, dif-

ficulty in gaining access to organizations, cultural barriers, political issues,
and lack of social trust about the research findings are among challenges in
doing research in Malaysia.
3.13.3
The Roles of Academics in Widening/Narrowing
the Gap
Nevertheless, efforts to narrow the gap between research and practice is a
mutual responsibility of academic and public sector institutions. The
Malaysian government has been the main player in encouraging higher
learning institutions to embark upon research that is directly connected to
practice and which subsequently could inform the practice. As an example,
the allocation of research and development grants for higher learning
institutions has increased from RM235 million in 2017 to RM400 million
in 2018 budget, channelled through several ministries such as Ministry of
Education and Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation.
As for the accounting research, credit should be given to professional
accounting institutions that played substantial roles in promoting research
that could create impact on the accounting professions, organizations, and
wider economy. For example, the Malaysian Institute of Accountants
(MIA), through its arm of the Malaysian Accountancy Research and
Education Foundation (MAREF), is dedicated to fund research that sup-
ports and promotes high quality accounting practices. While MAREF has
funded a substantial list of research since its inception, beginning 2016,
MAREF has shown a bigger role by setting 12 priority topics that would
be of benefit to the accountancy profession identified by the MIA and the
Malaysian Accounting Standards Board (MASB). These priority areas have
enabled practitioners to obtain deep insights into prevalent recognition
and measurement issues on accounting issues such as fair value measure-
ment and accounting for financial instruments.
3.13.4
A more direct involvement of accounting academics in influencing prac-
tice is through their involvement as board members in professional
accounting bodies. Board membership enables both practitioners and aca-
demics to jointly set the future direction of accounting practices. For
example, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)
has established a Centre of Excellence in Southeast Asia and collaborates

with universities, the public sector, and key industry players in this region
to ensure the areas of research and related outputs are market driven and
relevant. The research panellists consist of academics from various aca-
demic institutions in the region and practitioners from key industries.
Likewise, collaboration between academics and accountancy professionals
is done through their representation in various Technical Committees of
the MIA, the national accountancy body of Malaysia. These committees
include the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AASB) and
Education Committee. Such representations enabling engagement pro-
vide a platform for sharing of knowledge between academics and
practitioners.
Engagement between practitioners and academics also happens through
networking in practitioner and academic conferences. In Malaysia, the
National Accountants Conference organized by MIA is an annual event
that enables networking between accounting practitioners and academics.
Such avenues identify current issues that have significant impact on the
accounting profession, which will then steer the direction and revision of
accounting education development as discussed by panels of practitioners
and academics. Besides that, universities also collaborate with industry and
professional accounting bodies in academic seminars and conferences.
While efforts to align the interest of practitioners and academics are
ongoing both formally and informally, we have yet to see the extent to
which this may narrow the gap between practice and research. The most
worrying part is when research is used more as an instrument to improve
the ranking of universities rather than improving practices in the profes-
sion. For example, the number and amount of grants received are among
criteria contributed to MYRA ranking. However, a report in 2015
showed that within the past 5 to 10 years, less than 2% of 27,449
research and development outputs (R&D) in 15 public universities in
Malaysia are able to be commercialized. Such phenomenon reflects the
extent to which many research outputs are not aligned with the needs of
industry.
The wider distribution of research output to practitioners is one of the
efforts to improve translation of research into practice. This is not an issue
for research that is funded by the accountancy profession because publica-
tion in their own magazine is conditional upon awarding the grant.
However, apart from securing government grants, the tendency for aca-
demics to publish their findings in professional magazines is low due to
74 L. FERRY ET AL.
the lower merit given in their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for such
publications. It is hoped that higher learning institutions can align their
research with the aspiration of National Education Blueprints 2015–2025.

in the Public Sector in Netherlands20
In the Netherlands, academic–practitioner arrangements can take many

forms, such as practice-oriented research, direct involvement in (in-house)
employee and management development programmes, scrutiny work, and
participation in review committees and/or policy forums.
3.14.1 Specific Features of the Country Context Which in Their

View Affect the Research-Practice Gap Issue in the Country
There are 13 research-oriented universities in the Netherlands, spread
over 12 cities. Despite this relatively small number, Dutch universities are
world-leading as they all appear in the top 200 of the Times Higher
Education’s World University Rankings (2018). These achievements
might be explained by the institutional and historical contexts in which
the universities operate. For instance, a leading institution for agricultural
and environmental sciences—Wageningen University and Research—was
able to acquire this position through decades of attention from private and
public organizations for improving products and exporting expertise. This
is the case for more subjects, and certainly for public administration.
Van Poelje (1942), one of the founders of the public administration
as an academic discipline in the Netherlands, was of the opinion that
public organizations were valuable but only if they were able to perform
their tasks and roles in professional ways (Braun et al. 2017). Van Poelje
stated that public administration primarily was an applied science. The
large focus on the applicability in practice and the value of research for
practitioners has had an important impact not only on the development
of the academic discipline itself but also on the relationship between
scholars and practitioners. There have been continuous debates about
public administration as a discipline: is it a science-for-policy, or rather
20
Tom Overmans, and Scott Douglas
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
a science-of-policy? This is closely related to a tension that many public

administration scholars will find themselves dealing with, namely the
tension between being a reflective scholar with an independent posi-
tion, and engaging actively in day-to-day practices (see also Frissen and
Van Twist 2010). We argue that at the institutional level universities
aim to give substance to both perspectives, and that it varies from
scholar to scholar where their primary focus is. Some will consider
themselves as observing and reflecting academics that must contribute
primarily to the international discourse, while others will think of them-
selves as socially involved ‘pracademics’ with a role to improve the pub-
lic sector directly.
Despite the ambiguous relationships between academia and practice,
however, numerous academics have managed to find mutually beneficial
ways of working with government departments, local government, and
other public service providers. This is not only because public organiza-
tions see the value of state-of-the art knowledge and methodological skills
that collaboration with academics can bring, but also because academics
experience that engaging in practice is valuable for their research and
offers great possibilities for gathering data and disseminating information.
Organizations like the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Affairs, the
City of Amsterdam, and the Child Protection Agency, for instance, need
expertise that academics can bring, but simultaneously offer great oppor-
tunities for scholars to improve their research and have a direct impact on
the performance of the Dutch public sector.
These practices fit neatly within a broader debate—at least in the
Netherlands—on valorization (making academic knowledge applicable
and available for societal and economic utilization). We think, however,
that the term valorization is misleading as it suggests single direction of
idea travelling. Mutually beneficial partnerships rise only if both parties
experience a value in the collaboration, if both parties feel that they learn
from other people in the partnership. Rather than valorization, we there-
fore prefer to speak of ‘knowledge circulation’. Academics serving as con-
sultants often translate their experiences to teaching and publications,
combining insights from literature with data from practitioners to assess
the success of the strategy generating insights for organizations and new
scientific publications.
76 L. FERRY ET AL.
3.14.2
the Gap
Partly due to the size of the public sector, the call for consulting and
practice-oriented research in the Netherlands is large. Many of these calls
are answered by private sector consulting firms and non-academic research
organizations. Some requests, however, require high-end expertise about
specific contents or research methods and will therefore end up with uni-
versities. It is common that Dutch academics serve as consultants as they
are familiar with the latest scientific insights and are perceived to be able
to generate concrete, attainable solutions. Academic consultants are spe-
cialists in specific fields, be it sport, health care, education, administration
of law, culture, and welfare and/or on specific topics such as public finance,
organization change, policy, and leadership. Types of projects include
organizational change trajectories, policy evaluations, supervising profes-
sionalization processes, made-to-measure leadership programmes, train-
ing and coaching, and/or external board membership. Additionally,
invaluable exchange of practical and theoretical knowledge takes place
with managers, professionals, and policy experts who follow executive
courses at the different universities.
More and more universities in the Netherlands have professionalized
their consultancy and practice-oriented research activities. Sometimes,
these firms operate at a moderate distance of the institute (such as the
RISBO Institute of the Erasmus University Rotterdam); in other cases,
they are consciously embedded within the university (such as USG
Consultancy in Utrecht). The aim of these consultancies is to work
together with practitioners in finding solutions to complex issues, in terms
of knowledge circulation.
3.14.3
the Gap
Although there are strong and long-lasting connections between academia
and practice, relationships are mainly the result of individual efforts and
personal networks. Durable formal relationships associated with structural
budgets are scarce, although they exist for specific programmes or themes.
At a personal level, significant networks exist that contribute to govern-
ment policy discourse. Many Dutch public administration scholars will
have ambitions to integrate research, education, and practice: their
research and teaching are often based on concrete and topical themes. For
instance, professors De Graaf and Noordegraaf have undertaken work
with the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism to
improve the counter terrorism policy, professors ‘t Hart and Van Thiel
contributed to the working of the National Police, and professors Ottow
and Stoker helped the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets and the
Dutch Central Bank to develop new procedures for the appointing of
directors and supervisory directors.
3.14.4
Our experience in the Netherlands is that academic consulting is more
difficult than ever. The classic setup, where public organizations discover
new solutions through academic advice and researchers discover new
insights through practical work, is now moving to another level. The chal-
lenges faced by public bodies today, such as capturing public value or deal-
ing with seemingly intractable issues, cannot be addressed simply through
a review of the literature or stakeholder interviews. Instead, available lit-
erature, stakeholder insights, and practical experiences need to be com-
bined into continuous feedback and learning loops with academics and
practitioners as full partners in the production and circulation of
knowledge.
For example, together with the City of Utrecht, USG is currently devis-
ing a new tool for Public Value Budgeting, connecting ambitions of Public
Value Management to the requirements of budgetary processes. Academic
consultants bring insights from literature, and public officials provide
insights into policies and political forces. Together, they attempt to devise
a new budgeting process for local policies on public health, organizing
sessions with community groups, elected council members, and local
experts to regularly test and improve tools. This ‘21st century action
research’ pierces the veil between the academic world and practitioners’
world, uniting their fields in shared laboratory spaces (Governance Labs)
where they can experiment, play, test, and learn. This new way of working
can be challenging, as scholars engaging in consultancy have to redefine
what ‘research’ means while maintaining the standards of academic quality
and integrity. However, this ambition is befitting a discipline in search of
greater relevance and of governments in search of new solutions.
From the viewpoint of Dutch academia, a key obstacle to further
engagement with practitioners, despite potential opportunities, is the
78 L. FERRY ET AL.
need to publish in international academic journals. This need comes in an

environment where career opportunities of academic research staff are
closely connected with the number and quality of their publications. This
negatively impacts academic–practitioner engagement because these jour-
nals are often not read by Dutch practitioners. Unless the contents are
translated into other forms and types of (Dutch) publications, relevant
information will disappear from the horizon. If this disconnection is not
properly addressed by scholars, it might run the risk of an even bigger gap
in the future. Scholars (and editors!) must evaluate publications—be it
papers, articles, or reports—not only on the quality of the used methods
and statistics, but also on their relevance for practitioners dealing with
actual issues.

in the Public Sector in Nigeria21
This reflection briefly considers the research-practice gap in the Nigerian

context. As prior studies examining the relationship between research and
practice in a Nigerian context are almost absent, it reviews some of the
impediments to research-practice exchange in Nigeria, while identifying
areas of good practice.

Globally, the research-practice gap continues to gain increased attention.
However, in Nigeria, the extent to which research informs practice is min-
imal. Collaborations between academia and practice are mainly in the pro-
vision of public service. This relates to academics typically serving as
tenured public office holders such as ministers or board members/consul-
tants in government parastatals. Nigerian academics also contribute—but
marginally—to knowledge exchange through participation in symposia
and conferences organized by the public sector.
21
Emmanuel Adegbite, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK
Olabisi Daodu, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Franklin Nakpodia, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne UK

the Gap
In Nigeria, research and its use beyond academia are limited. This is
primarily due to four factors. The first factor relates to the education
system/culture in the country. The university system in Nigeria is a
‘closed environment’ where the focus is mainly on teaching and the
production of graduates. The majority of the tertiary institutions in
Nigeria are not research-oriented, thus creating two problems: limited
research outputs and consequently low utilization of academic research
in practice.
Second, the limited engagement of research outside academic environ-
ments in Nigeria is also explained by the weak research infrastructure
(Osagie 2012). As a developing economy, the country experiences signifi-
cant challenges in undertaking internationally excellent research. This is
due to the dearth of infrastructural support which has suffered historical
neglect. For instance, in 2018, the percentage of the national budget allo-
cated to education was 7%, as opposed to the 26% recommended by the
United Nations. Infrastructural challenges, such as the lack of reliable
databases, not only hamper access to world-class research resources but
also restrict opportunities to forge collaborations between the academia
and practice.
Third, poor research funding (locally and internationally) limits the
research endeavours of universities in Nigeria. Nigerian public universi-
ties are typically underfunded, compelling a substantial dependence on
the central government (Nakpodia and Adegbite 2017) and its parastat-
als for funding. This affects the quality of research activities in Nigerian
tertiary institutions, and by extension, their capacity to support the
practice.
Lastly, the research-practice gap in Nigeria suffers from a limited
demand for such research collaborations by Nigerian government agencies
(Asiyai 2013). The majority of government parastatals in Nigeria have
their respective research departments. Also, the Nigerian Bureau of
Statistics (NBS) provides surveys and research findings to government
establishments, leading to less reliance on the academic community for
research support. As such, in place of the collaboration between academics
and practitioners in Nigeria, public sector parastatals undertake their
research independently, or in conjunction with national agencies.
80 L. FERRY ET AL.

the Gap
The research-practice gap in Nigeria is ominous. The widening of the gap
can be linked to the direct activities of academic communities and indirectly
to the relationship between academics and consulting outfits. In terms of
the direct activities of academics, Agbedia et al. (2014) observed that the
relevance of research outputs to government and industries is limited, hence
the narrow patronage from these sectors. The problem of relevance is
informed by the archaic methods and technologies employed in many aca-
demic institutions in Nigeria. As previously argued, the lack of funding
impairs the capacity of universities to acquire modern technology to enable
them to undertake contemporary research that produces innovative
knowledge.

