Accounting Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/raed20

Measuring accounting educators’ views on the

teaching–research nexus (TRN): an international
comparative study

Angus Duff, Ilse Lubbe, Phil Hancock & Neil Marriott

To cite this article: Angus Duff, Ilse Lubbe, Phil Hancock & Neil Marriott (2023)
Measuring accounting educators’ views on the teaching–research nexus (TRN):
an international comparative study, Accounting Education, 32:4, 382-408, DOI:
10.1080/09639284.2022.2063691

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2063691

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 12 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 727

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raed20
ACCOUNTING EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 32, NO. 4, 382–408
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2063691

Measuring accounting educators’ views on the teaching–

research nexus (TRN): an international comparative study
Angus Duffa, Ilse Lubbe b
, Phil Hancockc and Neil Marriottd
a
Business School, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK; bCollege of Accounting, University of Cape
Town, Cape Town, South Africa; cUWA Business School, Accounting and Finance, University of Western
Australia, Perth, Australia; dBusiness School, University of Winchester, Winchester, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The relationship between teaching and research in the modern Received 13 July 2020
university has been the subject of vigorous scholarly enquiry in Revised 2 December 2021
the education literature for several decades. Few international Accepted 8 February 2022
comparative studies are reported in the literature. This study
KEYWORDS
compares and discusses the teaching–research nexus (TRN) in Teaching–research nexus;
accounting in three international regions: the UK and Ireland accounting education; factor
(UKI); Australia and New Zealand (ANZ); and South Africa (SA). analysis; professional
The purpose of this study is to provide evidence of that the TRN accounting bodies
empirical model operates in the different regions, and more so to
describe the TRN that remains challenging for the accounting
academic profession globally. Positive synergies from the TRN are
evident in all jurisdictions in this study but are largely ignored by
academic institutions and professional accounting bodies (PABs)
that influence the university accounting curriculum. Formal
government research assessment measures, coupled by PABs
pressures, result in accounting becoming more a teaching-led
rather than research-informed academic discipline. This has
implications for: the status of accounting academics; the public
perception of the professional standing of accounting in society;
and the learning experiences of accounting students.

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

CONTACT Angus Duff angus.duff@btinternet.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which
this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 383

The purpose of this study is established: first, whether the TRN empirical model devel-
oped by Duff and Marriott (2012) operates equivalently across different global regions;
and second, if it is equivalent, do differences occur between the three regions. Without
the equivalence (invariance) testing undertaken in this paper, it is impossible to establish
whether the inventory works equally well across the three regions. This is important for
all accounting educators across the globe concerned about the possibility for accounting
being relegated to a teaching-only discipline. This study shows the TRN empirical model
is robust across three global regions. This highlights the importance to accounting edu-
cators who see real value in the importance of teaching and research.
More recently, the TRN in accounting has been investigated in different regions (Duff
& Marriott, 2012, 2017a, 2017b; Hancock et al., 2017; Lubbe & Duff, 2020). These studies
identified positive and negative effects and recognised how accounting education differs
between the regions, identifying different challenges and reward systems. The TRN lit-
erature is characterised by a rich smorgasbord of subject- and nation-specific studies
using a wide range of methodologies. However, there are few, if any, international com-
parative studies reported in the literature.
The rationale for this study is both empirically and policy motivated. First, to establish
whether the TRN model of Duff and Marriott (2017a) is applicable across the three regions.
This can only be established by subjecting the three datasets to a simultaneous evaluation.
By so doing allows this study to establish whether the TRN in accounting as measured by
the research instrument is a global or more localised phenomenon. It also allows other
researchers in the field to establish whether the inventory could be of use in other
regions (e.g. North America, the Far East) or for adaptation in related disciplines (e.g.
business and management) or professions (e.g. law, medicine). From a policy perspective,
it provides evidence to help to establish a case to protect the global standing of the account-
ing academic profession to ensure it does not become a teaching-only activity with limited
research opportunities and a stagnating curriculum driven by the needs of professional
accounting bodies who operate internationally. The tensions that exist between the
focus on teaching for technical content as required by the accreditation bodies, and the
need and interest in producing relevant research in accounting remain problematic.
Accounting is a widely taught discipline in ANZ, SA and the UKI. Accounting pro-
grammes attract large numbers of students in all these countries and are often regarded
as a ‘cash cow’ by institutions, generating significant surpluses. A primary objective of
accounting education is to facilitate students to pass the professional accounting
bodies’ (PABs) membership examinations (e.g. Behn et al., 2012; Nieuwoudt & Wilcocks,
2005). Internationally, the undergraduate accounting curriculum in universities is
heavily influenced by the accreditation requirements of PABs (Duff et al., 2020;
Hopper, 2013; Verhoef & Samkin, 2017), where critical accountants argue the focus is
on the passive acquisition of technical knowledge, reflecting accounting standards and
extant practice, rather than engagement with contemporary accounting thought or invol-
ving students as active participants in the production of knowledge (Gebreiter, 2021;
Hopper, 2013; Parker, 2013; Sikka et al., 2007).
This study has three objectives. First, to confirm that the empirical model operates
equivalently across different regions (Duff & Marriott, 2017a). Second, to compare the
findings of the regional studies. Third, to identify the regional challenges to inform
the international fostering of the TRN in accounting in universities. This issue is
384 A. DUFF ET AL.

becoming more important as the nexus between university teaching and research has
become the subject of political attention and policy making across many countries
with potentially detrimental effects on both areas of university activity. The TRN empiri-
cal model was previously tested in three studies that was conducted in different regions.
Based on the appropriateness of the TRN empirical model in these studies, an inter-
national comparative study is conducted to confirm the equivalent operation of the
model across different regions.

Contribution
The contribution of this study is three-fold. First, it demonstrates that the TRN empirical
model operates equivalently across three global regions. It does this by subjecting the
regression weights, the factor variances and error variances to invariance testing to estab-
lish their equivalence across the three regions. As the model is found to be invariant, we
then assess mean differences in the factors across the three regions. Second, although
prior work has assessed model fit and demographic differences within each of the
three regions, there has been no formal comparison of the three regions to establish
whether differences empirically exist. Thirdly, we believe that acknowledging the exist-
ence of a TRN supports the global standing of the accounting academic profession to
ensure that the focus on research is retained, while recognising the teaching-intensive
focus of technical knowledge.
This paper is organised as follows. A literature review is presented in the second
section. The research methodology is described in the third section. Data collection
and validity of the model are discussed in the fourth section. The fifth section presents
a discussion of the findings and the sixth section concludes the paper.

Literature review
Research and teaching are considered as two defining characteristics of higher education
(Durning & Jenkins, 2005; Trowler & Wareham, 2008). Calls for the integration of
research into teaching are repeatedly made, stating that the integration contributes to
the development of competencies, such as inquiry skills, which are essential to function
in the knowledge society (Brew, 2006) and that through involvement in research, stu-
dents are prepared to live in a world of super-complexity (Barnett, 2000). The linkage
between research and teaching, termed the ‘teaching research nexus’, implies interdepen-
dence (Tight, 2016), with some arguing that an emphasis on research might be detrimen-
tal to the vocational orientation of programmes and the employability of graduates
(Skoie, 2000). The lack of a research focus in accounting education has drawn criticism
(Samkin & Schneider, 2014a), however, the relative merits of integrating research within
what is increasingly viewed as vocational education and training (Hopper, 2013) are
largely inconclusive (Duff & Marriott, 2017a, 2017b).
The literature review highlights several studies that have investigated and described
the existence (or not) of the TRN. First, we consider TRN investigations in the
context of higher education and policy, followed by a description of investigations that
specifically focused on accounting. Each country in this study has its own context but
a common theme is a threat to the TRN that exists or is developing.
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 385

The teaching–research nexus (TRN)

Early studies strongly opposed the existence of any links between teaching and research
in higher education (see Feldman, 1987, pp. 274–275), stating that there is little research
to support the existence of a link between teaching and research (Elton, 1986, 2001;
Hattie & Marsh, 1996; Marsh & Hattie, 2002; Ramsden & Moses, 1992) and that what
is taught is isolated from the academic debate of researchers (Brown, 2005). In contrast,
Neumann (1992, 1993), moving away from the correlation studies of Marsh and Hattie,
argues that academics believe a nexus between teaching and research does exist, even if it
is not always possible to prove it statistically (Neumann, 1992). Neumann (1994) ident-
ified a tangible, intangible and a global nexus. The ‘tangible nexus’ (p. 326) exists when
academics with extended experience in research pass these research skills and techniques
on to students. The ‘intangible nexus’, (p. 327) by comparison, refers to the subtle inter-
play between teaching and research. Students’ engagement with knowledge in a question-
ing and critical way fosters curiosity and excitement, and a positive attitude to learning.
The broader connection between research and teaching at the faculty or institutional
level, referred to as the ‘global nexus’ (p. 331), points to the research activities of the aca-
demic unit and how faculty directs their research skills and experience in the courses
offered to students.
Identified as an intangible nexus, Smeby (1998), using a mixed-method research
design, found that the nexus varied by academic discipline and that academics teaching
at the doctoral degree level tended to agree that their research influenced their teaching.
Shin (2011) determined that the TRN differed depending on academics’ career stages,
their levels of education, and the academic disciplines in which academics pursued
their teaching and research activities.
At the global nexus level, Simons and Elen (2007) completed a literature review iden-
tifying the uncertainties that have been observed in the TRN, specifically as it relates to
the differentiation between higher education institutions, the aim of education at the uni-
versity, the organisation of higher education (curriculum and teaching) and institutional
arrangements (policy and financial issues, responsibilities). Their study found that the
contradictions can be attributed to the mixed use of two approaches, namely a functional
approach and an idealistic approach, calling for ‘an educational reflection and research
that takes into account the specific educational potential of academic enquiry, and the
particular teaching potential of researchers’ (Simons & Elen, 2007, p. 629).
Comparative studies that considered the relationship between teaching and research
include a study conducted in England and Sweden between four universities (Taylor,
2008); and between Dutch and English universities in the context of governance
reforms (Leisyte et al., 2009). Taylor (2008) identifies the relevance to the TRN of
issues such as the discipline, contextual factors, and structural and political contexts,
while Leisyte et al. (2009) found that work portfolios were seriously impacted by the
teaching and research workload.
Examining policy implications on the academic productivity at a large Norwegian uni-
versity, Christensen et al. (2018) showed that engagement, administrative and technical
support for research and teaching stimulated research publications. However, their study
warns that measuring academic productivity based on publication and credit points has
adverse effects on teaching, thereby supporting the argument of a negative global nexus
386 A. DUFF ET AL.

relationship between research and teaching. They argue that, to avoid adverse trade-offs
between research and teaching, and to gain further positive effects on research pro-
ductivity, the severe adverse effects on teaching output should receive careful consider-
ation (Christensen et al., 2018). Veer-Ramjeawon and Rowley’s (2019) recent study of
knowledge management in Mauritius and South Africa, calls on policymakers to
provide policy direction to enhance research in emerging higher education sectors,
and provides insights into the processes in universities of managing their core missions
in research, teaching and knowledge transfer.
While models of close linkages between research and teaching are widely embraced in
research-oriented universities, Geschwind and Broström (2015) identify a perceived mis-
alignment between institutional incentives for individual academic staff and the needs of
teaching. Their study found that while managers seek to secure the participation of senior
researchers in education, establishing a tangible nexus, they prefer to delegate the bulk of
teaching activities to less research-active staff. Gebreiter (2021) in a case study of a UK
Business School notes that a new Dean from the private sector implemented a new struc-
ture in the accounting department. Roles were described as ‘routine’ which included
teaching and administration and ‘non-routine’ which was research. Teaching fellows
were recruited, and they were only required to complete ‘routine’ tasks with no research
expectations, resulting in a non-existent TRN.
Continuing at a global nexus level, Brennan et al. (2019, p. 7) describe academics’ con-
ceptions of teaching and research, proposing that a community of scholars is the ‘heart of
a research-intensive university’, maximising teaching and research productivity. Focuss-
ing on academics in the social sciences, Horta and Santos (2019) examined how organ-
isational factors are related to the working research environments of universities
associated with the research agendas. Their study, as with other studies (Edgar &
Geare, 2013; Leisyte, 2016) finds that organisational characteristics can influence the
research agendas of academics. This finding would seem to be consistent with the
view that research evaluation exercises have influenced the attitudes of senior manage-
ment in universities, which in turn help shape organisational characteristics. However,
Horta and Santos argue that ‘policies that attempt to condition and regulate the research
produced by academics, and encourage the production of breakthrough research, may be
counterproductive and may have the opposite effect to what policy makers and university
managers intend’ (Horta & Santos, 2019, p. 9). They contend that giving academics more
freedom and autonomy is a better way to stimulate innovative, disruptive, and multidis-
ciplinary research.
Even though research and teaching are meant to be inter-connected in research uni-
versities, a strong symbiosis is not easily achieved (Boyer Commission, 1998), while the
shifting in contexts and expectations lead to uncertainties for individual academics and
universities as organisations. Boyer’s (1990) ‘Scholarship of Teaching’ is described as the
recognition of the work involved in the mastery of knowledge as well as the presentation
of information so that others may understand it (Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Lubbe,
2015; Tight, 2016). However, excellent teachers tend not to share and publish their
knowledge of exemplary teaching practices, as found by Halse et al. (2007) in their ana-
lyses of the research activities of award-winning university teachers in Australia, adding
to the debate of the relationship between teaching and research.
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 387

In their study of integrating disciplinary research into teaching in a faculty of huma-

nities, Visser-Wijnveen et al. (2012) observed unexpected benefits arising from a tangible
nexus of bringing students into contact with the research interest of the teacher. Exam-
ining the potential of inquiry-based learning to strengthen the TRN, Spronken-Smith
and Walker (2010) analysed three case studies in different disciplines and found that
adopting an open, discovery-oriented inquiry-based learning approach results in stron-
ger links between teaching and research. Schouteden et al. (2016) studied teachers’
research conceptions at teaching-intensive higher education institutions. Their study’s
focus is on teachers as ‘the very people who may have the most extensive contacts
with students, the most extensive teaching loads, and hence the most extensive opportu-
nities to integrate research into their teaching’ (p. 80). They found that differences
between teachers’ general and contextualised research conceptions provide a new and
promising view on the research–teaching relationship, and the relationship between tea-
chers’ research conceptions and research integration practices (Schouteden et al., 2016).
In summary, the seminal contribution of Neumann’s (1994) categorisations of the tan-
gible, intangible, and global benefits of the TRN have been extended by several sub-
sequent studies. Three decades of research endeavour have populated this social space
with theoretical and empirical contributions at all levels, be they departmental, disciplin-
ary, institutional or international. The literature suggests that, even though a TRN does
exist in most cases, there is mixed evidence, with some suggesting a lesser or limited
relationship.