To bridge the preceding problem, academics indirectly collaborate with
consultants to narrow the research-practice gap given that some consult-
ing outfits possess the funds, skilled workforce, and technical know-how
to support research ventures. In addition, academics run consultancies
that provide services to the government. There are instances where con-
sulting firms engage academics to perform contracts awarded by state
agencies. However, these indirect collaborations are negligible and do not
narrow the research-practice gap. More importantly, the universities are
typically excluded from these engagements, hence they are neither able to
harness any financial benefits nor are they able to engage a wider range of
their academics.
In summary, the research-practice gap remains wide in Nigeria. The
aforementioned deficiencies in infrastructure, funding, resources, and
demand should be addressed to promote research-practice collaboration.
Furthermore, we propose that knowledge exchange between academia
and the public sector can be facilitated by appointing academics, on a
part-time basis, to serve in public offices. However, we add that this rec-
ommendation will benefit from the enactment of a bill that compels
compliance with the proposal.

in the Public Sector in Portugal22
3.16.1 Context Affecting the Research-Practice Gap

Accounting standards in Portugal are contained in orders or decrees that
are approved by the Ministry of Finance, who have responsibility for man-
dating accounting standards for both businesses and the public sector.
This is an important feature, particularly compared to ‘common law’
countries, where there is a stronger influence of the accounting profession
in the accounting standard setting (Caria and Rodrigues 2014; Montesinos
1998).
The standard setting body Comissão de Normalização Contabilistica
(CNC, Portuguese Accounting Standards Board) (comprising two sepa-
rate committees, for business and public sector accounting) works on the
proposals of accounting and reporting standards that are firstly internally
approved within a General Board and then presented to the Ministry of
Finance, who eventually evaluates these proposals. Consequently, account-
ing standards assume legal form, making their amendment more difficult
as to do so involves a bureaucratic process of revoking the law. Furthermore,
the influence of professionals in accounting policy making is still lower
than in other countries, and the standard setter works for the government
who sanctions their action.
Consequently, in Portugal, while the policy maker is the CNC, which
was created in 1977 and is currently regulated by Law-decree 134/2012,
the profession is embodied by the Ordem dos Contabilistas Certificados
(OCC, Institute of Chartered Accountants), who is represented in the
CNC, and was created in 1995 by Law-decree 295/95. With this organi-
zation of the accounting policy maker and the profession, the type of rela-
tionship between academics and professionals and the extent of the impact
22
Susana Jorge
CICP and FEUC, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Delfina Gomes
CICP and EEG, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
Lídia Oliveira, and Graciete Costa
EEG, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
82 L. FERRY ET AL.
of academia on practice, policy, and the profession in Portugal can be

described as follows. The organizational structures of both the policy
maker (CNC) and the regulator of the profession (OCC) include mem-
bers of academia with wide experience in teaching and research in account-
ing. Also academics play an important role and influence in preparing
accounting students, within universities and polytechnic institutes, to
become professionals. In addition, they sometimes participate in training
actions offered to professionals, that is, by OCC.
3.16.2 Role of Institutions and Academics

The influence of academia, namely via the research developed, is still not
visible in the actions undertaken either by CNC or by OCC. The OCC
has established a scientific journal—the Portuguese Journal of Accounting
and Management—but since 2005, this journal struggles to publish two
issues per year.
As to CNC, although the two committees integrate researchers, a col-
laborative and open discussion barely exists with the academics regarding
the foundations of the decisions that are taken in terms of accounting poli-
cies for standards.
In what concerns the extent of the relationships between academics and
practitioners, policy makers, and the profession, Costa (2015) provides
some clear ideas about this. Firstly, it is suggested that there is a weak rela-
tionship between academics, policy makers, and professionals.
On the one hand, academics almost do not interact with practitioners
to debate practical issues of the profession; within the evaluation system
at the higher education level, academics are not encouraged to conduct
research with more practical contribution, generally seen as non-scien-
tific and without interest. On the other hand, practitioners consider that
academics are very theoretical, that their research is difficult to under-
stand, and that they possess very little knowledge of the professional
reality, and consequently, they do not seek them for help or advice on
practical issues. Instead, practitioners better appreciate articles with a
practical orientation in technical–professional journals because they pro-
vide them with an immediate answer to the questions that they have.
Secondly, it is suggested that policy makers (CNC) and professional reg-
ulators (OCC) do not take into account the results of research carried
out by academics, due to disinterest and unawareness of the work done

by the latter. In fact, the research conducted by academics is not consid-
ered relevant by practitioners, who do not understand what the contri-
bution for the practice of the profession is. In the specific case of
accounting, the reality that teaching is mainly directed to the profes-
sional practice (‘know-how’ and not ‘know-why’) diminishes the impor-
tance of academic research in the field.
As a consequence, the impact of academia and its relationship with
practitioners, policy makers, and the profession in Portugal is far from
desirable. Academia does not have an impact on policy makers, profes-
sional regulators, and practitioners, as all of them do not have easy access
to academic research, do not show interest, and at the same time do not
believe in the usefulness of academic research in supporting the practical
problems they have to solve.
3.16.3
Despite the points highlighted above, some efforts are being made to
change the situation. The fact that academics are involved in the activities
of both OCC and CNC is important to strengthen the relationship.
OCC continues to make efforts to bridge the gap, namely organizing
workshops and conferences, thereby stimulating the relationship between
academics and practitioners. There has also been a desire expressed, for
some years, to create an academy of accounting researchers and professors,
although this has yet to be implemented.
CNC and the other primary budget policy maker (UniLEO) are
increasingly including academics as full members and members of advisory
boards, in this way showing higher interest and acknowledging the impor-
tance of taking into account academics’ opinions, as experts in the field.
But there is still a long way until the situation is appropriate. There is a
need for academia, policy makers, and the profession to understand how
they can collaborate. There is also a need for more exchange of ideas and
sharing of information among all, in order to increase the relationship and
interplay between academia, policy makers, and the profession, in a fruitful
manner for all. The progress in fulfilling the still existent and considerable
gap will only happen if all recognize the size of the gap and commit to
developing initiatives to reduce it.
84 L. FERRY ET AL.

in the Public Sector in Romania23

The socio-economic and political context in Romania makes it suitable for
significant and continuous interactions between academia and practice.
Romania’s economic development is amongst the fastest in the EU, mak-
ing Romania the location of choice for many multinational companies,
resulting in low levels of unemployment by EU standards. This growth is
matched by rapid political and societal development. Politically however,
Romania continues to be fragile due to its lack of democratic tradition,
and public trust in political leaders is low. This is evident in the growing
sense of civic responsibility and increasingly critical stance towards endemic
corruption, which had spread quickly during the country’s transition from
communism. There is, however, high public trust in ‘experts’, academics
included.
The academic environment in Romania is vibrant, as local demand for
academic degrees is high. Students are universities’ main stakeholders, and
most academic processes are set up for and around their needs, particularly
regarding graduate employment. Research is valued for purposes to do
with academic career progression, but standards required are considerably
lower than in comparable Western universities. Resources allocated to
research are also quite low, as most Romanian academics have no allocated
budget for research.
3.17.2 The Roles of Institutions in Widening/Narrowing

the Gap
The issue of impact of academia on practice can be found in many
Romanian universities’ mission statements. Impact, however, is not stipu-
lated as a performance indicator for academic staff, nor for universities.
Instead, it is recognized as being indispensable to fulfilling other, more
23
Adina Dudau
University of Glasgow Adam Smith Business School, Glasgow, UK
Roxana Voicu-Dorobantu
Bucharest Business School, Bucharest, Romania
measurable, aspects of academic work. To start with, individual academics

lean towards consultancy as a way of making up for the lack of institutional
financial support for research. They also utilize links with industry to fulfil
students’ expectations around practice relevance in their studies, through
practitioner-led guest lectures, real case studies, and internships. Then,
practice (particularly business and politics) regards academic links as cen-
tral to their legitimation efforts, given the esteem held by academia in
Romanian society. Illustrative is the re-legitimization of government after
the infamous fall of the 2015 Ponta cabinet by appointing a non-political
government with academics to ministerial positions and advisory roles.
Against the backdrop of incentives for academia and practice to work
together, there is a certain fluidity in this relationship, in that both parts
regularly cross boundaries between the sectors. As tenure-track academic
positions are rare, but teaching needs are high, ever growing, hybrid
adjunct academic positions become available and practitioners are often
invited to fill them. Concomitantly, as academic degrees enjoy high levels
of trust by the public and PhD length reduced recently from seven to
three years following the Bologna treaty, many Romanian practitioners
seek advanced degrees.
As such, the collaboration between academia and industry in Romania
is agile and largely ad-hoc, hence not motivated by performance indica-
tors. Indeed, where it works, it appears to be a means to an end, rather
than the end itself. Where collaboration is centrally pursued, such as in the
case of strategic academic–industry collaborations, there are considerable
barriers, including contract rigidity, expectations of knowledge transfer
rather than knowledge co-creation, and lack of sustainability.
3.17.3
The Role of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap
Overall, the approach to academic impact in Romania can be characterized
as entrepreneurial and opportunistic. As such, the incentive to create
impact is not to do with formal performance evaluation of universities or
of academics; rather, financial and reputational matters motivate it. In an
environment where research continues to be severely underfunded, while
at the same time remaining a prominent component of academic work, it
is likely academia will continue to seek impact on practice through consul-
tancy work. This tendency is welcome by industry seeking legitimacy, par-
ticularly in areas with low levels of trust from the public, such as politics.
86 L. FERRY ET AL.

The approach to collaboration of academia and the world of practice
described thus far is ad-hoc, emerging from individual academics and
practitioners, while responding to societal and political change in Romania
(Albu and Albu 2012). There is also a more strategic level of collabora-
tion: there is government support for transfer of technology (ToT) and
knowledge co-creation. The distinction between the two types of collabo-
ration is relevant. If we assume ToT is defined as the dissemination of
innovation from generators to a wider audience and it concerns the turn-
ing of research into value via transfer to market, the co-creation implies a
more organic cooperation where knowledge emerges through the rela-
tionship between the partners. ToT is a national strategic goal, included in
the research strategy and named in several development strategies (both
governmental and regional), and has several dedicated funding lines.
Co-creation is seldom mentioned in programmatic documents, happening
mostly ad-hoc, via personal connections and rarely being mentioned in
strategic plans of both public administration and academia, but remains an
option for funding and cooperation.
These options in national development are mired in a labyrinthine
funding and decision-making system. Funding for research and/or its
links to practice may come from at least four different ministries (Research
and Innovation, Education, Economy, and European Funds), one govern-
mental agency (UEFISCDI), other specific ministries (such as Energy,
Communications and IT, Agriculture, Health), as well as local or regional
authorities, depending on their development strategies. An example of
good practice in which research is directly linked to practice is the Laser
Valley—Land of Lights. Set up as a pan-European research infrastructure
facility in Extreme Light Infrastructure—Nuclear Physics (ELI-NP), it is
the flagship of a National Research and Innovation plan, being hailed as a
new place for developing an innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem.
Apart from the confusing funding and decision-making system associ-
ated to the strategic level of academic–industry collaborations, and the
promotion of knowledge transfer rather than knowledge co-production,
an additional hurdle in collaborating successfully is the rigidity in approach-
ing innovation structures and research failure. Innovation structures
funded through public funds are confined to the funding contract: part-
ners cannot be changed and alterations in project goals are often not
allowed, due to financing contract rigidity. Research failure was forbidden
until recently, becoming an acceptable clause only in recent years (since

2014). Innovation structures are more often than not linked to a sole
project and not bound to have follow-ups after its end.

in the Public Sector in Spain24

In Spanish Accounting literature, various authors have highlighted the gap
between research and professional practice (Moya et al. 2015; Arquero
et al. 2016), arguing that it may be explained by differences in the percep-
tion of quality in the two fields: publications considered useful for profes-
sional practice are not considered useful in the system of academic merits
and vice versa. In fact, this situation emerged with the introduction of a
new performance-based incentives and evaluation system in 2001. Before
the new system, during the 1990s, many Spanish accounting academics
published professional papers that contributed to the understanding and
dissemination of accounting standards.
The academic performance measurement system is based only on pub-
lications in journals ranked in the Journal of Citation Report, so that
researchers have strong incentives to focus their efforts on publications in
these journals (Moya et al. 2015), especially when they are in the process
of evaluation for promotion, ignoring other types of production, such as
reports and books that can be useful for professional practice. This means
that they are principally interested in topics that they consider are more
suitable for journals.
There are many academics working on the area of public sector account-
ing and management. Topics and lines of research have always been related
to the normative and professional developments, such as innovations at
national and international levels. In fact, in recent decades the stream of
papers on Spanish public sector developments has intensified (Brusca
2010), and in many cases, they reflect both the reform process and the
evolution of public sector accounting and management research in the last
three decades.
24
Isabel Brusca
University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
88 L. FERRY ET AL.
The interests of academia and practitioners have evolved to some extent

in the same way and with mutual synergies. Researchers analyse solutions
and trends in different areas at the international level, such as international
harmonization, e-government and transparency, decentralization and con-
solidated reporting, management accounting, and sustainability report-
ing. These developments attract the attention of regulators and
practitioners that value contributions of academics and include some inno-
vations emerging from this research on the political agenda. At the same
time, reforms are included on the agenda of academics that want to value
the effect and usefulness of these innovations.
3.18.2
the Gap
Institutions and public administrations have frequently approached aca-
demics for assistance with the implementation of modernizing reforms.
For example, an academic research team was contracted by the Spanish
Association of Local Governments to help municipalities to introduce a
cost accounting system. The design and development of performance
indicators have also been carried out with the support of other research
teams.
There are also associations that contain practitioners and academics
working together towards improving public management. One example is
the Spanish Association of Accounting and Business Administration,
which has a Committee for the Public Sector. Members of the Committee
have varied origins in administrations, universities, and geographical areas.
The Committee produces some reports that contain recommendations for
accounting and management. Another relationship is the training of prac-
titioners and civil servants, as many training courses are delivered by
academics.
3.18.3
the Gap
Academics have also always had a good relationship with practitioners and
policy makers. Academics usually participate in debates and commissions
for reform of public sector accounting and management, and take part in
processes of regulation of the sector. The Accounting Standards Board for
the public sector has created several Commissions to analyse different
areas of reform, such as consolidated accounting, chart of accounts, per-

formance indicators, and management accounting. All of them have ben-
efited from the incorporation of academics that can offer a theoretical view
and participate in the debate about the implementation of these tools.
These Commissions have prepared several reports with recommendations
and conclusions for practice.
The contributions of Spanish academics to research on public sector
accounting and management often filter down to the world of practice
with an impact for practitioners. For instance, the Accounting Standards
Board and other regulators consider contributions of academics as valu-
able inputs for introducing innovations in areas as diverse as adoption of
IPSAS in Spain, the introduction of consolidated reporting, requirement
to publish performance indicators, and even the implementation of cost
accounting, which is currently the most prioritized development. The
typical role academics play is to highlight the value of accounting-based
reforms for improving management in the public sector.
3.18.4
An example of good practice is the contrast between the Spanish
Association of Accounting University Professors and some public and pro-
fessional institutions, whose objective is that professional associations of
accountants and auditors, and also the Accounting Standard Board should
make a public call for research in the topics that professionals and regula-
tors are interested in. There is a process of selection between all the pro-
posals, and the research team selected is commissioned for research in the
topic.
Furthermore, as we stated before, research contracts between public
administrations, represented by policy makers and practitioners, and aca-
demics are common in Spain. This can also be considered as an example of
good practice.
To summarize, it can be said there is a positive impact of academia on
practice and on the profession in Spain. Practitioners appreciate the
innovative ideas that academic research brings, and this helps to build
strong links between academia and practitioners. There are many con-
nections between academia and practitioners, and the gap between
research and practice is lower in public sector accounting than in the
business sector.
90 L. FERRY ET AL.
3.19 Research-Practice Gap on Accounting

in the Public Services in Thailand25

Economically, Thailand is a relatively successful developing country. It
experienced the world's highest economic growth rate from 1985 to 1996
averaging 12.4% annually. In 1997, the Asian financial crisis was triggered
after the uncovering of significant financial sector weaknesses in Thailand.
Economic growth for Thailand subsequently contracted, but picked up
again from the early 2000s. This was despite, over this period, political
uncertainty having an adverse impact on investor and consumer
confidence.
Over the past few decades, Thailand has made great efforts to improve
the quality of financial reporting. This includes progress to strengthen the
institutional framework of accounting and auditing, and to move towards
converging Thai national accounting and auditing standards with interna-
tional benchmarks. Part of such improvements is the role of universities,
and so there needs to be a continued development of accountancy curri-
cula and teaching in universities throughout the country.
However, accountability remains an issue and especially in the public
services. Administratively, Thailand is divided into 76 provinces with the
capital Bangkok being a specially-governed district. Each province is
divided into districts that are in turn divided into sub-districts. Within this
arrangement, public services are provided for a population of around 68
million. It is within this context that the research-practice gap in account-
ing for public services in Thailand needs to be considered.

the Gap
From our perspective, the still relatively weak regulatory framework demo-
tivates entities’ reporting practice and is an essential problem. Since 1997,
the legislation for public accountability, required by the World Bank in
bailing Thailand from its economic crisis, was initiated, and a small number
25
Wila Wongkaew, and Prae Keerasuntonpong
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
of regulations were followed, but the public accountability of the Thai

government has been criticized as ineffective. Keerasuntonpong,
Manowan, and Shutibhinyo (2017) look at the qualitative characteristics
of the Thai government departments’ 2015 annual reports—their timeli-
ness, reliability, relevance, and availability—as derived from the public sec-
tor accountability literature and find the annual reports to be below-standard
against international disclosure attributes and that these attributes are not
emphasized by the regulations. As a result, there is no comprehensive leg-
islation for public sector entities’ public accountability that would address
all of the attributes. Different individual regulations are stand-alone with-
out referencing one another, and they focus on one particular attribute.
Further, the enforcement for bureaucrats’ non-compliance is basically
non-existent. Bureaucrats who do not provide public annual reports are
not sanctioned. Nevertheless, some initiatives were introduced to pro-
mote the public accountability of public sector entities. The Comptroller
General’s Department (CGD) has issued performance indicators for pub-
lic sector entities, which include public monthly disclosures from the trial
balance of the accounts of the entity through many channels, for example,
websites. Yearly, the public entities are evaluated and ranked according to
the CGD KPI achievement.
Some of the attributes are addressed in the regulations and complied
with but a few need improvement. Corresponding to the CGD and the
Prime Minister’s Order, the majority of government departments are able
to have their own websites where they can disclose their performance
information. Among the total 162 departments, 151 departments (93%)
maintain websites and only 11 departments (7%) do not. Nevertheless,
there is no requirement for timeliness of the annual report or any perfor-
mance information to be made available. Such delay of the annual reports
may raise questions of the relevance of the information to public users to
evaluate the performance of their government department when the per-
formance disclosures are not available until more than a year later
(Keerasuntonpong et al. 2017). There was also no requirement that the
annual report disclosures to the public must be audited. The State Audit
Act (1979) only requires the Office of Auditor-General to audit the
Statement of Receipts and Payments, and Statement of Financial Status.
Provided there are more than 57,000 agencies to be audited, the Office of
Auditor-General has to select its audits randomly. Therefore, numerous
agencies have not been audited. Keerasuntonpong et al. (2017) found
that only four department 2015 annual reports were audited by the Office
of the Auditor-General.
92 L. FERRY ET AL.
Furthermore, in terms of adequacy of the public information, the and

the Prime Minister’s Order (2007) provide basic information require-
ments. Keerasuntonpong et al. (2017) found that most financial state-
ments (e.g. balance sheet and income statement), policy, and effectiveness
were well reported, while the cost per unit and financial statement analysis
is still poor. Spending information comparing past, current, and budget
period is moderately well disclosed. However, other budgeted financial
information to facilitate comparability is almost non-existent. This may be
due to its non-mandatory manner. Only 23 (14%) departments provide
adequate information. The best department—the Department of
Cooperatives Auditing—disclosed slightly more than half (60%) of the
required items.
3.19.3 The Role of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

To address the kinds of issues identified, engagement between academics
and practitioners can take various forms. In Thailand, accounting academ-
ics serve as members in various committees which play roles in accounting
standards and public policy settings. Accounting academics also provide
consulting services and training courses for governmental units. However,
relationships between accounting academic researchers and professional
practitioners are rather limited, primarily due to limited research on public
sector accounting. Several factors contribute to limited research on public
sector accounting. High student–staff ratio and high administrative work-
loads have an impact on accounting academics’ ability to conduct research.
In addition, research on public sector management is often considered a
domain of political science rather than the business school where the
accounting department resides. Moreover, lack of relevant and reliable
data impedes the conduct of public accounting research.
3.19.4
Nevertheless, despite the above challenges, there are windows of opportu-
nity. For example, from the above discussion, it is arguable that authorita-
tive enforcement for public sector public accountability plays a strong role
in the reporting practice of Thai public sector entities. Many disclosure
attributes which are not addressed in the requirements are being neglected.
Komutputipong and Keerasuntonpong (2017) support that legal enforce-
ment is a strong determinant for public sector entities to respond to the
public. Departments tend to discharge their accountability according to

legal requirements. Hence, to enhance timeliness, reliability, and adequacy
of public performance information, they need to be regulated. The avail-
ability of relevant and reliable information is one essential means to open
up research opportunities on public sector accounting and potentially nar-
row the research-practice gap.

in the Public Sector in the UK26
In the UK, academic–practitioner engagement takes many forms, includ-

ing answering calls for practice-oriented research, direct involvement with
planning processes, scrutiny work, acting as independents to give legiti-
macy to a process, and/or participating in policy forums.

The UK’s relatively large number of research-oriented universities (the
UK has 32 of the top 200 universities (THE 2017), second only to the
USA) coupled with an equally substantive public sector hints at the pos-
sibility that the two sectors could benefit from significant cooperation. But
the number of organizations involved makes the collaboration between
the two sectors complex, especially in fields such as accounting in the pub-
lic sector.
For institutions that have significant leadership roles in UK economic
policy making, such as the UK Treasury within central government, there
are cases where accounting and public sector academics have managed to
engage with practice, despite the challenges. Sir Andrew Likierman (London
Danny Chow
26
Durham University, Durham, UK

Hugh Coombs
University of South Wales, Wales, UK
Florian Gebreiter
Aston University, Birmingham, UK
Roy Hodges
Birmingham University, Birmingham, UK
Martin Jones, and Pete Murphy
Nottingham Trent, Nottingham, UK
94 L. FERRY ET AL.
Business School) is a prominent example, serving as the former Head of the

Government Accounting Service in leading the UK government sector from
cash to accruals-basis for financial reporting and budgeting. Laurence Ferry
(Durham University) has also been recently appointed as a Parliamentary
Academic Fellow 2018–2019, looking into public accountability.
However, despite the rarity of opportunities to work on large
accounting-based change projects given the prevalence of consulting firms
undertaking such roles, a number of government departments, local gov-
ernment, and other public service providers have managed to find other
mutually beneficial ways of working with accounting academics. Based on
our collective experience, we would suggest that the public sector sees the
value of different perspectives and technical skills that networking with
academics can bring (see also Humphrey and Miller 2012), although this
is not always a natural first port of call and neither is it universal. Numerous
opportunities, however, exist for academics to become involved with the
public service. Bodies like NHS Trusts, Local Government, and Housing
Associations, for example, need independent expertise, which academics
can bring. Coombs, for instance, has been advising the Welsh government
in the area of finance. Recruiting potentially at Board level, such organiza-
tions enable the researcher to build contacts at senior levels in a variety of
sectors and publish research output (within ethical guidelines) while at the
same time contributing to an organization’s development and bringing
the ‘real’ world into teaching.
Engagement at this level is represented by participation in forums or
calls for research. Most formalized types of engagement are those with
contractual obligations between academic departments and government,
such as research grants (e.g. ESRC; Leverhulme) or individual appoint-
ments to work with government. For example, Ferry and Murphy have
undertaken research with the National Audit Office (NAO) and Centre
for Public Scrutiny (CfPS).
3.20.2
the Gap
Political reforms in the UK have led to more decentralization, creating
devolved governments representing the smaller constituent countries that
make up the UK (Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland). This has led to
more opportunity for academics in these countries to build relatively close
links with officials and politicians due to the more compact network. For
example, Lapsley has undertaken work with the Scottish Parliament;

Hyndman with the Northern Ireland government; and Coombs with the
Welsh Government and local authorities. Some of these researchers have
also managed to establish research centres such as Hyndman at Belfast and
Lapsley at Edinburgh, who also developed the journal Financial
Accountability and Management (FAM). Broadbent was a long-serving
and influential editor of the journal Public Money and Management
(PMM), which explicitly serves to bridge the gap between practice and
academia. The Journal of Finance and Management in the Public Services
also operated for around 15 years to help develop new researchers in this
field. Both journals were originally supported and/or hosted by the pro-
fessional accounting body CIPFA.
3.20.3
the Gap
An area more conducive to fostering academic–practitioner engagement is
through more informal means of networking (as opposed to contractual
relationships) between both parties. At this level, significant networks exist
that contribute to government policy discourse. For instance, HM
Treasury has set up ad-hoc discussion forums involving academics (e.g.
Hodges, Chow, Humphrey, Ellwood) to debate matters of accounting
policy. Academics are also involved in committees advising on government
accounting standard setting process (Hodges at the Financial Reporting
Advisory Board) and effective workings of auditing and budgetary pro-
cesses (Heald as special advisor to the Public Accounts Commission). In
addition, some academics contribute to parliamentary committee calls for
evidence. For example, has a long record of contributing both written
evidence and making personal appearances in front of parliamentary com-
mittees. Academia and practitioners in the UK also engage with the
accounting profession on public sector issues; Broadbent and Laughlin’s
long series of papers and attendance at professionally oriented events are
an enduring testimony to this. In Wales, Coombs and Andrews have acted
as independent members of the Distribution Sub Group for the local
authority revenue support grant formula of the Welsh Government and
Welsh Local Government Association. They produce an annual report on
the process of distributing some £4bn annually to the 22 Welsh local
authorities for ministers and other interested parties.
96 L. FERRY ET AL.

It is important to recognize that even if opportunities for formal collabo-
ration are limited due to institutional silos, political expediency, and differ-
ent working patterns (immediacy for practitioners versus reflexivity for
academics), engagement can occur between institutions that are set up to
bridge the gap, at less formal levels, and/or on a smaller scale. For exam-
ple, professional bodies engage formally by funding practitioner-oriented
research conducted principally by academics (see contributions by CIPFA,
CIMA, and ACCA elsewhere in the book). In Wales, under the Diamond
Review (paras. 20–22), a support system was proposed by the Review
Panel (2016) to support knowledge transfer funded by the Welsh
Government and Welsh Higher Education Funding Council. This invest-
ment was seen as being required to ensure that the research and knowl-
edge generated in universities provide maximum benefit to the economy
and society of Wales.
At a less formal level, networking events help bring together people
from government, academia, and the professions. Professional bodies also
serve as a conduit for those moving between academia, government, and
the private sector. If academics are former practitioners, or have been
involved in training within the public sector, they are likely to have estab-
lished networks that can be tapped into and from which new opportunities
can be developed. The various professional bodies also publish calls for
research proposals, which may also boost research collaborative activity
opportunities.
From the viewpoint of UK academia, a key obstacle to further engage-
ment with practitioners, despite potential opportunities, is the challenges
in trying to meet the research priorities imposed by the ‘Research
Excellence Framework’ (REF), with academic rigour and practitioner
relevance both expected. This need comes in an environment where
increasing student numbers amongst the UK’s research-led universities
has placed additional and conflicting pressures on academic research
staff. Additionally, an unintended consequence, despite the REF’s met-
rics encouraging practitioner engagement, is an undue and continued
focus on research of a more theoretical nature in the intense competition
to publish in the most prestigious journals. Van Helden and Northcott
(2010) for example note the declining number of papers published in the
best accounting journals that are explicitly of practical relevance. The

lack of clarity on the extent to which ‘engagement’ and/or ‘impact’ are
used as a promotional metric is a significant barrier to those working at
research-focused universities, although it is likely those that can achieve
‘impact’ (and not merely engagement) will become a sought-after
commodity.

in the Public Sector in the USA27

As others have noted, academic and practitioner engagement on proj-
ects of mutual interest can take many forms from direct policy evalua-
tion down to advising on best practices on technical matters like cost
allocation practices. In the US context, the federalist governmental
structure means that most of this engagement happens at the local level.
Of course, there are exceptions to this observation, like Harvard
University’s Robert Anthony and his long-term association with the
federal government, but the majority of engagement between academics
and practitioners in the USA takes place between local governments and
their local academics. This highly devolved government structure and
the variation in accounting practices have created challenges and oppor-
tunities for academic–practitioner engagement on questions of mutual
interest.
What needs to be stated foremost about accounting practices in the
USA is that they are not homogenous among the states. Accounting prac-
tices vary significantly with some states like North Carolina requiring
compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) by all
local units of government, other states like Arkansas prescribing a homog-
enous regulatory basis of accounting, still other states like Kansas allowing
variation in regulatory basis and GAAP, and others like Oklahoma allow-
ing other comprehensive basis of accounting (OCBOA). This accounting
standards variation makes a comprehensive treatment of government
accounting very difficult.
27
Zachary Mohr
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
98 L. FERRY ET AL.

the Gap
On the positive side, this variation in accounting has allowed some inter-
esting analyses of important topics such as the benefits of GAAP. For
example, Baber and Gore (2008) show that municipalities that use GAAP
have debt issuances that cost between 13 and 25 basis points less than
municipalities that do not. These findings are not trivial as they show that
there are real financial benefits from governments complying with
GAAP. However, when we look at the reasons for GAAP adoption, it is
most often adopted for reasons of professionalism (Khumawhala et al.
2014). Therefore, issues of professionalism, organizational culture, and
state law may be more important to understanding the use of GAAP
among local governments relative to purely economic reasons. However,
accounting practitioners in states that do allow variation, like Kansas, note
that part of the issue with why they do not follow GAAP is the perceived
cost.

the Gap
Academics that study government cost accounting can further under-
standing of this problem by focusing on what Carroll and Marlowe (2009)
refer to as the gap in our knowledge about GAAP, or the GAAP gap.
Unfortunately, the majority of states that allow significant variation in
accounting practice are like Kansas in that they are not big or historically
important places. Instead, they are some of the poorer states that are not
terribly interesting to an academic community that is more concerned in
making generalizations than in studying interesting deviations.
Furthermore, because these states often do not require standard account-
ing procedures, they often do not even require the local units of govern-
ment to provide them with an audit. This situation is very much a ‘Wild
West’ mentality, but it would provide an excellent area for accounting
academics to work with practitioners on important case studies.
Furthermore, academics should be encouraged to publish results or pre-
liminary results in practitioner journals and blogs that can invite practitio-
ner feedback.
The most important institutional force on government accounting at

the local level in the USA is state law. The majority of states require that
local units of government use GAAP-based accounting. For example,
Mohr and Esterle (2017) found that 30 states required county govern-
ments to produce GAAP-based accounting statements. However, this
means that a significant amount do not require GAAP, and we know very
little about what this has done to the long-term finances, accounting cul-
ture, and professionalism of these governments. A history of why some
states have provided leeway in accounting practices is beyond the scope of
this chapter, but interesting work for academics and practitioners could be
a contemporary history of this issue.
Another institutional force that needs to be brought into this discus-
sion is the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), which pro-
mulgates GAAP for state and local governments. While the GFOA has
academics on its board, their focus is on providing better standards for
governments that already follow GAAP. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
this has resulted in declines in membership for practitioners in states that
do not require GAAP, which could result in a loss of professionalism
among the accounting staff of local governments that are not required to
follow GAAP.