Studies of the TRN in accounting education

The past four decades have seen several investigations into linkages between accounting
research and practice (Albrecht & Sack, 2000; Inanga & Schneider, 2005; Kaplan, 2011)
and calls for research into practical accounting issues such as sustainability and public
interest (Gray & Collison, 2002; Marx & Van der Watt, 2013). The so-called research-
practice gap in accounting has attracted considerable attention in recent special issues
of leading academic journals and editors’ forums (for example, Parker et al., 2011; Rat-
natunga, 2012; Scapens & Bromwich, 2010).
Concerns in the literature point to the development of a dichotomy between account-
ing research and teaching in the university system, originating from the competition
between different institutions for funds, talented students, and the most talented
faculty (Hopwood, 2007). Within the discipline of accounting and professional account-
ing education, observers have highlighted accounting academe’s challenges and its
relation with the profession (Evans et al., 2010; Guthrie et al., 2014; Guthrie & Parker,
2014, 2016), the influence of accreditation (Ellington & Williams, 2017; Mathews,
2004; Sikka et al., 2007) the research output of accounting academics (Samkin & Schnei-
der, 2014a), and research excellence as an influence over which university a student
chooses to study accounting (Behn et al., 2012; Ellington, 2017).
More recently, the relationship between accounting research and teaching has been
investigated in different regions (Duff & Marriott, 2012, 2017a, 2017b; Hancock et al.,
2017; Lubbe & Duff, 2020) using a cluster analysis model. In their study of the teach-
ing–research nexus, Duff and Marriott (2012, 2017a, 2017b) developed and tested a
model of the factors that influence this relationship. The empirical model was derived
388 A. DUFF ET AL.

from the significant accumulation of research which examines the TRN over forty years.
In doing so it includes a range of educational theories including Bandura’s (2001) social
cognitive theory and Goode’s (1960) theory of role strain. Their novel study, set in the
discipline of accounting, identified the factors that describe the positive effects of the
relationship between academic research and teaching as well as the factors that have a
negative effect. Although faculty research can be beneficial to teaching and vice versa,
there are also negative effects reported. The factors identified in the cluster analysis
model of Duff and Marriott (2017a) inform this comparative international study (as dis-
cussed in the method section below).
Duff and Marriott (2017a) concluded that the relationship between academic research
and teaching required careful management. They identified that the accounting TRN in
the UK differed from other countries and cultures and that it would be necessary to estab-
lish whether their model was applicable elsewhere. Hancock et al. (2017) administered
the Duff and Marriott (2012, 2017a, 2017b) research instrument to accounting and
finance academics in higher education in ANZ, establishing its validity with a sample
from these countries: ‘An important finding is that the empirical model developed for
the UK population of accounting academics operates almost equivalently for the popu-
lation of accounting and finance academics in ANZ’ (p. 27). Lubbe and Duff (2020)
adopted a similar instrument as Duff and Marriott (2017a, 2017b) and Hancock et al.
(2017) to a sample of accounting academics from SA. They found the model to be replic-
able in this country, suggesting its widespread applicability in both the developed and
developing worlds of accounting education.
In a study focussing on the TRN in accounting in South Africa, Lubbe (2015) found
that the perception that new knowledge in accounting is discovered outside the univer-
sity, combined with the strong control by the profession of the accounting curriculum
through accreditation and the loyalty of accounting academics towards the profession,
obstruct the perceived research role and value of accounting academics. Considering
the perceptions of Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) students study-
ing accounting in two Australian universities, Tucker and Scully (2020) found that,
although students readily embrace the use of accounting research in the classroom,
there is a need for educators to explicitly demonstrate the credibility of academic research
if the findings of such research are to be adopted in practice.
In summary, the slender corpus of literature considering the TRN has been dominated
by the authors’ largely quantitative efforts in defining what makes up the relationship
between teaching and research at a local or regional level.

TRN discussions and tensions in the respective regions

This section briefly describes the discussions and tensions in each of the three inter-
national regions of this study, namely UKI, ANZ, and SA. In the UK, following the
passing of the Higher Education and Research Act (2017), the teaching performance
of universities is measured by a series of metrics known collectively as the Teaching
Excellence Framework (TEF). These metrics included variables obtained from the
National Student Survey, the Destination of Leavers Survey (DHLE) and continuation
data obtained from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Critics noted that
none of the variables measured teaching quality. The chair of the TEF panel said that
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 389

it was not a ‘direct measure of teaching’ but was ‘a measure based on some of the out-
comes of teaching’ (Husbands, 2017).
The TEF is one of three measures used to assess the relative performance of UK univer-
sities. Research has been the subject of a Research Excellence Framework (REF) and the more
recently launched Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF). There is no attempt made by the
UK government to identify any linkages between the three measures. The REF assesses three
distinct elements: the quality of outputs (e.g. publications, performances, and exhibitions),
their impact beyond academia, and the environment that supports research (REF, 2019).
While there may be anticipated linkages between the REF and KEF, it is difficult to see
how the TEF measure could recognise the benefits from the TRN. Furthermore, the latest
REF exercise differs from previous exercises as it addresses an issue identified by the Stern
Review (2016) concerning the portability of research outputs. In previous exercises, the
research outputs assessed only related to academic faculty currently employed at an insti-
tution. For the latest exercise, this restriction is relaxed so the REF measures the research
outputs of faculty that no longer research, or teach, at that institution. The Stern Review
(2016) also noted that most institutions decided not to include all their faculty members
in the REF submission. It is recommended that all research-active staff should be returned
to the REF. Consequently, since 2015, HESA now requires universities to categorise academic
staff according to their employment contract as teaching only, research only, teaching and
research, or neither teaching nor research (HESA, 2015).
Hence there are some staff who only teach (HESA data indicates that this is over a
quarter of academic staff and rising) and not complete any research and, conversely,
some of the most research-active faculty have limited opportunities to teach. While it
is not the intended outcome of this significant contract change, the result is an inevitable
erosion of the potential learning benefits of the TRN in UK universities.
Traditionally there has been an expectation that academics at universities in ANZ
should be involved in teaching, research, and service. However, it is now quite
common for some faculty members to be appointed as teaching-only where there are
no research expectations, or teaching-focused where the research expectations are less
and related to pedagogy. There are some similarities with the case study reported by Geb-
reiter (2021). This has raised the spectre of teaching-only universities as was the case in
Australia prior to 1985. However, this view was strongly opposed in submissions to a
review of provider category standards in Australia in 2018.
There is the widespread use of casual academics in ANZ. For example:
Four in five of Australia’s casual academics – those who are employed on a short-term basis
and often paid hourly – have teaching-only contracts, and this is likely to rise. Over 20% of
Australian academics are paid by the hour as casual staff. (Bennet et al., 2019)

Such roles do not offer the same opportunities for promotion, and many accounting aca-
demics in ANZ are on contracts with expectations around teaching and research in the
belief that there is a symbiotic relationship between both activities (Bennet et al., 2019).
The Bradley Report (Bradley et al., 2008) conceded there is no compelling evidence about
the value of the TRN, stating that:
While it is difficult to find compelling research evidence which unequivocally supports the
argument that graduates with degrees from such institutions are demonstrably better than
390 A. DUFF ET AL.

those from teaching-only institutions, it would not be in Australia’s best interests to ignore
the weight of international opinion and practice on this issue. (p. 124)