3.21.4
One of the best examples of academic–practitioner engagement in this
area is the State of North Carolina and the faculty at the University of
North Carolina School of Government (UNC-SOG). North Carolina
requires its local governments to produce GAAP financial statements and
collects comprehensive information about actual expenditures by its local
governments. To help these governments with these requirements and the
professional development required, the UNC-SOG requires its faculty to
work with local governments to provide training, professional develop-
ment opportunities, and direct research assistance. To the extent that
grants for this type of engagement are rare, making it a requirement of the
job to work with practitioners may be a way to further increase academic
engagement with practitioners, but this needs to be reflected in academic
evaluations that are still heavily dependent on publications in top, peer-
reviewed journals.
100 L. FERRY ET AL.
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

(ACCA)
An International Analysis of the Research-Practice Gap

on Accounting in the Public Services28
CCA View of What Affects the Research-Practice Gap

A
The relationship between academic research, policy making, and impact
on various professions has always been important in driving original and
innovative thinking. The accounting profession in the public sector is no
different.
ACCA produces a number of global thought leadership insights every
year, and our team of internal experts is supplemented with experts from
the profession, practice, and academia. This mix ensures our insights bal-
ance the needs of our members with pure academic research that seeks to
push boundaries. Academics are involved in various ways at ACCA, pri-
marily through our global forum network—including the global forum
for the public sector.
ACCA often commissions academics to conduct research or to assess
any internal research conducted as a ‘critical friend’ before wider publica-
tion. ACCA also has a strong research function completing many surveys
of its members and trainees—with a global reach extending over 180
countries, 200,000 members, and nearly half a million students—which
offers a rich and diverse data source.
From ACCA’s experience in operating between practitioners and aca-
demics, we are able to perceive a few key drivers of the research-practice
gap. First, many professional accountants working in the public sector do
not have access to the academic content that is published in their field.
Academic journals and published work are primarily accessed through uni-
versity credentials and are not easily accessed by public sector practitio-
ners, who will be required to make a business case to spend public funds
on accessing academic content. Furthermore, for public sector practitio-
ners that are able to access certain academic material, it can be difficult for
them to apply the conceptual thinking and academic writing to their day-
to-day work.
The time horizons for the publication of academic research often do
not align with the needs of professional accountants in the public sector.
28
Alex Metcalfe
Head of Public Sector Policy, ACCA
Clearly, it takes time to conduct insightful research, and this may not fit
easily with the policy making agenda. Once research has been conducted,
it needs to undergo the rigour of peer review and publication in appropri-
ate academic journals, all of which contribute to delaying the availability
of the work to relevant practitioners. This is further exacerbated by the
fact that most practitioners are focussed on the short-term, operational
needs of their organization and will find it difficult to engage with aca-
demic output that can have comparatively longer completion.
Finally, the resources and viewpoints of academics and practitioners
diverge. Though a simplification, typically, academics are concept rich and
data poor—while practitioners in the public sector often have access to
substantial datasets, but are concept and idea poor. In many ways, these
differences speak to the significant opportunities that exist for academics
and practitioners that are willing to commit to bridging the research-
practice gap.
he Role of Institutions in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

T
Practitioners need to be honest with their limitations and only present
findings that they can properly interpret. The risk of misrepresentation of
research results also extends to practitioners that are looking to support a
particular political imperative.
There are also issues of capability and capacity. Governments may not
have the capacity or capability (e.g. knowledge of different qualitative and
quantitative methodological techniques) to ensure results and interpreta-
tions are based on appropriate methodologies. Current civil service reform
programmes are looking to external policy think tanks and other academic
commentators as core to government’s policy reform agenda, which has
typically been the domain of policy leads in the civil service.
he Roles of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

T
Policy making does not easily fit into the production time of most aca-
demic work, although the rigour that the research undergoes adds to the
value of the published insights. Second, academic articles are (often mis-
takenly) seen as inaccessible by practitioners as they are required to be
written in a certain way for an academic audience, and may need translat-
ing into a different tone for policy makers and others to digest. For aca-
demics to help narrow the gap, they should consider—as part of their
research projects—producing timely results that are accessible to a wider,
more practical, audience.
102 L. FERRY ET AL.
xamples of Good Practice

E
There are many examples where academics have had a significant impact
on government policy and practice. For instance, Sir Andrew Likiermann
was instrumental in the UK central government’s move to implement
accruals accounting. This has continued to evolve and is brought together
into one of the world’s largest (and arguably the most comprehensive)
whole of government accounts (WGA) consolidation.
Many public sector organizations are data rich and could benefit from
the academic rigour and insight that can be applied to these datasets. The
UK Government’s work in consolidating public data on data.gov.uk has
created a platform for academics to engage with detailed public sector
datasets. At the same time, the exercise of consolidating public data has
promoted Government officials to bring more data into the public domain,
with a coalition government commitment to ‘open (data) by default’.
Finally, there are cases of effective collaboration in Government bodies
that employ academics on their boards or committees. For example, the
Financial Reporting Advisory Board comprises an independent chair and
members, as well as academics, preparers, and representatives from the
preparer communities, the NAO, and HM Treasury.
Clearly there are challenges to overcome to further improve linkages
between academic and practitioner communities. Despite these chal-
lenges, academia will continue to have an important role in the develop-
ment of thought leadership, and their analytic rigour adds value to
implementing best practices for public sector accountants.
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants

(CIMA)29
Specific Features That Affect the Research-Practice Gap

from CIMA’s Perspective
As a representative of professional accounting institutes, CIMA has a role
to play as conduit for academic research. Regular engagement with aca-
demics helps ensure that our syllabus is relevant for business. In addition,
this engagement helps promote management accounting, which is
29
Rebecca McCaffry
Public Sector Research, CIMA
important for sustaining its continuing relevance to employers and edu-

cational institutions.
As representatives of accountants in business, we have a particular
interest in business-focused research, a market dominated by consul-
tants, whose industry is worth around £6bn in the UK alone. From a
practitioner perspective, consultants are perceived as adding solutions,
understanding, and predictions to the problem at hand. Academics,
however, are perceived as adding complexity. In addition, academics
often avoid making recommendations, resulting in work that lacks prac-
tical impact.
CIMA’s academic programme is designed to promote and develop
the science of management accountancy as stipulated in our Royal
Charter. We have formal mechanisms of engaging with academic
researchers, through sponsorship of academic conferences around the
world and funding academic research topics of interest to CIMA mem-
bers through our grants scheme. In addition, we co-sponsor the Impact
on Practice award, presented annually at the AAA, for academic work
judged to have the greatest potential impact on management account-
ing practice.
We are pleased that an increasing number of CIMA members and other
professional accountants have joined academia and believe those willing
and able to balance practitioner understanding with academic rigour will
have a significant role to play in developing accessible, insightful, and
impactful academic research in all sectors.

As a professional accountancy institute, CIMA aims to ensure its syllabus
and assessments help bridge the gap between education and employment,
and our syllabus reviews are where we see fruitful interaction between
business (as employers of management accountants) and academia.
During this extended process, we ask employers to identify their business
challenges; the performance they require to meet those challenges; and
finally, the skills and competencies they require people to perform, to help
organizations meet those business challenges. CIMA then works with aca-
demics and educators, to help translate those practical competencies into
educational learning outcomes. They are then placed into appropriate
104 L. FERRY ET AL.
academic levels and linked to levels of the CIMA syllabus. We also work
with academics, as well as practitioners and psychometricians, in develop-
ing rigorous, robust, and appropriate assessments. In working with aca-
demics and their partners in industry, we can share insights to help frame
the next generation of professional accountants.
Through our accreditation programme, we work with over 1,300 uni-
versities across 110 countries, engaging with academics from a range of
specialisms, who often come from a background in industry. We accredit
some 5,000 accounting, finance, and business programmes to provide a
faster track for their graduates to CGMA status. The increased range of
students joining leads to a diverse and multitalented membership base.
As part of our wider research programme, we aim to build a bridge
between academia and practice to ensure research is more relevant to prac-
titioners. The challenge is to find topics and research methods that fit the
criteria of both sides, balancing academic rigour with demands of the
wider audience.

CIMA wants academic research to achieve its A* journal ambition and
recognizes increasing pressure on academics from vice-chancellors to
achieve this level of publication. Funding and editorship issues mean that
most academic research is aimed at high-grade journals, and this often
necessitates a ‘traditional’ approach and presentation that vastly differ
from the way the majority of today’s practitioners consume information.
The big question is how to balance academic rigour with mass-market
appeal, without ‘dumbing down’. A new method of dissemination needs
to emerge in which abstracts and conclusions are translated into accessible,
impactful information.
While there is a great deal of relevant experimental research, the way it
is presented often renders it unattractive to practice. Practitioners find
heavily theoretical work and language difficult to engage with, preferring
‘real life’ case study examples covering a range of topics. Currently, we find
much academic research focuses on behavioural studies and incentives,
ignoring topics such as strategic planning, budgeting, decision-making,
cost accounting, and cost estimation. Yet we hear from our government
and public sector stakeholders that these are the areas that need to be
addressed.
Academic research has the rigour and independence to make a differ-

ence to this sector, but at present its lack of, and unwillingness to address,
accessibility is creating barriers to impact. CIMA believes that adopting a
more integrated and inclusive approach, which addresses the needs of all
audiences, would address this issue.

CIMA awards research grants based on academic rigour, quality, original-
ity, and practical benefit to our members. Recent work relating to the
public sector and non-profits includes:
Impact assessment in a non-government organization (2017)

Demands for funding accountability require professionalized impact
assessment. The report suggests an organization-wide approach to
demonstrate value externally and improve internal decision-making.
Management control systems in public networks (2016)
Public collaborative networks can help address challenges in public service
delivery. Packages of control mechanisms play an important role in
building collaboration and supporting goal achievement.
Governmental financial resilience under austerity: the case of English local
authorities (2015)
Post 2008, the language of resilience became fundamental to success.
Over a 10-year period, two main approaches to financial resilience are
identified.
Financial performance of SOEs in emerging economies (2012)
Examines the factors that have contributed to the poor financial perfor-
mance of SOEs, identifies shortcomings in financial management sys-
tems, and suggests measures for improvement.
Assessing the effectiveness of NHS budgeting (2011)
Examines the complex nature of budgetary and associated financial sys-
tems, providing a checklist for effectiveness of budgeting systems.
Costing in the National Health Service: from reporting to managing
(2010).
Highlights potential benefits and pitfalls of costing tools, developing the
evidence base by making clear the reasons underlying their effectiveness.
106 L. FERRY ET AL.
Chartered Institute of Public Finance

and Accountancy (CIPFA)30
Specific Features That Affect the Research-Practice Gap

from CIPFA’s Perspective
It was recently announced in the press that a prominent academic would
spearhead a revitalized London Finance Commission to identify a wide-
ranging suite of devolution opportunities including powers to use taxation
generated locally. This is one of a number of examples where academics
and practitioner communities come together to collaborate and innovate
in key public policy areas, in this case city devolution.
Over the years, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy (CIPFA), the professional accountancy body for finance pro-
fessionals working within the public sector across the globe, has collabo-
rated with academia in a number of ways to shape policy, share insights,
and develop practice in relation to public financial management. As far
back as the 1980s, CIPFA has developed effective and sustainable working
relationships with academia to explore the evolution of public manage-
ment and the application of accounting concepts and techniques. These
collaborations, supported by evidence-based research and exchange of
ideas and information, have helped shape the accounting practices for
public finances that are applied today.
The Public Money and Management (PMM) journal is a good example
of a CIPFA-sponsored international, academic, and professional journal
covering public sector finance, policy, and management. Academics and
practitioners alike review articles jointly to ensure credibility, relevance,
and impact. For over 30 years, it has published articles on new and emerg-
ing areas; for example, in a recent edition, it sought articles on sustain-
ability reporting in the public sector. This is an area where there is little
academic research opposed to the wealth of research on sustainability
reporting in the corporate sector.

In relation to the professional accountancy world more broadly, there
have been many collaborations between universities and the profession in
30
Gillian Fawcett
Head of International, CIPFA
topical research areas across a broad range of public financial management

subjects, such as implementation of PPPs, effectiveness of parliamentary
financial scrutiny, and so on. They have helped inform policy debate and
at times led to a change in policy. Other high-profile bodies such as
Financial Reporting Advisory Board (FRAB) in the UK, which oversees
financial reporting developments across government, also benefit from
academic input and insights and have an academic on the Board.

The relationship between academics and the accountancy profession is
evolving and collaborating in new and innovative ways. Most recently,
parliamentary select committees in England have welcomed having two
independent advisors to support their inquiries from both the practitioner
and academic communities. The former bringing practical knowledge and
experience about application and implementation of policy, and the latter
bringing expertise and evidenced-based research relating to the policy area
under discussion. For example, following the abolition of the Audit
Commission, the House of Commons Select Committee on Communities
and Local Government held an inquiry into the future of local govern-
ment audit, which was supported by Ron Hodges and myself. The benefits
of such a dual approach were that parliamentarians were better briefed and
informed on issues affecting the local government audit landscape, as well
as having access and knowledge to research and current academic thinking
on public audit. Both sets of skills complemented one another and sup-
ported committee members in having a more robust inquiry. This was the
first time that a parliamentary select committee had made joint appoint-
ments, and because of its success, the model was implemented by a num-
ber of other House of Commons Select Committees.

However, there have been academic and practice gaps. These have mani-
fested themselves in different ways. For example, in development of
EPSAS, the academic voice has been less prominent. Academia’s response
to a Eurostat public consultation on the governance of EPSAS was negli-
gible. Out of 203 respondents, 194 were from EU countries with the
remainder from public bodies and associations. The development of
EPSAS standards is an area where you would perhaps expect the academic
community to have a view and guide accounting standards developments.
108 L. FERRY ET AL.
Also, there are areas where you would expect to find evidenced-based
research on issues such as who are the users of financial reports and how
are they being used, but surprisingly little international research has been
carried out. This is an example of one area that would benefit from further
research so practitioners can get a better understanding of user needs and
begin to stimulate the demand side for information.
There is little doubt that stronger links between practitioners and aca-
demia will help in the development of public financial management, and
in particular in new and emerging areas such as integrated reporting, find-
ing solutions for financial resilience, and so on. By bringing academic
rigour and practical experience together, we can have more effective policy
making on public financial management well into the future.
References
Agbedia, C., Okoronkwo, I., Onokayeigho, E., & Agbo, M. A. (2014). Nurses’
perspective of the research-practice gap in nursing. Open Journal of Nursing,
4(02), 95–100.
Albu, C. N., & Albu, N. (2012). Accounting tradition in Romania: Challenges
and opportunities in a changing environment. EAA Newsletter, 2, 16–19.
Arnaboldi, M. (2013). Consultant-researchers in public sector transformation: An
evolving role. Financial & Accountability Management, 29(2), 140–160.
Arquero, J. L., Jiménez, S. M., & Laffarga, J. (2016). Perceived usefulness of aca-
demic accounting research. The opinion of academics and practitioners. Spanish
Asiyai, R. I. (2013). Challenges of quality in higher education in Nigeria in the
21st century. International Journal of Educational Planning & Administration,
3(2), 159–172.
Ayee, J. (2013). Public administrators under democratic governance in Ghana.
International Journal of Public Administration, 36(6), 440–452.
Baber, W., & Gore, A. (2008). Consequences of GAAP disclosure regulation:
Evidence from municipal debt issues. The Accounting Review, 83(3), 565–592.
Bawole, J. N., Farhad, H., Domfeh, K. A., Bukari, H. Z., & Sanyyari, F. (2013).
Performance appraisal or praising performance? The culture of rhetoric in per-
formance management in Ghana civil service. International Journal of Public
Administration, 36, 953–962.
Blum, J., & Brans, M. (2017). Academic policy analysis and research utilisation in
policymaking. In M. Brans, M. Howlett, & I.-G. May (Eds.)., (red.), Handbook
comparative policy analysis. London: Routledge.
Botes, V. L., & Sharma, U. (2017). A gap in management accounting education:
Fact or fiction. Pacific Accounting Review, 29(1), 107–126.
Bozionelos, N. (2014). Careers patterns in Greek academia: Social capital and

intelligent careers, but for whom? Career Development International, 19(3),
264–294.
Braun, C., Fenger, M., P, `t Hart, van der Veer, J., & Verheij, T. (2017). Quo
vadis, Nederlandse Bestuurskunde? In P. Karré, T. Schillemans, M. van der
Steen, & Z. van der Wal (Eds.)., (red.), Toekomst van de Bestuurskunde
(pp. 35–50). Deh Haag: Boombestuurskunde.
Broadbent, J., & Guthrie, J. (1992). Changes in the public sector: A review of
recent ‘alternative’ accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and
Brusca, I. (2010). Thirty years of research in public sector accounting and
Management in Spain. Spanish Accounting Review, 13(2), 175–209.
Caria, A., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2014). The evolution of financial accounting in
Portugal since the 1960s: A new institutional economics perspective. Accounting
History, 19(1–2), 227–252.
Carroll, D., & Marlowe, J. (2009). Is there a ‘GAAP Gap’? A politico-economic
model of municipal accounting policy. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting
& Financial Management, 21(4), 501.
Central Bank of Malaysia. (2017). Governor’s remarks at the International Shari’ah
Research Academy for Islamic Finance Alumni Hi-Tea. http://www.bnm.gov.
my/index.php?ch=en_speech&pg=en_speech&ac=756. Accessed 20 Nov
2017.
Cepiku, D. (2011). Two ships passing in the night? Practice and academia in pub-
lic management. Public Money & Management, 31(2), 131–138. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09540962.2011.560711.
CGU. (2018). Relatório de Ouvidoria Ativa no Programa Nacional de Alimentação
Escolar no Estado do Pará. 28pp. http://www.ouvidorias.gov.br/arquivos/
relatorio-ouvidoria-ativa-pnae-para-fase-3-1.pdf
Christensen, M., & Skærbæk, P. (2010). Consultancy outputs and the purification
of accounting technologies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(5),
524–545.
Costa, G. (2015). A investigação, o ensino e a prática da contabilidade em Portugal:
A sua relação e perceção. Presented at the 1st seminar on accounting, School of
Economics and Management, University of Minho, 13 November/Braga,
Portugal.
De Onzoño, I. S., & Carmona, S. (2016). The academic triathlon – Bridging the
agora and academia. Journal of Management Development, 35(7), 854–865.
Elm-Larsen, R. (2001). Offentligt regnskab og revision- Et dansk og international
perspektiv. Copenhagen: Forlaget Thomson.
Elm-Larsen, R. (2010). Offentlig revision- Empiri og teori. New York: Thomson
Reuters.
Evans, E., Burritt, R., & Guthrie, J. (Eds.). (2010). Accounting education at a
crossroad in 2010, Academic leadership series (Vol. 1). Sydney: The Institute of
110 L. FERRY ET AL.
Chartered Accountants in Australia and the Centre for Accounting, Governance

and Sustainability.
Evans, E., Burritt, R., & Guthrie, J. (Eds.). (2011). Bridging the gap between aca-
demic accounting research and professional practice, Academic leadership series
(Vol. 2). Sydney: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and the
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability.
EY, Task 2 – Findings on the long-term benefits of EPSAS and public accounting
harmonisation, Final Report, November 2017. https://circabc.europa.eu/
sd/a/c59c1ba2-6c9b-4051-9a65-3ed2e67b74ca/Item%207%20-%20
Collection%20of%20information%20related%20to%20the%20potential%20
impacts%20of%20EPSAS.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2017.
Eyraud, C. (2016). Comptabilité publique (réforme). Une comptabilité
d’entreprise pour l’Etat français (XXe s.–XXIe s.). In Dictionnaire historique de
comptabilité des entreprises (pp. 145–151). Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universi-
taires du Septentrion.
Feijó, P. H. (2013). Entendendo as mudanças na contabilidade aplicada ao setor
público (224pp). Brasília: Gestão Pública. isbn:978-85-62880-02-5.
Frissen, P., & van Twist, M. (2010). Bestuurskundige advisering als avontuur. In
H. Aardema, W. Derksen, M. Herweijer, & P. de Jong (Eds.)., (red.),
Meerwaarde van de bestuurskunde: Liber Amirocum voor prof. dr. Arno
F.A. Korsten (pp. 37–47). Den Haag: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.
Gendron, Y., & Bédard, J. (2001). Academic auditing research: An exploratory
investigation into its usefulness. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(3),
339–368.
Greve, C. (2003). Public sector reform in Denmark: Organizational transforma-
tion and evaluation. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 3, 269–280.
Greve, C., Flinders, M., & Van Thiel, S. (1999). Quangos—What’s in a name?
Defining Quangos from a comparative perspective. Governance, 12(2), 129–146.
Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (2016). Whither the accounting profession, accoun-
tants and accounting researchers? Commentary and projections. Accounting,
Guthrie, J., Olson, O., & Humphrey, C. (1997). Public financial management
changes in OECD nations. Advances in International Comparative
Management, Supplement, 3, 255–269.
Guthrie, J., Parker, L., & English, L. (2003). A review of new public financial
management change in Australia. In Barton, A (ed.), Australian Accounting
Review 13(2), 3–9.
Guthrie, J., Evans, E., & Burritt, R. (2014). Australian accounting academics:
Challenges and possibilities. Meditari Accountancy Research, 22(1), 20–37.
Guthrie, J., Evans, E., & Burritt, R. (Eds.). (2017). Improving collaboration and
innovation between industry and business schools in Australia, Academic lead-
ership series (Vol. 8). Sydney: Chartered Accountants Australia and New
Zealand.
Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: From ‘speaking truth to
power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201–210.
Humphrey, C., & Gendron, Y. (2015). What is going on? The sustainability of
accounting academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 47–66.
Humphrey, C. G., & Miller, P. (2012). Rethinking impact and redefining respon-
sibility: The parameters and coordinates of accounting and public management
reforms. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(2), 295–327.
Jones, R. (2017). Enlightenment through engagement? The potential contribu-
tion of greater engagement between researchers and practitioners. Accounting
Education, 26(5/6), 414–430.
Keerasuntonpong, P., & Komutputipong, N. (2017). Accountability stakeholders
of Thai government. Paper presented at the American Accounting Association
2017, San Diego, USA.
Keerasuntonpong, P., Manowan, P., & Shutibhinyo, W. (2017). Public account-
ability of Thai central government. Paper presented at the 21st international
research society on public management conference, Corvinus University of
Budapest.
Khumawala, S., Marlowe, J., & Neely, D. (2014). Accounting professionalism and
local government GAAP adoption: A national study. Journal of Public
Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 26(1), 292–312.
KPMG. (2017). Governments look to unlock the funding paradigm. https://home.
kpmg.com/tn/en/home/industries/government-public-sector.html
LOLF. (2001). Loi organique n° 2001–692 from August 1st 2001. Modified version
retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/
Lüder, K. (1999). Konzeptionelle Grundlagen des Neuen Kommunalen
Rechnungswesens (Speyerer Verfahren). Schriftenreihe des Innenministeriums
Baden-Württemberg zum kommunalen Haushalts- und Rechnungswesen, Heft,
6, 1999.
Lüder, K. (2001). Neues öffentliches Haushalts- und Rechnungswesen
Anforderungen, Konzept, Perspektiven.
Machado, N. (2002). Sistema de Informação de custo: diretrizes para integração ao
orçamento público e à contabilidade governamental. Thesis. São Paulo
University. 221pp. http://www.socialiris.org/antigo/imagem/boletim/
arq5533ffd3aed73.pdf
Martin-Sardesai, A., Irvine, H., Tooley, S., & Guthrie, J. (2017). Organizational
change in an Australian university: Responses to a research assessment exercise.
The British Accounting Review, 49(4), 399–412.
Meszarits, V., & Saliterer, I. (2013). Die Haushaltsrechtsreform des Bundes –
Ausgangspunkt oder Zielkorridor für eine neue Voranschlags – und
Rechnungsabschlussverordnung. Zeitschrift für Recht und Rechnungswesen,
7(8), 43–59.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2017). State capitalizes universities with 150
million euros. http://minedu.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_publisher/vastinraha
112 L. FERRY ET AL.
Mohr, Z., & Esterle, M. (2017). State Collection of County Financial Data Sources.
deathandtaxes.sog.unc.edu
Montesinos, V. M. (1998). Accounting and business economics in Spain. European
Moya, S., Prior, D., & Rodríguez-Pérez, G. (2015). Performance-based incentives
and the behavior of accounting academics: Responding to changes. Accounting
Education, 24(3), 208–232.
Nakpodia, F., & Adegbite, E. (2017). Corporate governance and elites. Accounting
Forum, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2017.11.002.
Niven, P. R. (2002). Balanced scorecard step-by-step: Maximizing performance and
maintaining results. Hoboken: Wiley.
Ohemeng, F. L. K. (2011). Institutionalizing the performance management sys-
tem in public organizations in Ghana. Public Performance and Management
Review, 34(4), 467–488.
Ohemeng, F. K., & Anebo, F. K. (2012). The politics of administrative reforms in
Ghana: Perspectives from path dependency and punctuated equilibrium theo-
ries. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(3), 161–176.
Olson, O., Humphrey, C., & Guthrie, J. (2001). Caught in an Evaluatory trap:
The dilemma of public services under NPFM. European Accounting Review,
10(3), 505–522.
Osagie, R. O. (2012). Federal government funding in universities in Nigeria, the
University of Benin as a case study. International Education Studies, 5(6),
73–79.
Parker, L. D. (2005). Corporate governance crisis down under post-Enron
accounting education and research inertia. European Accounting Review, 14(2),
383–394.
Parker, L. D. (2007). Financial and external reporting research: The broadening
corporate governance challenge. Accounting & Business Research, 37(1),
39–54.
Parker, L. (2012). From privatised to hybrid corporatised higher education: A
global financial management discourse. Financial Accountability and
Management, 28(3), 247–268.
Parker, L. D. (2013). Contemporary university strategising: The financial impera-
tive. Financial Accountability & Management, 29(1), 1–25.
Pearson, D. (2010). Auditor-General, Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, Level
24, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000 dated 28 September
2010, Letter from.
Rauskala, I., & Saliterer, I. (2015). Public sector accounting and auditing in
Austria. In I. Brusca, E. Caperchione, S. Cohen, & F. Manes Rossi (Eds.),
Public sector accounting and auditing in Europe. The challenge of harmonization
(pp. 12–26). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rezende, F., Cunha, A., & Cardoso, R. L. (2010). Custos no setor público
(Editorial). RAP, 44(4), 789–90. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.
php/rap/article/view/6948/5515
Rolfo, S., & Finardi, U. (2014). University third mission in Italy: Organization,
faculty attitude and academic specialization. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
39(3), 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9284-5.
Silva, L. M. (2004). Contabilidade Governamental (7th ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.,
385pp. isbn:85-224-3911-7.
Skærbæk, P. (2005). Annual reports as interaction devices : The hidden construc-
tions of mediated communication. Financial Accountability & Management,
21(4), 385–411.
Skærbæk, P., & Tryggestad, K. (2010). The role of accounting devices in perform-
ing strategy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 108–124.
Steger, G. (2010). Austria’s budget reform: How to create consensus for a decisive
change of fiscal rules. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 10(1), 7–20.
The Malaysian Reserve. (2017). Bridging the gap between theory and actual prac-
tice. https://themalaysianreserve.com/2017/10/30/bridging-gap-theory-
actual-practice/. Accessed 23 Nov 2017.
Times Higher Education. (2017). World University Rankings 2016–2017. https://
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/world-university-rankings-
2016-2017-results-announced. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
Times Higher Education, World University Rankings. (2018). https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/world-rank-
ing#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
Tucker, B., & Parker, L. D. (2014). In our ivory towers? The research-practice gap
in management accounting: An academic perspective. Accounting and Business
Research, 44(2), 104–143.
Van Helden, G. J., & Northcott, D. (2010). Examining the practical relevance of
public sector management accounting research. Financial Accountability &
Management, 26(2), 213–240.
Van Poelje, G. A. (1942). Algemene inleiding tot de bestuurskunde. Alphen aan de
Rijn: Samson.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public
Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431.
Welsh Government. The review of higher education funding and student finance
arrangements in Wales (diamond review), September 2016.
Wolf, E. E. A., & Van Dooren, W. (2017). How policies become contested: A
spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project. Policy
Sciences, 50, 1–20.
CHAPTER 4
We Build Too Many Walls and Not Enough

Bridges
Abstract This chapter takes a holistic approach to the observations docu-

mented by our authors and considers the implications of these collective
reflections in terms of actions or beliefs that may be attributable to a nar-
rowing of the divide between academic research and its use in practice. In
particular, we develop an interpretive framework that may help make sense
of the research-practice gap on a global scale, and which provides direc-
tions that have as their aim a closer engagement between research and the
practice of public sector administration as it applies to accounting, man-
agement, or management accounting.