In ANZ there is nothing like the TEF although there is an ongoing debate about
rewarding universities based on student performance. Possible performance indicators
and performance targets that have been suggested relate to improvements in student
attrition, student performance, low socio-economic status (SES) participation and work-
force preparedness of graduates.
Research output as a key performance measure of Australian universities commenced
in 2010 with the first Exercise in Research for Australia (ERA). New Zealand has the Per-
formance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) which commenced in 2004. In Australia, the
ERA is based around four criteria: indicators of research quality; indicators of research
volume and activity; indicators of research application or impact and indicators of rec-
ognition as established through esteem measures. The 2018 ERA results in Australia
were published in March 2019 and were met with criticisms around the value of the exer-
cise given the costs incurred and with no research funding attached to the outcomes. The
political environment in Australia in relation to higher education and the roles and
funding of teaching and research supports the importance of the research reported in
this paper (Guthrie et al., 2014; Guthrie & Parker, 2016). The Australian government
has recently signalled a move to fund more applied research. Alan Tudge the Federal
Education Minister commented ‘ Lest anyone miss what this means, Mr Tudge made
it plain that rankings driven by research metrics, will not be the main game’ (Campus
Morning Mail, 2021). Less focus on journal rankings has the potential to provide
more recognition for research on pedagogy, especially if such research shows improve-
ments in student learning and employability skills. This links back to the professional
body requirements of accounting degrees that focus heavily on developing employability
skills.
There is a similar expectation in SA for academics to be active researchers. Shaped by
post-apartheid pressures, policy frameworks and capacity building of the higher edu-
cation sector received considerable attention over the last 20 years (Cloete, 2014), with
a recent shift focussing on ‘strengthening regional and national development of
African universities to enable their more meaningful participation in the global knowl-
edge economy and society’ (p. 1355). SA universities receive annual subsidies from the
Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) based on research publication
output, with a significant proportion relating to journal article publications (Harley
et al., 2016), providing a financial incentive to increase research output. The DHET
does not distinguish between journals on its accreditation list and therefore the govern-
ment subsidies do not consider the quality of journals (Fouchè & Van der Merwe, 2020).
To encourage the publication of high-quality research, the SA National Research Foun-
dation (NRF) has a rating system for researchers based primarily on the quality and
impact of their outputs (Harley et al., 2016). A similar national rating system does not
exist for quality teaching in SA.
Considering the factors that impact accounting research output in developing
countries, Negash et al. (2019) refer to the larger Anglophone Sub-Sahara Africa
region. Their study identified factors limiting research output in this region to include
the national research assessment policies and procedures, lack of research funding,
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 391

editorial and/or reviewer biases that are not necessarily favourable for research carried
out in (or about) the region, and internet connectivity issues. Like the other regions,
accounting academics in SA are required to be engaged in research, teaching and
service. Some academics are appointed as teaching-only with no research expectations,
or teaching-focused where the research expectations are less. However, promotion cri-
teria require that permanent staff demonstrate research output. The ‘service’ component
is not always clearly described and often entails support of the profession and social
responsiveness.
Even though a formal assessment of research output exists in SA, the focus of account-
ing academe has been, for several years, on the teaching of accounting in line with the
dominant PABs in SA (Van Der Schyf, 2008; Venter & de Villiers, 2013). Studies on
the perceptions and focus of SA accounting academics identified issues associated with
a lack of research skills, insufficient time for conducting research, a lack of mentorship
and departmental support (Lubbe & Duff, 2020), academic pressure on quality teaching
to large classes of diverse students (Lubbe, 2017; Nieuwoudt & Wilcocks, 2005; West,
2006).
Notwithstanding the existence of a research component in their employment con-
tracts, SA accounting academics either largely fail to engage in, or remain disconnected
from research (Verhoef & Samkin, 2017). They describe the existence of two-tier pro-
motion and remuneration system in South African universities that favour accounting
academics who are professionally qualified, enabling a practice of salary loading to
recruit and retain professionally qualified staff to teach accounting (Venter & de Villiers,
2013; Verhoef & Samkin, 2017).
The TRN has been the subject of continual debate within SA universities. As men-
tioned, concerns about the relatively low accounting research output is SA are associated
with the status of accreditation (Venter & de Villiers, 2013; West, 2006) that creates
tension between teaching and research, limited flexibility on content (Stainbank &
Tewari, 2014) and heavy teaching loads allowing little time for research (Fouchè &
Van der Merwe, 2020). In the first TRN study conducted in SA (Lubbe, 2015), the
strong control by the accounting profession of the content offered by accredited univer-
sities and the loyalty of accounting academics towards the profession were identified as
issues that obstruct the research role of accounting academics.
SA accounting academics are more driven by the requirements of the profession
(Venter & de Villiers, 2013). However, there is an increased pressure on SA accounting
academics to produce research output (even though the quality is not necessarily
assessed) and to hold a PhD. This is in line with Paisey and Paisey’s work (2017) that
identified the trend towards the development of PhD holders rather than professionally
qualified staff. While the accounting research output in SA is lagging that of developed
countries such as the UK, Australia and NZ (Samkin & Schneider, 2014a), recent
studies noted a shift from being teaching orientated towards being more research orien-
tated (De Jager & Frick, 2016) with accounting academics pursuing PhD studies for the
purpose of career progression and for intrinsic personal reasons (De Jager et al., 2018).
In sum, the political and institutional environments outlined above demonstrate that
this is an important time to assess the benefits of the TRN in accounting at an inter-
national level. In each jurisdiction, there has been an observable trend towards account-
ing faculty becoming more teaching and less research focused. If this trend persists, then
392 A. DUFF ET AL.

the many identified benefits of the TRN are in jeopardy. This would be detrimental to
accounting faculty members, their students and, in the long term, to the status of the
accounting profession itself. This study provides evidence that a TRN does exist in
accounting, and to protect the global standing of the accounting academic profession,
it is important that accounting does not become a teaching-only activity with limited
research opportunities. The following section outlines the research method of this study.

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

Inventory development and administration

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

Instrument validation
For the purposes of this research four analytic steps were used to validate the scores
yielded by the inventory and explain variation within the sample. The first step involves
internal consistency reliability coefficients for the posited scales. Nunnally and Bernstein
(1994) suggest a cut-off of around 0.6 for coefficient alpha is adequate especially when
used alongside other methods (e.g. confirmatory factor analysis) that ‘allow for an
empirical evaluation of the assumptions underlying them’ (Yang & Green, 2011, p. 377).
The second step uses confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the ability of survey
items to describe a model consisting of eight first-order factors and another consisting of
eight first-order factors and two second-order factors. This involves an analysis of the
relationship between the items (observed variables) and the first-order factors (unob-
served variables) and in the case of the second-order model the relationship between
the first-order factors and their higher-order counterparts. The standardised factor
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 393

loadings (SFLs) for each of the first-order factors are examined and SFLs less than 0.4 are
removed as they have limited ability to represent the factor. After careful qualitative con-
sideration of their relationship to other factors, rejected items are offered to other first-
order factors to see how well they load. The retained items are then used to create a com-
posite measure for each first-order factor. A one-factor model is also tested for compari-
son purposes.
In the third step, the relationship between the two second-order factors and the
first-order factors and their constituent items was assessed. Fourthly, the goodness-
of-fit of the model to the data was considered. This involves the creation of competing
models. A careful consideration of the goodness-of-fit statistics allows the selection of
the most theoretically and empirically compelling model. To evaluate the fit of the
measurement models, the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) is used
in tandem with the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as rec-
ommended by Hu and Bentler (1998) and MacCallum and Austin (2000). For
samples N < 500, the combinational rule SRMR < .11 and RMSEA < .08 is considered
‘extremely sensitive in detecting models with mispecified factor covariances’ (Hu &
Bentler, 1999, p. 26).
Finally, the results of an analysis to test the equivalence of the variance-covariance
matrices across the three countries are reported. The proposition that the number of
factors underlying the teaching–research gestalt model is invariant across country (i.e.
an eight-factor model or an eight first-order factor two second-order factor model) is
tested. The premise that all the measurement scaling units (i.e. factor loadings), error var-
iances, factor variances, and factor covariances for each of the eight factors (and two-
second order factors), are equivalent across each country.