Basil Tucker
Laurence Ferry
Iris Saliterer
Ileana Steccolini

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1_4
116 L. FERRY ET AL.
4.1 Overview
Our journey of discovery of the research gap as it applies to Public Sector
Management has taken us across 21 countries, 6 continents, as seen from
the perspective of 46 researchers and 3 of the leading international profes-
sional accounting bodies. What have we learned from this expedition and
what are the implications for academic research to become a closer com-
panion to practice? In this chapter, we reflect on our contributors’ obser-
vations about the ways in which academic research can, does, and should
inform public sector management/accounting, and the implications of
these commentaries from a research perspective. The overall theme for our
reflection on the contributing authors is encapsulated in part of the title of
this chapter. Attributed to Sir Isaac Newton by Dominique Pire in his
1958 Nobel Lecture upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, the relation-
ship between academic research and the practice of public sector manage-
ment across the countries considered is indeed characterized by a landscape
exemplified by the erection of walls, rather than the construction of
bridges.
Our ‘roadmap’ for this chapter commences with a brief review of the
major themes that have been highlighted as salient between countries. We
then turn our attention to theorizing a broader way in which the divide
between research and practice may be conceptualized, and which offers
some guidance for researchers seeking to bridge the research-practice gap
and the benefits and costs in so doing.
4.2 Global Themes

Immediately apparent from the accounts provided by our contributors is
that the research-practice gap is a prevailing concern in all the countries
canvassed in this book. In all geographic locations we have considered,
the existence of a divide between research and practice was noted. In the
majority of these countries, the gap between research and public sector
management practice has been observed to be narrowing, although the
limited extent to which academic research engages with and impacts
upon practice has, according to our contributors, been of long-standing
concern. Interestingly, none of the narratives provided have given empiri-
cal evidence that has explicitly focused on the relationship between
research and practice. Thus, there is limited empirical evidence offered in
WE BUILD TOO MANY WALLS AND NOT ENOUGH BRIDGES 117
the literature to substantiate these claims. However, our brief as editors

to our contributors was simply to ‘bring in their own perspectives on this
issue’. Thus, although not empirically grounded, if ‘perception is indeed
reality’, then the views articulated by our contributors may represent a
deeper, albeit more individual, message for researchers, practitioners, and
the accounting community overall.
In addition to the apparent prevalence of the schism between research
and its use in practice, our contributors have identified a diverse range of
factors that are seen to influence—either positively or negatively—the
engagement of research with practitioners and the impact of this research
on practice. A brief description of these influences and the countries in
which they are most pronounced is summarized in Table 4.1.
As can be seen in Table 4.1, four of the more common barriers to a
closer nexus between academic research and practice as drawn from the
so-called relevance literature (Nicolai and Seidl 2010), and discussed in
Chap. 2, have also been identified by our contributors. These four barri-
ers are denoted in Table 4.1 by an asterisk: The failure to develop questions
of practical relevance to practitioners (Limited relevance of research ques-
tions); Presenting the findings of academic research in a form that is intel-
ligible and lucid for practitioners (Readability of research findings);
Ensuring practitioner access to research findings through appropriate
media, distribution, or communication channels (Access to research find-
ings); and Incentives for academics to undertake practice-relevant research
(Incentives). As will also be seen from an inspection of Table 4.1, many
of the other factors influencing the engagement and impact of academic
research on practice identified by our informants have similarly been
cited in the relevance literature as impediments in moving research closer
to practice.
Many of these impediments to a closer nexus between research and
practice have also been observed in the commentaries of professional bod-
ies. In particular, the Limited relevance of research questions (CIPFA),
Readability of research findings (CIMA), and Access to research findings
(ACCA; CIMA) are barriers which have been perceived by both profes-
sional bodies and academics. From this exercise, it can be concluded that
insofar as accounting research situated within the domain of the public
sector faces comparable challenges to those experienced in most applied
disciplines.
118 L. FERRY ET AL.
Table 4.1 Factors influencing the engagement and impact of academic research
on practice
Factor Brief description Countries
Incentives* Compelling reasons to persuade researchers to Austria, Denmark,
undertake research that engages with practice Germany, Greece, Italy,
Portugal, Spain, UK, USA
Consultants used The use of private sector or in-house consultants Brazil, Denmark,
as alternatives to generate or disseminate ‘relevant’ knowledge Netherlands, Nigeria,
Romania, UK
Limited funding Grants available for research into public sector Canada, Nigeria,
management practices Romania
Public sector Finance and/or accounting courses as applied in Austria, Brazil

Finance and/or the public sector not offered at the tertiary level
Accounting not
taught at tertiary
levels
Low mobility Transferability of individuals between academic Brazil

between and public sector careers
academic and
public sector
careers
Absence of formal Formal mechanisms that facilitate the interaction Austria, Ghana, Nigeria
structures between researchers and practitioners
Government Explicit government/public policy designed to Greece, France,

priorities encourage engagement with and impact on Australia
practice
Government Stated government policy and funding mechanisms Finland, Portugal,

policy designed to boost knowledge translation from France, Netherlands
research to a public sector context
Legitimises policy Recognition of the value, credibility and authority Belgium, Finland
measures of academic research findings
Professional The role and function of professional (accounting) UK, Romania, Belgium
(accounting) bodies in bringing academic research to
bodies practitioners
Limited relevance Extent to which the research question addresses a Canada, Italy, Malaysia,
of research problem of pertinence to practitioners Portugal
questions*
Readability of The communication of academic research findings Austria, Australia, Italy

research findings* in form intelligible to and understandable by non-
academics
Access to research The ability to access research papers Austria, Brazil, Ghana,
findings* Italy, Portugal, Australia
Access to data The ability of researchers to undertake research Canada, Ghana,

within public sector organisations Malaysia
Limited credibility The image of academic researchers as seen by Ghana

of researchers non-academics
Not an academic The value perceived by academic researchers in Nigeria, Thailand

research priority researching topics and problems faced by
practitioners
Informal Non-formalised initiatives that bring academic Austria, Denmark,

structures and researchers and practitioners together Finland, Malaysia,
mechanisms Romania, UK,
A closer inspection of the factors outlined in Table 4.1 suggests that

they can be logically partitioned into two broad groups, based on the
level at which they are seen to influence the engagement with and impact
of research. The first grouping (‘Institutional’) relates to those influences
that are largely managed by an institution (such as a Government,
University, Professional body, or Business organization), in which rules,
regulations, and formal mechanisms dictate or are instrumental in the
influence exerted by that factor. The second grouping (‘Individual’)
describes those influences that are largely within the control of individual
researchers in their efforts to engage with practitioners and affect prac-
tice. In Table 4.1, institutional influences are depicted in blue, whereas
individual influences are depicted in green.
Partitioning the factors identified by our contributors according to
their controllability suggests strategies for researchers to more effectively
penetrate the way in which research speaks to practice. Clearly, there are
many things within, but also beyond, the control of individual researchers,
in attempting to generate research that is useful and usable in practice.
Attempting to overcome the constraints on an individual researcher
imposed by controllable factors is, we contend, a priority. It enables
researchers to direct their attention in a way that increases the likelihood
of meaningful engagement with their practice constituency and (conse-
quently) the impact of their research in practice. In contrast, attempting to
surmount institutional barriers that have impeded a greater level of
engagement and impact may be thought to possess a certain ‘Don Quixote
quality’, in the sense that there is essentially very little that the majority of
researchers can do individually in the short term to address the challenges
that such barriers present. It is therefore likely to be more expedient for
researchers to concentrate on those factors within their control in their
efforts to influence the world of practice. As Laughlin (2011, p. 28)
observes:
‘Doing what you can’ is a pragmatic way forward, certainly for an individual
or small group. However, the long-term solution has to be at the institu-
tional level to ensure that accounting research, policy and practice do indeed
work together.
The categorization summarized here provides a means by which we

might make greater sense of the research-practice gap on a global scale,
which we discuss next.
120 L. FERRY ET AL.
4.3 Making Sense of the Research-Practice Gap

on a Global Scale
The conceptual framework presented in Fig. 4.1 builds upon the catego-

rization of factors identified by our contributors by level of influence that
were summarized in Table 4.1 to theorize a broader conceptualization of
the obstacles as well as facilitators to achieving a closer relationship
between research and practice. The horizontal axis in Fig. 4.1 categorizes
what our contributors have identified as either impediments (obstacles) or
enablers (facilitators) to bridging the gap between research and practice.
The vertical axis denotes the predominant influence (institutional or indi-
vidual) that these factors are seen to have on bringing research closer to
practice.
From Fig. 4.1, at least four central insights can be drawn. First, the
number of obstacles identified and their intensity are considerably greater
than the number of facilitators. Such an observation is largely unsurpris-
ing—the purpose of this project has been to consider ways in which
research might become a closer companion to practice. It is therefore of
• Incentives
• Government policy
• Consultants used as
substitutes • Legitimises policy measures
• Limited funding
• Professional (accounting) bodies
• Public sector F&A not taught
Institutional at tertiary levels
• Low mobility between
academic & public sector
careers
• Absence of formal structures
• Government priorities
Level of
influence • Access to research findings • Informal structures & mechanisms
• Access to data
• Limited relevance of research
questions
Individual • Limited credibility of
researchers
• Readability of research findings
• Not an academic research
priority
Obstacles Facilitators
Use and usefulness of academic research
Fig. 4.1 Making sense of the research-practice gap

no little wonder that the focus of our contributors has been on the imped-
iments preventing a closer research-practice nexus.
A second insight that can be drawn from Fig. 4.1 is the comparatively
even spread of obstacles as well as facilitators between Institutional and
Individual factors. The corollary of this observation is that, rather than
consigning the ‘causes’ of the divide solely to ‘the system’ (Parker 2011),
‘the research game’ (Merchant 2012), or ‘the recalcitrance of practitioners
to fully appreciate the better mousetrap that researchers have built’ (Tucker
and Schaltegger 2016), as is so often claimed, individual influences emerge
as substantial in the engagement as well as impact of research in the disci-
pline of public sector accounting. Thus, a failure or reluctance to engage
with practice cannot be attributable solely and entirely to institutional fac-
tors. There is, by all means, ample scope for individual researchers to take
the initiative in moving academic research closer to practice. However,
there is also very little that individual researchers can do—at least in the
short term—to influence institutional strategies designed to result in a
closure of the research-practice gap. Our predominant attention in the
remainder of this chapter is therefore directed towards individual factors
attributable to the relationship between research and practice.
The third message offered by Fig. 4.1 directly follows from the preced-
ing point in that most of the Individual obstacles identified can be con-
verted to facilitators somewhat readily. Examples of how such conversion
might be achieved have been raised in the literature. For instance, aca-
demic researchers are typically well served by university libraries as reposi-
tories for electronic journals, journal articles, e-books, and databases.
Individuals not employed or affiliated with universities, however, enjoy no
such privilege. As a result, the access of such individuals to academic
research is severely limited. However, there is no reason why, within the
confines of copyright considerations, researchers cannot supply practitio-
ners via email, social media, or in person with articles, research papers, or
references that may be pertinent to their needs. However, peer-reviewed
academic journals are not the sole source of academic research findings.
Gray, Guthrie, and Parker (2002), for instance, identify alternative forums
in which research is accessible including the Internet, newspapers/televi-
sion/radio/videos, professional journals, submissions to government/
regulators, and teaching. In their capacity as ‘professional researchers’,
academics’ should be well placed to assist and provide guidance to practi-
tioners about what research may be pertinent to their particular problems,
and where, and how, such research may be accessed. However, the limited
122 L. FERRY ET AL.
industry experience of many accounting academics, and the tendency for

such individuals to eschew pursuing research issues of immediate practical
significance (Beattie and Smith 2012), remains an obstruction in this
regard.
Although access to academic research is an obstacle that is relatively
simpler to overcome, the access of researchers to organizations and/or
data is arguably more problematic. Nevertheless, the road to researcher
access to data/organizations can be made easier by identifying ‘gatekeep-
ers’ (senior officers within the organization) or contacts within the orga-
nization (Irvine and Gaffikin 2006), spending time at the research site
(Rynes et al. 1999), or enlisting the assistance of professional bodies
(Tucker and Lowe 2014). Such initiatives are to a large extent dependent
upon the social networks, relationships, and ties that researchers are able
to foster, maintain, and leverage with practitioners over time in formulat-
ing as well as implementing their research priorities and agendas.
The relevance of the research question to practitioner audiences has
also been cited by our contributors as an obstacle preventing research
from more effectively informing practice. A related problem is that of the
credibility and image of academics as individuals living in ‘ivory towers,
detached from the real-world’ (Bromwich and Scapens 2016), and pro-
ducing what from a practitioner vantage point may be considered to be
largely inconsequential knowledge (Parker 2012). Both of these obstacles
can represent ‘deal-breakers’ for researchers seeking to engage with and
influence practice. Fortunately, however, these particular hurdles have
been recognized in the relevance literature, and numerous prescriptions
for addressing them are available. One of the better-known approaches to
solving the problem of the perceived relevance of academic research is the
approach of engaged scholarship. Van de Ven and Johnson (2006) suggest
academic researchers and practitioners collaborate with an intent to co-
produce knowledge. This co-operative approach to research is predicated
on an assumption that knowledge generation is a bi-directional process in
which research has the potential to shape practice, but also that practice
has an instrumental role in shaping research. If such an approach is to be
effective, a number of strategies have been argued to be necessary includ-
ing ‘soliciting advice and feedback from practitioners during the research
process, sharing power in collaborative researcher–practitioner teams, and
evaluating policies and programs’ (Bansal et al. 2012, p. 74).
Another approach to integrate research and practice through closer col-
laboration that has received considerable attention is the EBP movement
(Rousseau 2006). Broadly, EBP argues that practices are informed by the
best available evidence rather than conventional wisdom, tradition, habit,
or intuition (Rousseau 2006). Having achieved wide acceptance in such
fields as medicine, education, criminal justice, and advertising (Rousseau
and Barends 2011), EBP involves assisting practitioners attain research-
based content knowledge in particular areas, as well as helping practitio-
ners to access and critically interpret research findings on their own
(Rousseau and McCarthy 2007). With its emphasis on practitioner needs
and practical problems, the adoption of EBP has, in common with
Engaged Scholarship, the potential to not only ensure research questions
are directly pertinent to a ‘real-world’ context, but also is likely to demon-
strate that, by working directly and more closely with practitioners, aca-
demic researchers need not be detached from the day-today problems and
challenges facing managers and others ‘at the coalface’.1 Unsurprisingly
perhaps, a greater attention to EBP is a common observation of the pro-
fessional accounting bodies contributing to this book.
The fifth obstacle outlined in Fig. 4.1, that of the readability of research
findings, has long been regarded as a prime reason for the disconnect
between research and practice generally. Indeed in an accounting context,
four decades ago, Mautz (1978) identified the presentation, comprehen-
sibility, and language used to communicate research findings as a principal
disincentive for practitioners to engage with accounting research—an
observation subsequently raised by Baxter (1988), van Helden and
Northcott (2010), and Kaplan (2011). However, as noted earlier, peer-
reviewed academic journals are by no means the exclusive outlet for the
communication of research findings, and the tailoring of messages to a
more ‘user-friendly’ style would be a necessary—but surely not unachiev-
able—goal of academics seeking to convey their research findings to a
non-academic (practitioner) audience. By the same token, there is an obli-
gation on practitioners to be open to the findings of academic research. It
may very well be that practitioners need ‘site- and time-specific insights’
(McKelvey 2006, p. 826), however, as reported by a nursing academic in
Tucker and Leach’s (2017) investigation comparing the research-practice
gap in nursing with that of management accounting:
1
However, we point out that in no way has the applicability or acceptance of EBP been
uncontested. See, for example: Learmonth (2006, 2008), Learmonth, Lockett and Dowd
(2012), Morrell and Learmonth (2015), Morrell, Learmonth, and Heracleous (2015).
124 L. FERRY ET AL.
Nurses say they are time poor, but that is just an excuse. I think they do not
see the value of research. They need buy in.
The same might be said of accounting practitioners—if digesting and