Data sources
The findings reported below originate from the data collected when the instrument was
tested in the three respective regions. The response rates were as follows: UKI study:
17.7%; AZN study: 15.6%; and SA study: 19.2%. The respective data sources used the
same inventory items, comprising of 32 items with eight subscales, analysed using a
five-point Likert scale. The instrument has two ‘defining’ scales of Positive Aspects of
the TRN and Negative Aspects of the TRN.
Responses by participants from the three respective regions are included in the
findings below, illuminating the challenges and tensions experienced within each
region. The model specifications and fit are explained further below.

Findings
Model fit
Four models are tested for comparison purposes – see Table 1. First, a one-factor model
(Model A). Second, an eight lower-order, one higher-order factor (Model B). Third, an
eight-factor model (Model C). Finally, a two second-order and eight first-order model
(Model D). The eight-factor model (Model A) achieved a good overall fit according to
the fit indices. the χ2 was statistically significant, the statistic was the lowest of the
394 A. DUFF ET AL.

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

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

three models (1891.109), but the χ2/df ratio of 1.602, RMSEA (0.038) and associated 95%
confidence intervals (0.034–0.041) and SRMR (0.0938) are indicative of excellent fit.
The data also yielded a good overall fit to eight first-order factor and two second-order
factor model (Model D). The χ2 statistic was marginally larger than the first-order factor
model alone (1891.109) and was also statistically significant. However, the χ2/df ratio of
1.592 is marginally preferable to the first-order factor model. The RMSEA (0.037) and
associated confidence interval (0.034–0.041) and SRMR (0.1039) are also indicative of
excellent fit, although the SRMR statistic suggests the first-order factor model may be
preferable. However, the nested model of Model D is selected on grounds of parsimony.
Finally, as expected, the one-factor model (Model A), tested purely for comparison
purposes, produced fit indices indicative of poor fit. The one-factor model had the
highest χ2 statistic (4089.729), χ2/df ratio (3.366). The RMSEA (0.075) and SRMR
(0.1538) are also indicative of poor fit.

Model re-specification and selection

The investigation considered the potential modifications that could be made to both the
first-order and second-order factor models. Modification indices (MIs) propose cross
loading of items onto additional factors other than those assumed. However, such
changes were not adopted as they were not supported by prior research considering atti-
tudes towards research and teaching relations.
MIs were considered for each of the three samples. In the case of ANZ, no significant
cross-loadings of items onto other factors were identified. In the case of SA, an item from
factor III, Research dissonance from the curriculum, ‘students rarely see staff research as
valuable to their own learning’ cross loaded negatively with Factor V (Research-led
teaching). In the case of the UKI sample, this same item was found to negatively
cross-load with Factor II (Research promoting critical analysis) and Factor VII (Students
value contact with researchers).
Other cross-loadings were evident with the UKI sample. These included the item
‘faculty who seek promotion publish in academic journals at the expense of other activi-
ties’, from Factor I: Extrinsic rewards of research, was found to positively cross load with
Factors II (Research dissonance from curriculum), IV (Tension between research and
professional curriculum) and VII (Research and teaching different attributes). Empiri-
cally, these changes made little difference to the data fit to the model and were not sup-
ported by the ANZ and SA data, and were consequently not included.
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 395

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

Factorial invariance
First, the two higher-order and eight lower-order factor model was tested on the three
country samples. The model fit for: the ANZ sample, χ2(376) = 537.035; χ2/df = 1.428;
RMSEA = 0.071; SRMR = 0.084; the SA sample χ2(376) = 548.410; χ2/df = 1.459;
RMSEA = 0.075; SRMR = 0.093; and the UKI sample χ2(341) = 696.260; χ2/df = 1.852;
RMSEA = 0.037; SRMR = 0.072. The fit can be considered good for each of the three
countries, the better fit in UKI in part reflecting a larger sample size. The generalizability
and stability of the eight-factor and eight first-order, two second-order models are eval-
uated by the application of several progressively constraining models. First, the factor
loadings are constrained to be equal across groups. If this model fit is inadequate, then
additional constraints are imposed on other parameters estimates.
When the factor loadings of the eight first-order factor, two higher-order factor model
are constrained (Δχ2 = 57.783; Δdf = 44 p = 0.080; ΔRMSEA < 0.001; ΔSRMR = 0.004) the
difference was not statistically significant. Consequently, no further testing is necessary,
and we can be confident that the model operates equivalently across the three samples by
country.1 In sum, the preferred Model D models operate equivalently across countries.

Final factor analytic model

Table 2 reports the factor loadings for three samples for the eight first-order factors of
Model D. Similarly, the measurement weights for the two second-order factors are
reported in Table 3.
The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 4. As expected, the positive gestalt factors
are significantly negatively correlated with the negative gestalt factors (−0.46).

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

Table 5 reports the findings of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with
country as the fixed factor. Six (of eight) gestalt factors yield statistically significant differ-
ences with a small to medium effect size.
The MANOVA reveals three important findings. First, considering the positive gestalt
factors, the UKI rates two (of four) factors lower than both ANZ and SA (p < .001). The
southern hemisphere regions view Research Promoting Critical Analysis (I), and Students
Value Contact with Researchers (VII) higher than their counterparts in UKI. ANZ and
UKI accounting academics also rate the benefits of Research-led Teaching (V) higher
than their colleagues in SA (p < .001). Second, ideas of Research-led teaching (Factor
V) have had little traction in SA, relative to ANZ and the UKI. It is likely that the signifi-
cant control of the accounting curriculum and its delivery by the PAB (the South African
Institute of Chartered Accountants), which is much more invasive than its counterparts
in ANZ and the UKI, have quashed or limited the development of research having a sig-
nificant bearing on what is taught in universities in SA. Third, considering the negative
396 A. DUFF ET AL.

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

gestalt three (of four) factors identify that the ANZ and UKI samples consider Research
Dissonance from the Curriculum (III); Tension: Research and Professional Curriculum
(IV); and Research and Teaching: Different Attributes (VII) more significant challenges
than accounting academics in SA (p < .001).
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 397

Table 3. Summary of two second-order factors.

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

Table 4. Descriptive statistics – all samples.

Factor Mean Std Dev I II III IV V VI VII
I 2.16 .79
II 2.22 .75 −.22
III 2.73 .77 .40 −.45
IV 2.64 .82 .22 −.17 .49
V 3.11 .96 −.30 .55 −.39 −.16
VI 2.65 .69 −.16 .41 −.26 −.15 .39
VII 2.73 1.10 .36 −.31 .52 .35 −.35 −.26
VIII 2.64 1.01 −.22 .59 −.43 −.17 .52 .39 −.30
Factor Mean Std Dev I
A 2.82 .72
B 2.63 .63 −.46
Note: p < .01 r > .14.

Table 5. Comparisons between countries using MANOVA.