evaluating research is perceived to be sufficiently important, time will be
found to direct to it. Collaboration is, by definition, a function of two or
more parties working together. Just as academics have a role to play in
bringing research ‘to the table’, so too do practitioners need to be recep-
tive to new techniques, processes, and ideas generated by and through
academic research. As Baskerville (2009, p. 524) provocatively asserts,
‘The notion that competent business practitioners should actually search
for the facts related to their immediate practical problems ought not to be
surprising’.
The final obstacle revealed by our contributors is that research seeking
to engage with practitioners and impact practice is not pursued because it
takes a secondary priority to the ‘main game’ of publishing in peer-
reviewed academic journals. Once again, this obstruction to a closer con-
nection between academic research and practice has been recognized by
academic commentators on the divide between academic research and
accounting practice (e.g. see Parker et al. 2011; Merchant 2012; Lindsay
2012), as well as professional bodies participating in this study. It is under-
standable that academic researchers are cognizant of the need to publish
in peer-reviewed academic journals, and to direct their efforts to achieving
this end. However, there is no reason why academic rigour and practice
relevance should be regarded as mutually exclusive. As Tucker and Leach
(2017) argue, some of the most influential scholars and thinkers have been
able to make theoretical as well as practical contributions that have shaped
the societies in which they lived. Arguably, academics such as Einstein and
Hawking (physics), Weber, Durkheim and Marx (sociology), Lewin and
Freud (psychology), and Smith and Keynes (economics) have had a con-
siderable influence on society, and their achievements demonstrate that
the separation of academic research from its practical application is a false
dichotomy.
At a less lofty level perhaps, and as also identified by ACCA, CIMA, and
CIPFA, the research-practice gap itself is a topic that has currency in many
top academic journals, and research attention directed towards this area
can be a fruitful source of inspiration and contribution. In the general
management area, senior academics such as Jean Bartunek, Andrew Van
de Ven, Denise Rousseau, Tima Bansal, and Sara Rynes have published
extensively on various aspects of the divide between research and practice.

In accounting, Lee Parker, James Guthrie, Ken Merchant, Bob Scapens,
Jane Broadbent, Richard Laughlin, and Anthony Hopwood have all made
significant and important contributions to this challenging area.
The fourth insight offered by Fig. 4.1 up to here is the preponderance
of informal structures as facilitators to bridging the research-practice gap.
The creation and use of informal structures were repeatedly raised by our
contributors as ways to achieve congruence between academic research
and practice at the individual level. It may be that the adage ‘nature abhors
a vacuum’ applies to efforts to bridge the divide between research and
practice. We have seen in Fig. 4.1 that the absence of formal structures,
processes, and mechanisms provided to at the institutional level is per-
ceived to be one of the principal contributors at the institutional level
inhibiting research from more effectively informing practice. It seems as
though the formation and exploitation of informal structures have a com-
pensatory effect of making a closer relationship between research and
practice possible. As related by our contributors, these informal structures
assume various guises including associations with professional accounting
bodies, collaborations with consultants, participation in ‘think tanks’, pro-
active contacts with practitioners, the formation of partnerships with like-
minded academics, and networking with Government agencies, Politicians,
the media, and past colleagues in industry. Such reliance on organiza-
tional, institutional, and individual relationships to achieve a closer rela-
tionship with practice reflects the ingenuity and persistence of researchers
who are seeking to influence practice through their research efforts.
However, it also reinforces the point made earlier: that institutional obsta-
cles to ‘crossing the divide’ by no means prevent genuine attempts to
engage with and influence practice. This point is particularly pertinent in
view of the support for such research by the ACCA, CIMA, and CIPFA,
as articulated in their contributions to this book.
In summary then, as with the experience of other disciplines, recurrent
obstacles and facilitators can be associated with the relationship between
research and practice in accounting. Moreover, few if any of these obsta-
cles and facilitators identified, be they at the Institutional or Individual
level are unique to a public sector management context. Although little
can be done by individual researchers to change institutional constraints
and restrictions on their ability to engage with and impact practice, the
opportunities to ‘make a difference’ with practice-relevant research at the
individual level are numerous.
126 L. FERRY ET AL.
4.4 Concluding Reflections

The nature and degree of the relationship between academic research and
practice has generated considerable discussion in a range of disciplines
including management, finance, human resource management, econom-
ics, marketing, education, psychology, psychotherapy, nursing, librarian-
ship, dentistry, social work, medicine, and the natural sciences, in addition
to accounting. The media have hosted repeated expressions of concern, as
have senior members of the academic community, over the perceived lim-
ited relevance of much academic research. Commentators and practitio-
ners generally contend that very little academic research is usable or useful,
and consequently, the impact that academia has had on society has not
been meaningful. Although the veracity and generalizability of this charge
as it relates to different disciplines is arguable, the extent to which aca-
demic research can be considered to be relevant has long-term implica-
tions for the academic community, as well as practice. It raises fundamental
questions about the role of academic research in society and, from the
perspective of the academic accounting community, is an issue that requires
resolution if we are to avoid becoming largely irrelevant to business, pro-
fessional, and government practitioners.
The relevance of academic research has implications for the nature,
type, scale, and research questions that researchers choose to study.
Changes in the ways in which universities across the globe are evaluated
and supported are gathering momentum. Research engagement, impact
and contribution to government, business, and community priorities are
demonstrably becoming part of the developing university environment,
and the days of ‘publish or perish’ appear destined to be replaced with
‘partner or perish’. Universities and academics that are able to demon-
strate their relevance and return on research investment will be best posi-
tioned to capitalize within this environment. The importance of examining
the question of research relevance then is that universities in response to
political pressures, financial constraints, and public policy necessarily and
inexorably exercise a major influence upon the creation and dissemination
of knowledge for the individual researcher. It is therefore an issue germane
to most research-active academics.
The barriers that have been shown to prevent a closer union between
the worlds of research and practice are formidable, but by no means insur-
mountable for accounting researchers who are well equipped to unpack
this problem. Importantly, these barriers are an invitation and, at the same
time, an opportunity for academics to make their contribution by convert-
ing walls into bridges.
References
Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O’Brien, J. (2012).
Bridging the research-practice gap. Academy of Management Perspectives,
26(1), 73–93.
Baskerville, R. (2009). Preparing for evidence-based management. European
Journal of Information Systems, 18(6), 523–525.
Baxter, W. T. (1988). Accounting research–academic trends versus practical needs.
Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
Beattie, V., & Smith, S.-J. (2012). Today’s PhD students–is there a future genera-
tion of accounting academics or are they a dying breed? A UK perspective.
Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS).
Bromwich, M., & Scapens, R. W. (2016). Management accounting research: 25
years on. Management Accounting Research, 31, 1–9.
Gray, R., Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (2002). Rites of passage and the self-
immolation of academic accounting labour: An essay exploring exclusivity ver-
sus mutuality in accounting scholarship. Accounting Forum, 26(1), 1–30.
Irvine, H., & Gaffikin, M. (2006). Getting in, getting on and getting out:
Reflections on a qualitative research project. Accounting, Auditing &
Kaplan, R. S. (2011). Accounting scholarship that advances professional knowl-
edge and practice. The Accounting Review, 86(2), 367–383.
Sydney: Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability, University of
Learmonth, M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? A
commentary on Rousseau’s 2005 presidential address. Academy of Management
Review, 31(4), 1089–1091.
Learmonth, M. (2008). Speaking out: Evidence-based management: A backlash
against pluralism in organizational studies? Organization, 15(2), 283–291.
Learmonth, M., Lockett, A., & Dowd, K. (2012). Promoting scholarship that
matters: The uselessness of useful research and the usefulness of useless research.
British Journal of Management, 23(1), 35–44.
Lindsay, R. M. (2012). We must overcome the controversial relationship between
management accounting research and practice: A commentary on ken
Merchant’s “making management accounting research more useful”. Pacific
Mautz, R. K. (1978). Discussion. In A. R. Abdel-Khalik & P. F. Keller (Eds.), The
University Press.
McKelvey, B. (2006). Response Van de Ven and Johnson’s “engaged scholarship”:
Nice try, but…. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 830–832.
128 L. FERRY ET AL.
Merchant, K. A. (2012). Making management accounting research more useful.

Pacific Accounting Review, 24(3), 1–34.
Morrell, K., & Learmonth, M. (2015). Against evidence-based management, for
management learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education,
14(4), 520–533.
Morrell, K., Learmonth, M., & Heracleous, L. (2015). An archaeological critique
of ‘evidence-based management’: One digression after another. British Journal
of Management, 26(3), 529–543.
Parker, L. D. (2012). Beyond the ticket and the brand: Imagining an accounting
research future. Accounting and Finance, 52(4), 1153–1182.
Parker, L. D., Guthrie, J., & Linacre, S. (2011). Editorial: The relationship
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”?
Rousseau, D. M., & Barends, E. G. R. (2011). Becoming an evidence-based HR
practitioner. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(3), 221–235.
Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S. (2007). Educating managers from an evidence-
based perspective. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(1),
84–101.
Rynes, S. L., McNatt, D. B., & Bretz, R. D. (1999). Academic research inside
organizations: Inputs, processes, and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52,
869–898.
Tucker, B. P., & Leach, M. (2017). Learning from the experience of others:
Lessons on the research–practice gap in management accounting – A nursing
perspective. Advances in Management Accounting, 29, 127–181.
394–425.
Tucker, B. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). Comparing the research–practice gap in
362–400.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice.
van Helden, G. J., & Northcott, D. (2010). Examining the practical relevance of
public sector management accounting research. Financial Accountability and
Management, 26(2), 213–241.
CHAPTER 5
Closing Reflections
Abstract In this final chapter, our aim is to draw together the observa-
tions, reflections, and recommendations provided by contributors to
this book. The challenge in locating research as a closer companion to
practice is clear in each of the contributions provided. It is fair to say
that the so-called research-practice gap is not only ubiquitous, but also
has implications at the researcher, institutional, and disciplinary levels.
Our parting message is that although different countries are positioned
quite differently in terms of academic research-informing practice, there
are many paths to achieving a more effective engagement with, and
impact on, public sector practice. However, challenges also represent
Laurence Ferry
Iris Saliterer
Ileana Steccolini
Basil Tucker

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1_5
130 L. FERRY ET AL.
opportunities, and reflecting on the stories presented, should provide

avenues for specific investigation and initiatives that are worth consider-
ing by those that seek to speak to practice through their research.

This book aimed at capturing the multiple facets of academic engagement

with, and impact on, practice in the public sector accounting and manage-
ment area, as well as exploring its enablers and constraints. In doing so, we
had the ambition to capture geographical differences, looking at the expe-
riences of 46 colleagues from 21 countries, covering 6 continents, and 3
professional associations. This allowed us to add to the existing (and still
limited) literature, reviewed by Basil Tucker in the second chapter (Tucker
2018, in this book), which tends to focus on a few countries and only in
some cases (Tucker and Parker 2014) has adopted a global perspective.
Interestingly, the book idea emerged not as an exploration of how aca-
demic and practitioners engage with each other, but rather from the need
to recognize the absence of such engagement, what has been commonly
dubbed as the ‘academia-practice gap’. As such, the use of this shorthand
is telling per se, as it expresses the extent to which ‘the gap’ is often taken
for granted and even accepted, and as such tends to frame any discussion
and reflection on ‘impact’ and ‘engagement’ of academic research. Thus,
our study started as a study of ‘the gap’, but the advantage of adopting a
qualitative approach to it (rather than, e.g., a more quantitative one) has
been the transformation of the study from an analysis of absence (of
engagement, impact, links between academics and practitioners) and its
possible antecedents, to a rich analysis of how the main players in the arena
perceive, make sense of, and explain the reasons of such absence, or diffi-
cult conditions and diverging incentives in some cases. At the same time,
this study has increasingly become an analysis of the presence of institu-
tions, tools, systems, media, and people who actively create the conditions
or reduce the constraints to build bridges between academia and practice,
highlighting that our respondents could not conceive of their roles in the
face of practice and policy in a passive way.
As we asked them to explain the specific features of the country context
which in their view affect the research-practice gap issue in their countries,
it became clear that, even at a time of global rankings, local cultures and
CLOSING REFLECTIONS 131
institutions play an important role in affecting how academics conceive of