ANZ (N = 82) SA (N = 81) UKI (N = 245)
F, (2, 406). Partial
Clustering variable Mean St. Dev Mean St. Dev Mean St. Dev p η2 Inequality
Panel A: Positive gestalt
II Research promoting 2.46 0.81 2.34 0.83 2.10 0.68 11.172, .05 ANZ, SA >
critical analysis <.001 UKI
V Research-led teaching 3.39 0.98 2.85 1.01 3.11 0.92 7.033 .03 ANZ, UKI >
< .001 SA
VI Researcher stimulation 2.76 0.72 2.56 0.77 2.64 0.65 1.533, n.s. –
of ideas
VIII Students value 2.78 1.04 3.04 1.02 2.47 0.96 11.898, < .06 ANZ, SA >
contact with researchers .001 UKI

Panel B: Negative
gestalt
I Extrinsic rewards of 2.05 0.79 2.09 0.75 2.23 0.81 2.311, n.s. –
research
III Research dissonance 2.73 0.75 2.30 0.65 2.88 0.77 19.711, < .09 ANZ, UKI >
from the curriculum .001 SA
IV Tension: research and 2.73 0.83 2.25 0.81 2.73 0.79 11.407, < .05 ANZ, UKI >
professional curriculum .001 SA
VII Research and teaching: 2.63 1.07 2.30 1.07 2.90 1.11 9.998, < .05 ANZ, UKI >
Different attributes .001 SA
Note: Standardised means and standard deviations on a scale: 4 = strongly agree to 0 = strongly disagree.
398 A. DUFF ET AL.

Discussion
This study has three objectives. First, to confirm that the empirical model of Duff and
Marriott (2017a) sampling UKI accounting academics operates equivalently when
sampling accounting educators in other countries. Second, to compare the findings
across the three regions: ANZ, SA and UKI. Third, to identify and describe the regional
challenges to inform the international fostering of the TRN in accounting in universities.
The first objective of this study is to confirm the appropriateness of an empirical
model developed using a sample of UK accounting academics to examine the relation-
ship of teaching to research and vice versa. An important finding is that the empirical
model developed for the UK population of accounting academics operates almost equiva-
lently for the population of accounting academics in ANZ and SA. This implies that it is
the teaching and researching of accounting as an academic discipline that is important in
understanding these relationships rather than the geographic and economic environment
in which it is located. While there were some small adjustments to the model when
applied in ANZ and SA these were minor and primarily due to smaller sample sizes.
Overall, we conclude that conceptions of the relationship between research and teaching
in ANZ, SA and the UKI are increasingly similar. So, despite differences in the mix of
national and international students (cf. ANZ) and large differences in the social back-
grounds and economic resources available to students (cf. SA) it is apparent that the dis-
cipline of accounting is a dominant factor, rather than contextual and environmental
national differences. That is, accounting education is bounded by a curriculum domi-
nated by professional accounting bodies with increasingly international reach and
accounting research with a focus on international research is more influential than the
educational context of the nation it is being conducted in. Or alternatively, internation-
ally accounting education is becoming increasingly homogenous.
Significant differences in higher education and accounting education exist in the three
regions. These are considered in the second objective of this study, when comparing the
results. Specific differences identified include the teaching environment, the profile of the
academics, their research experience and the level of tension and dissonance identified
between teaching and research. The following responses emphasise the challenge of
not focussing on research:
I think where we have gone wrong is not focussing on practical research as some disciplines
do. I think a lot of professionals are operating from poor intellectual base because they have
not been challenged to think. Accounting and finance are completely cut off from real world
issues affecting society. (SA respondent)

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

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

ANZ has very large numbers of undergraduate students with class sizes of more than
1,000 commonplace, with very significant numbers of international students. SA has
equally large numbers of undergraduate students (similar to ANZ) with a more
diverse student profile. In ANZ and the UK, diversity is often described as international
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 399

students having to study in a foreign language within a different culture (Lawson et al.,
2014). In SA, diversity is associated with the socio-economic, cultural and language
differences as is evident in the mixed local population. Higher Education in SA is distin-
guished by its racial diversity and highly heterogeneous patterns of inclusion, employ-
ment patterns and opportunity. SA student cohorts are diverse among socio-economic
background, culture, and language. The challenges of teaching first-generation students
are emphasised in this response:
I believe the huge focus in South Africa on the first-generation students from disadvantaged
backgrounds, the impact of apartheid and the need for a love of teaching to become an
accounting academic imply that very few academic are unaware of this tension. (SA
respondent)

The UKI has smaller class sizes but is noted by its longstanding research assessment exer-
cises dating back to 1989 and the declining influence of the PABs in delivering account-
ing education, with a PhD qualification necessary for a career as a teaching and research
academic. While SA accounting academics are influenced by the requirements of the pro-
fession (Venter & de Villiers, 2013), there is an increased tendency among SA accounting
academics to produce research output and to hold a PhD. This is similar to Paisey and
Paisey (2017) findings that identified a trend in the UKI towards the development of
PhD holders, rather than recruiting professionally qualified staff, which according to
Gebreiter (2021) appears to being reversed today with increasing numbers of profession-
ally-qualified teaching and scholarship academics with the ability to boost National
Student Survey (NSS) scores.
The profile and demographics of accounting academics play a significant role in
predicting group membership as illustrated in the differing characteristics of the par-
ticipants that completed the surveys. Even though there is a dwindling number of
professionally qualified accounting academics in the UK (Paisey & Paisey, 2017), Aus-
tralian universities struggle to recruit and retain quality academics due to the signifi-
cant research pressures placed on emerging academics (Pop-Vasileva et al., 2014).
However, in SA the dominant PAB (SAICA) insists that the majority of accounting
academics teaching on accredited programmes are professional accountants (Venter
& de Villiers, 2013).
In the ANZ and UKI samples, the most senior staff were those most opposed to
acknowledging and endorsing a teaching–research nexus. Specifically, the SA sample
includes larger numbers of professionally-qualified academics relative to the dwindling
numbers of accounting academics with professional qualifications in the UK (Paisey &
Paisey, 2017) and ANZ. Accounting education in SA is notable for the imperial position
held by the national PAB in determining what is taught and how it is imparted. The SA
sample also reports a relatively young academic cohort, compared to the ageing profile
in UKI (Duff & Marriott, 2017b) and ANZ (Hancock et al., 2017). This points to the
dominance of accounting education in SA universities by professional accountants
(CAs) who are relatively novice in terms of their research careers. This would
explain the criticism of SA accounting academics focussing on teaching technical
skills and allowing the profession to dictate the university curriculum with less scope
for TRN (Samkin & Schneider, 2014b; Venter & de Villiers, 2013; Verhoef &
Samkin, 2017).
400 A. DUFF ET AL.

A further difference identified is the level of research experience by accounting aca-

demics. The professional accountants that dominate accounting faculty in SA universities
are largely novice researchers, as explained in this response:
Learning to research is a whole new skill set. No other job would require you to be a pro-
fessional in research and teaching and social impact and admin. (SA respondent)

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

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

The high research orientation by ANZ and UKI academics is supported in the result of
the positive gestalt of Research-led teaching (V) where the ANZ and UKI results were
much higher than the SA results. This may be another factor influencing the low research
orientation of SA academics.
However, it is in the negative gestalts that the tension between research and teaching
in SA is more noticeable, with larger disagreements in the negative gestalts of Tension:
research and professional curriculum (IV), and Research and teaching: Different attributes
(VII). The SA survey results indicate the highest-ranked factor was the negative gestalt of
Research Dissonance from the Curriculum (III), a finding that might be expected where
the curriculum is professionally and technically orientated without any research com-
ponent (Lubbe, 2017). Even if the accounting academic is research active it is likely
that their research will be distant from the traditional curriculum being delivered. The
SA accounting curriculum also lacks a rigorous research exercise, which explains the
low score on Extrinsic Rewards of Research (I) and Research-led teaching (V).
The third objective is to identify the regional challenges to inform the international
fostering of the TRN in accounting in universities. UKI and more recently ANZ have
established systems of research assessment. Although it is impossible to directly relate
research assessment to the findings of this survey, it is notable that accounting educators
in ANZ and the UKI report higher ratings to the negative gestalt of the TRN than SA
accounting faculty. Issues relating to Extrinsic rewards of research (I), Research dissonance
from the curriculum (III), Tension: research and professional curriculum (IV), and
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 401

Research and teaching: different attributes (VII) all include items which reference the div-
isions created between research and other academic activities created by research assess-
ment and similar metrics.
Research is what differentiates Universities from TAFE, training, etc. (ANZ respondent)

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

In the SA study, the largest cluster identified tends to rate positive and negative aspects of
the TRN equally, reflecting the relatively nascent role of research in the SA accounting
academy. However, the imperial position of the PABs in SA accounting education, rela-
tive to UKI and ANZ, is reflected in the lower rewards of research in the negative issues
such as that research is dissonant from the curriculum and that research requires
different attributes than teaching, for example:
Students really cannot be bothered about our research - they are here to pass the SAICA
syllabus. (SA respondent)

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

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

Conclusions
A fundamental issue that this research uncovers is that the TRN is much more than an
individual academic promoting their own research in the classroom, contrary to Gebrei-
ter’s (2021) analysis. The descriptions provided reflect Neumann’s (1994) categorisations
of the tangible, intangible, and global benefits of the TRN. Ideally, an effective TRN goes
beyond the lecturer talking about their own research, it is a tangible dynamic which
includes students as active creators of knowledge and occurs at individual departmental,
institutional, professional and community levels.
This study described and compared the TRN in the academic discipline of accounting
in universities in three international regions (UKI, ANZ and SA) using a factor analytic
model. Acknowledging the existence of a TRN supports the global standing of the
accounting academic profession to ensure it does not become a teaching-only activity
with limited research opportunities and a stagnating curriculum driven by the needs
of professional accounting bodies who operate internationally. Unlike some disciplines,
accounting graduates often enter the profession where it is important for them to not
only be technically competent but also familiar with, and able to access, relevant research.
402 A. DUFF ET AL.

The first objective of the study is to confirm that the empirical model operates equiva-
lently in other countries which was a future research objective specified by Duff and Mar-
riott (2017a). Second, this study set out to identify and describe significant differences in
accounting education in the three regions of UKI, ANZ and SA. Third, the international
challenges to fostering the TRN in accounting in universities are identified and described.
These objectives were achieved by applying the empirical model to the data obtained
from the three regions and ensuring that the empirical model developed for the UK
population of accounting academics operates almost equivalently for the population of
accounting academics in ANZ and SA.
A significant finding is that the empirical model developed for the UKI population of
accounting academics operates almost identically for the population of university-based
accounting academics in ANZ and SA. The purpose of this study, namely, to establish
whether the TRN empirical model developed by Duff and Marriott (2012) applies
across different global regions, is answered and it is positive. The relevance of the
TRN in accounting confirms that knowledge in accounting is not merely technical but
is strongly supported by research. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that it is the teaching
and researching of accounting as an academic discipline that is important in understand-
ing these relationships rather than the geographic and economic environment in which it
is located. This is one of the main contributions of this study.
The TRN has positive and negative gestalts. These are recognised and widely under-
stood. On the positive gestalt panel, the results show that UKI has a more negative view
on three of the four clustering variables, while on the negative aspects, SA has a less nega-
tive view. This could be that the views of UKI respondents have been influenced by over
thirty years of regular research exercises. The influence, or lack of influence, of national
research measurement exercises, is also evidenced with the differences in the results from
SA compared to UKI and ANZ. The negative tensions in the TRN in SA are more notice-
able where the accounting curriculum is more heavily influenced by the PAB and where a
limited national research measurement exercise is in place.
However, in the accounting discipline, the combined impact of the influence of the
PABs and the various performance measures applied to universities mean that any posi-
tive synergies from the TRN are being eroded if not lost completely. This is detrimental to
the academic development of the subject of accounting which risks jeopardising the
standing of the profession across the globe and the learning experiences of students.
The study of accounting at some universities is being relegated to a teaching-only pro-
fession with a focus on technical content and less on the development of critical thinking
in students that the TRN can offer. For example, in Australia only 19 of 39 public uni-
versities submitted accounting for assessment in the 2018 national research assessment
exercise compared to 28 in 2010. This is some evidence of the erosion of the research
activity of many accounting staff in Australia given their heavy teaching loads. In the
UK, accounting has been subsumed into a business and management unit of assessment
and is no longer separately identifiable. In SA, the focus remains the teaching of the pro-
fessional accounting curriculum that is strongly aligned with the local PAB accreditation
criteria.
What can we do to address the erosion of the status of accounting research? Gebreiter
(2021) offers three reflections on this issue. These are ensuring accounting researchers are
active in leadership roles: recruit teaching fellows who have an interest in research and
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 403

finally persuade senior managers in universities as to the value of accounting research. If

accounting departments in universities are to avoid being teaching only then we need to
persuade our key stakeholders like professional accounting bodies to lobby senior man-
agers in universities on our behalf as they are likely to have more success. We also need to
have professional accounting bodies sponsoring more accounting research especially in
accounting education where they can see a more direct benefit for future members. This
could include scholarships, mentoring opportunities as well as direct research funding.
Literature investigating the TRN in accounting has focused on quantitative data and
qualitative descriptions. This study uses a quantitative model that demonstrates that at
least in the westernised, Anglo domains of ANZ, SA and UKI there is a commonality
of how the teaching–research nexus is understood. This suggests that there is significant
scope for other accounting researchers in other jurisdictions or using different method-
ologies to continue to understand how teaching and research relations can be better used
to enhance the quality of accounting education. This study has focused on the TRN in
accounting across three international regions. There are other culturally similar geo-
graphic regions where this work can be extended, most notably North America. Corre-
spondingly, it would be interesting to extend the work to regions with less Anglo-Saxon
influence such as Asia, South America or the Middle East. There are other subjects like
accounting where the curriculum is either influenced by professional bodies (e.g. psy-
chology, law, etc.) and/or are becoming increasingly dominated by teaching only
faculty (e.g. design and creative arts, humanities and social studies, business and management
studies, education, etc.). Similar investigations using the instrument developed (or refine-
ment) for other academic disciplines is to be encouraged, especially as the influence of
research exercises and other university performance indicators increases. The sector’s
response to the pandemic and the pedagogic challenges means that best practise is only
just being started to be shared in the peer-reviewed academic press. This should be a signifi-
cant feature of the research output that can be expected in the months and years to come.