their roles, and what society expects from academics. While in some cases
being a consultant was seen as an integral aspect of academic life, in other
countries, academics would see their engagement passing through differ-
ent forms, yet in others, engagement was not seen sufficient as impact.
When being asked to identify the roles of institutions as well as of them-
selves (as academics) in widening or narrowing ‘the gap’, our colleagues
pointed to a diversity of obstacles and facilitators, which are summed up in
Chap. 4, distinguishing between institutional (e.g. incentives, role of con-
sultants, funding, role of public sector accounting in teaching at tertiary
level, low mobility across academic and practical careers, government poli-
cies, roles of accounting bodies) and individual (e.g. access to data and
funding, relevance of research questions and credibility or researchers, pri-
oritization of activities) factors. In the experiences that our colleagues
shared with us, while institutional conditions have often fallen short of
being conducive to stronger engagement and impact, individual research-
ers’ roles in initiating and driving relationships with practice and policy are
striking. Many respondents highlighted that positive experiences of
engagement and diffusion of academic knowledge in the practice and pol-
icy realm appear to be rather a consequence of individual agency, a sort of
academic entrepreneurial initiative, than of structural conditions condu-
cive to research.
It is however fair to recognize there appears to be definitely no ‘best
way’ to institutionalize links between the practical and academic worlds.
The comparative analysis showed a variety of more institutionalized forms
of academic–practitioner engagement, which reflects the increasing diver-
sification of interfaces between research and practice and the emergence of
more interactive models where academics and practitioners make sense
together (see van Dooren and Braens 2018, in this book). The different
types and levels of institutional engagement are closely linked to the
respective contextual/country-specific conditions. Essentially, there was
not one ‘isomorphic’ approach between countries to the institutions
employed to close the research-practice gap, but rather heterogeneity.
It seems to be common that academics are part of (public sector)
accounting boards, commissions, or committees; however, their role and
impact are viewed differently across countries (e.g. Greece, Spain,
Romania, Austria). We can also observe the emergence of institutionalized
‘agora type/open space’ settings in some countries (e.g. the Netherlands,
Finland) providing the possibility for different stakeholders to come
132 L. FERRY ET AL.
together for dialogue, debate, and co-production of knowledge (Ferlie

et al. 2010). More formalized or traditional forms of this engagement type
are also present in France (observatories), Belgium, and the UK (think
tanks and professional associations). In some cases, researchers have man-
aged to establish research centres, which are largely formed of a small
group of collaborators with a host heading it from a university (UK).
However, in the majority of countries, relationships between academia
and practice are weakly institutionalized (e.g. Australia, Austria, Canada,
Germany, Ghana, Italy, Malaysia, Nigeria, Romania) leading to more
contract-based models, and again, to more agency-based forms of
engagement.
All in all, the experiences told by our colleagues conveyed a strong
reflection on the difficulties and barriers that in the mainstream largely
separate the academics’ ‘ivory tower’ from the ‘real world’ (Tucker and
Parker 2014). The academics who responded to our questions showed a
clear awareness that the ‘gap’ remains an ‘all-to-real’ problem, but also a
strong enthusiasm and willingness to close it. At the same time, they also
felt that not always the conditions under which academic life takes place
are ideal to ensure and encourage impact on practice (and policy).
Across countries, it also becomes evident that academic papers on their
own were unlikely to lead to engagement or have impact. Nevertheless,
academic papers provided an important theoretical underpinning for
engagement and impact-related activities that could be translated into
something more understandable. It is therefore important to consider
ways in which knowledge can travel and be diffused. More research and
efforts are definitely necessary in this area. However, tentatively, we sug-
gest that engagement and the reach and significance of impact are
undoubtedly influenced by how knowledge is produced and co-produced.
For example, we hazard a guess that long-term work with policy makers is
more likely to lead to potential policy change that is traceable as part of an
academic’s body of work and have impact, whereas shorter term reports
with professional bodies provide evidence of engagement for dissemina-
tion of knowledge to practitioner communities. Both are worthy in bridg-
ing the academic-practitioner gap, but fulfil different needs of engagement
and impact. The level of engagement and reach and significance of impact
are also likely to be influenced by the different formats in which knowl-
edge is diffused. Academic journal articles are unlikely to have influence in
their raw state, but if employed in professional reports, policy briefings,
and parliamentary evidence, they may more evidently shape the debates.
CLOSING REFLECTIONS 133
Importantly, very often the knowledge ‘travels’ with the people, not with
papers. For example, those people with—regional, national, and interna-
tional—networks between academia and practice—and often strong pro-
fessional ties, and even as proactive members of the accounting profession
themselves—carry knowledge in ways that could be translated and have
impact in different contexts. How this can be captured is another question
that needs to be addressed.
Finally, it was evident to us that for researchers, and especially those
who successfully engage in practice, but do not have high-ranking journal
publications, the impact accomplished may not have always been appro-
priately valued in the academic community relative to other more theo-
retical activities. In particular, international rankings as well as government
and university scoring and funding systems drive academics in search of
highly ranked journal publications as ends in themselves, so that incentives
and reward systems do not encourage engagement with or focus upon
policy and practice communities and impacts (Guthrie and Neumann
2007; Parker 2012, 2013). Although (societal) impact has become increas-
ingly important across countries, it seems to be mainly rhetorical at this
stage and may concentrate on a relatively small elite of researchers. Given
that, at least from our limited exploration, the nature of engagement and
impact-related research work appear to be strongly agency-driven, reward
structures and incentives thus appear to be one of the first aspects requir-
ing serious intervention for bridging the research-practice gap.
We hope this book, by highlighting existing solutions and experiences,
but also pointing to a number of open issues and questions, will contrib-
ute to animate and further the debate on the gap between practice and
research, and encourage more colleagues to engage and find yet new and
original responses to this long-lasting challenge.
References
Ferlie, E., McGivern, G., & De Moraes, A. (2010). Developing a public interest
school of management. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 60–70.
Guthrie, J., & Neumann, R. (2007). Economic and non-financial performance
indicators in universities: The establishment of a performance-driven system for
Australian higher education. Public Management Review, 9(2), 231–252.
Parker, L. D. (2012). From privatised to hybrid corporatised higher education: A
global financial management discourse. Financial Accountability and
Management, 28(3), 247–268.
134 L. FERRY ET AL.
Parker, L. D. (2013). Contemporary university strategising: The financial impera-

tive. Financial Accountability and Management, 29(1), 1–25.
Tucker, B. P. (2018). Where there’s a will… The research-practice gap in account-
ing. In L. Ferry, I. Saliterer, I. Steccolini, & B. P. Tucker (Eds.), An interna-
tional analysis of the research-practice gap on accounting in the public services.
Switzerland: Palgrave.
Van Dooren, W., & Braens, M. (2018). The research-practice gap in public sector
accounting in Belgium. In L. Ferry, I. Saliterer, I. Steccolini, & B. P. Tucker
(Eds.), An international analysis of the research-practice gap on accounting in
the public services. Switzerland: Palgrave.
Index1
A 107, 116, 117, 119, 122–126,

Academia, 2, 5, 18, 38, 39, 41–43, 131, 133
47–50, 56, 58, 59, 64–66, 68–71, Association of Chartered Certified
75–80, 82–86, 88, 89, 95, 96, Accountants (ACCA), 96,
100, 102–104, 106–108, 126, 100–102, 117, 124, 125
130, 132, 133 Australia, v, 15n4, 17–19, 34–36, 132
Academic research, 2, 6, 10–25, 37, Austria, 12, 37–40, 131, 132
39, 45, 59, 71, 78, 79, 83, 88,
89, 92, 96, 100, 102–106,
116–118, 121–126, 130 B
Academics, v, vi, 2–5, 10, 12–25, Belgium, 40–43, 132
34–39, 41–42, 44–50, 52, 53, Brazil, vi, 43–46
55–66, 68, 70–73, 75–89, Business, 3, 5, 19, 22, 35, 38, 40, 47,
92–104, 106, 107, 117, 49, 52, 55–57, 63, 64, 66, 67,
121–126, 130–133 81, 85, 88, 89, 92, 94, 100,
ACCA, see Association of Chartered 102–104, 119, 124, 126
Certified Accountants
Accountability, v, 3, 4, 13, 35, 36, 62,
90–94, 105 C
Accounting, v, 2–6, 10–25, 33–36, 38, Canada, v, 12, 46–48, 132
39, 44–50, 52, 54–57, 59, 60, Chartered Institute of Management
62–67, 72, 73, 81–83, 87–90, Accountants (CIMA), 72, 96,
92–95, 97–100, 102–104, 106, 102–105, 117, 124, 125
Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1
136 INDEX
Chartered Institute of Public Finance Industry, 21, 23–25, 47, 48, 71, 73,
and Accountancy (CIPFA), 95, 80, 85, 86, 103, 104, 122, 125
96, 106–108, 117, 124, 125 Interdisciplinary, 2, 3, 15n4, 42
Italy, 12, 67–70, 132
D
Denmark, 12, 48–50 M
Divide, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 43, 44, 68, Malaysia, vi, 70–74, 132
116, 121, 124, 125
N
E Netherlands, the, 12, 41, 74–78, 131
Engagement, v, 2–4, 11, 14n1, 16, 18, Nexus, 12, 13, 15, 21, 25, 117, 121
21, 34–40, 43, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, Nigeria, vi, 78–80, 132
62, 69, 71, 73, 77–80, 92–97, 99, Not-for-profit, 25, 47
102, 117–119, 121, 126, 130–133
P
F Policy, v, 2, 5, 10, 13, 14, 20, 21,
Finland, 51–53, 131 34–43, 54–56, 59, 61, 64, 65,
France, 12, 54–58, 54n10, 55n11, 132 67, 68, 74–77, 81–83, 88, 89,
92, 93, 95, 97, 100–102,
106–108, 119, 122, 130–133
G Portugal, 81–83
Germany, 12, 17, 18, 58–60, 132 Practitioners, v, vi, 2–5, 10, 16–23,
Ghana, vi, 60–64, 63n15, 63n16, 132 34, 35, 37–40, 42–46, 48–50, 54,
Government, 5, 12, 21, 23, 35–38, 41, 56–60, 63, 64, 68–70, 72–79, 82,
42, 45, 47–51, 55, 58, 60, 61, 64, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93,
66–69, 72, 73, 75–81, 85, 86, 88, 95–104, 106–108, 117, 119,
91, 93–99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 121–126, 130–132
107, 119, 121, 125, 126, 131, 133 Profession, 2, 4, 5, 14, 34, 38, 47, 48,
Greece, 64–67, 131 50, 56, 66, 69, 72, 73, 81–83,
89, 95, 96, 100, 106, 107, 133
Public policy, v, 3, 20, 37, 38, 66, 92,
I 106, 126
Impact, v, 2, 5, 12, 21, 23, 24, 34–37, Public sector, v, 3, 5, 10–14, 25,
39, 42, 45, 48, 52–54, 56–58, 33–108, 117
62, 68, 69, 72–75, 78, 81, Public sector accounting, v–vi, 2–6,
83–85, 89, 90, 92, 97, 100, 102, 33–101, 116, 121, 130, 131
103, 105, 106, 116–119, 121, Public sector management, 25, 36, 92,
124–126, 130–133 116, 125
INDEX 137
R T
Relevance, v, 2–4, 10–13, 15–18, Thailand, vi, 90–93
20–22, 24, 25, 44, 52, 68, 77,
78, 80, 85, 91, 96, 97, 103, 106,
117, 122, 124, 126, 131 U
Research-practice gap, v–vi, 2–6, UK, 12, 17, 19, 60, 93–97, 102, 103,
10–25, 33–108, 116, 119–125, 107, 132
130, 131, 133 University, 2, 3, 5, 12, 16, 24,
Rigour, 44, 96, 101–105, 108, 124 35–39, 41, 43–45, 47–53,
Romania, 84–87, 131, 132 55, 56, 61, 63–71, 73–76,
79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88–90,
93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 104,
S 106, 119, 121, 126, 132,
Schism, 16, 20, 117 133
Spain, 12, 87–89, 131 USA, v, 17–19, 93, 97–99

The Research-Practice Gap On Accounting in The Public Services

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Research-Practice Gap On Accounting in The Public Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUBLIC SECTOR

More information about this series at

Public Sector Financial Management

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018957073

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

Cover illustration: Prisma by Dukas Presseagentur GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo

from Africa—Nigeria and Ghana, South America—Brazil, and Asia—

We would specifically like to thank Ron Hodges (Emeritus Professor of

1 Concerns About the Research-Practice Gap on Accounting

2 Where There’s a Will… The Research-­Practice Gap

3 A Global View of the Research-Practice Gap in a Public

4 We Build Too Many Walls and Not Enough Bridges 115

Laurence Ferry is a Professor of Accounting at Durham University

Fig. 1.1 Mapping current engagement—bridging the academic-practice

Concerns About the Research-Practice Gap

Keywords Research-practice gap • Accounting • Accountability •

© The Author(s) 2019 1

A significant challenge for academia is to be, and be seen to be, relevant to

It is within this motivation of interdisciplinary accounting research in

In a proactive effort to address how to narrow the research-practice

Research Bridging Practice

Research providers / producers Boundary spanners Research users / addressees

Fig. 1.1 Mapping current engagement—bridging the academic-practice gap

debate’ as part of ‘a collective desire to leave a trace of the discussion’

Where There’s a Will… The Research-­

Abstract In this chapter, I engage with recent empirical research I have

. How prevalent is the research-practice gap?

These questions are by no means restricted to the public sector, and

Keywords Research-practice gap • Accounting • Research relevance •

© The Author(s) 2019 9

. How prevalent is the research-practice gap?

2.2 How Prevalent Is the Research-Practice Gap?

globe. For instance, the Australian government’s Excellence in Research

2.2.1 A Public Sector Perspective

2.3 How Has the Research-Practice Gap Been

A second characteristic of much of the relevance literature is the dis-

2.3.1 A Deeper Reflection on the Research-Practice Gap

exploring the extent to which academic management accounting research

maintenance of a separation between research and practice by this ‘minor-

To paraphrase Hopwood (2002, p. 777), albeit in a different context,

2.4 Accounting Research and Practice: Closer

s­ uccessfully tailoring their messages to a non-academic community. Such

research. Other academics, students, professional ­associations, and industry

2.4.1 The Failure to Develop Questions of Practical Relevance

2.4.2 Presenting the Findings of Academic Research in a Form

2.4.3 Ensuring Practitioner Access to Research Findings

2.4.4 Incentives for Academics to Undertake Practice-Relevant

a­cademic literature, empirical studies investigating this relationship are

Moser, D. V. (2012). Is accounting research stagnant? Accounting Horizons,

A Global View of the Research-Practice Gap

Abstract In this chapter, we present the views and reflections of academ-

Keywords Countries • Research-practice gap • International comparison

3.1 The Research-Practice Gap in Public Sector

© The Author(s) 2019 33

practices used by practitioners in social and organizational settings. This

Specific Features of the Country Context

competition for both funds and stakeholders, an emergent role as

3.1.3 The Role of Institutions in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

The Roles of Academics in Widening/Narrowing the Gap

regularly cited Australian-based public sector researchers, for example,

developments through simplistic explanatory variables and emphasizes

3.2 The Research-Practice Gap in Public Sector

Alpen-Adria University, Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria

1 Concerns About the Research-Practice Gap on Accounting

2 Where There’s a Will… The Research-Practice Gap

3 A Global View of the Research-Practice Gap in a Public

4 We Build Too Many Walls and Not Enough Bridges 115

Where There’s a Will… The Research-

s uccessfully tailoring their messages to a non-academic community. Such

research. Other academics, students, professional associations, and industry

academic literature, empirical studies investigating this relationship are

agenda setting, a contribution which is more conceptual than instrumental

a science-of-policy? This is closely related to a tension that many public