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

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

ORCID
Ilse Lubbe http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3603-4718

References
Albrecht, S., & Sack, R. (2000). Accounting education: Charting the module through a perilous
future. American Accounting Association.
404 A. DUFF ET AL.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 255–
265. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696156
Behn, B. K., Ezzell, W. F., Murphy, L., Rayburn, J. D., Stith, M. T., & Strawser, J. R. (2012). The
pathways commission on accounting higher education: Charting a national strategy for the
next generation of accountants. Issues in Accounting Education: An International Journal, 27
(3), 595–600. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-10300
Bennet, D., Roberts, L., & Ananthram, S. (2019). Teaching-only roles could mark the end of your
academic career. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/teaching-only-roles-could-
mark-the-end-of-your-academic-career-74826
Boyer Commission. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s
research universities. Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). A special report. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education:
Final report. DEEWR.
Brennan, L., Cusack, T., Delahunt, E., Kuznesof, S., & Donnelly, S. (2019). Academics’ conceptu-
alisations of the research-teaching nexus in a research-intensive Irish university: A dynamic fra-
mework for growth & development. Learning and Instruction, 60, 301–309. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.005
Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, R. (2005). Why link personal research and teaching? Education + Training, 47(3), 393–407.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910510617024
Campus Morning Mail. (2021). End of story for ranking glory. https://campusmorningmail.com.
au/news/end-of-story-for-ranking-glory/.
Christensen, M., Dyrstad, J. M., & Innstrand, S. T. (2018). Academic work engagement, resources
and productivity: Empirical evidence with policy implications. Studies in Higher Education, 45
(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1517304
Cloete, N. (2014). The South African higher education system: Performance and policy. Studies in
Higher Education, 39(8), 1355–1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.949533
De Jager, P. G., & Frick, L. (2016). Accounting doctorates produced in South Africa 2008-2014.
Meditari Accountancy Research, 24(3), 438–457. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2015-
0033
De Jager, P., Lubbe, I., & Papageorgiou, E. (2018). The South African chartered accountant aca-
demic: Motivations and challenges when pursuing a doctoral degree. Meditari Accountancy
Research, 26(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2017-0125
Duff, A. (2021). Students’ perspectives of the teaching-research nexus in accounting: The develop-
ment and validation of an inventory (under review).
Duff, A., Hancock, P., & Marriott, N. (2020). The role and impact of professional accountancy
associations on accounting education research: An international study. British Accounting
Review, 52(5), 100829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.03.004
Duff, A., & Marriott, N. (2012). Teaching and research: Partners or competitors? Institute of
Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
Duff, A., & Marriott, N. (2017a). The teaching-research gestalt: The development of an empirical
scale. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2406–2420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.
1152465
Duff, A., & Marriott, N. (2017b). The education-research gestalt in accounting: A cluster analytic
approach. The British Accounting Review, 49(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.05.
001
Durning, B., & Jenkins, A. (2005). Teaching/research relations in departments: The perspectives of
built environment academics. Studies in Higher Education, 30(4), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03075070500160046
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 405

Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2013). Factors influencing university research performance. Studies in
Higher Education, 38(5), 774–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.601811
Ellington, P. (2017). The impediments to the change to UK University accounting education, a
comparison to the USA pathways commission. Accounting Education: An International
Journal. 26(5–6), 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2017.1326154
Ellington, P., & Williams, A. (2017). Accounting academics’ perceptions of the effect of accredita-
tion on UK accounting degrees. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 26(5–6), 501–
521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2017.1361845
Elton, L. (1986). Research & teaching: Symbiosis or conflict. Higher Education, 15(3), 299–304.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129218
Elton, L. (2001). Research and teaching: Conditions for a positive link. Teaching in Higher
Education, 6(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510020029590
Evans, E., Burritt, R., & Guthrie, J. (2010). Accounting education at a crossroad in 2010. ICAI and
Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability: University of South Australia, Adelaide,
SA.
Feldman, K. A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as
related to their instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration. Research in Higher
Education, 26(2), 227–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992241
Fouchè, J., & Van der Merwe, N. (2020). South African accounting education stocktake. African Sun
Media.
Gebreiter, F. (2021). A profession in peril? University corporatization, performance measurement
and the sustainability of accounting academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102292
Geschwind, L., & Broström, A. (2015). Managing the teaching – research nexus: Ideals and practice
in research-oriented universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 34, 60–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934332.
Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25(4), 483–496. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2092933
Gray, R. H., & Collison, D. J. (2002). Can’t see the wood for the trees, can’t see the trees for the
numbers? Accounting education, sustainability and the public interest. Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, 13(5/6), 797–836. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2002.0554
Guthrie, J., Evans, E., & Burritt, R. (2014). Australian accounting academics: Challenges and pos-
sibilities. Meditari Accountancy Research, 22(1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-09-
2013-0038
Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (2016). Whither the accounting profession, accountants and account-
ing researchers? Commentary and projections. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
29(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2015-2263
Halse, C., Deane, E., Hobson, J., & Jones, G. (2007). The research-teaching nexus: What do
national teaching awards tell US? Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 727–746. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03075070701685155
Hancock, P., Marriott, N., & Duff, A. (2017). Research-teaching yin-yang? An empirical study of
accounting and finance academics in Australia and New Zealand. Accounting and Finance, 59
(2), 219–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12257
Harley, Y. X., Huysamen, E., Hlungwani, C., & Douglas, T. (2016). Does the DHET research
output subsidy model penalise high-citation publication? A case study. South African Journal
Science, 112(5/6), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150352
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analy-
sis. Review of Educational Research, 66(6), 507–542. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543066004507
Higher Education and Research Act. (2017). https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/higher-
education-and-research-bill
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). (2015). Definitions – staff in higher education 2015/
16. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/publications/staff-2015-16/definitions
406 A. DUFF ET AL.

Hopper, T. (2013). Making accounting degrees fit for a university. Critical Perspectives on

Accounting, 24(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.07.001
Hopwood, A. G. (2007). Whither accounting research. The Accounting Review, 82(5), 1365–1375.
https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2007.82.5.1365
Horta, H., & Santos, J. M. (2019). Organisational factors and academic research agendas: An analy-
sis of academics in the social sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2382–2397. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1612351
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modelling: Sensitivity to under-
parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.
1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Husbands, C. (2017). TEF results – the chair’s post-match analysis. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/tef-
results-the-chairs-post-match-analysis/
Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new devel-
opment. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00091389909604218
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00073-X
Kaplan, R. S. (2011). Accounting scholarship that advances professional knowledge and practice.
The Accounting Review, 86(2), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.00000031
Lawson, R. A., Blocher, E. J., Brewer, P. C., Gary, C., Sorensen, J. E., Stout, D. E., & Wouters,
M. J. F. (2014). Focusing accounting curricula on students’ long-run careers:
Recommendations for an integrated competency-based framework for accounting education.
Issues in Accounting Education, 29(2), 295–317. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-50673
Leisyte, L. (2016). New public management and research productivity – a precarious state of affairs
of academic work in the Netherlands. Studies in Higher Education, 41(5), 828–846. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1147721
Leisyte, L., Enders, J., & De Boer, H. (2009). The balance between teaching and research in Dutch
and English universities in the context of university governance reforms. Higher Education, 58
(5), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9213-1
Lubbe, I. (2015). Educating professionals - perceptions of the research-teaching nexus in account-
ing (a case study). Studies in Higher Education, 40(6), 1085–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075079.2014.881351
Lubbe, I. (2017). Challenges for curriculum design: Considerations for a four-year business and
accounting degree in South Africa. South African Journal of Accounting Research, 31(1), 60–
82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10291954.2015.1122285
Lubbe, I., & Duff, A. (2020). South African accounting academics’ conceptualisations of the teach-
ing-research nexus. Meditari Accountancy Research, print. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-
2020-0821
MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications for structural equation modelling in
psycho- logical research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relationship between research productivity and teaching
effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic or independent constructs? Journal of Higher
Education, 72(5), 603–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777170
Marx, B., & Van der Watt, A. (2013). Sustainability in accounting education: An analysis of the
teaching thereof at accredited South African universities. South African Journal of Accounting
Research, 27(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10291954.2013.11435171
Mathews, M. R. (2004). Accounting curricula: Does professional accreditation lead to uniformity
within Australian bachelor’s degree programmes? Accounting Education: An International
Journal, 13(sup1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963928042000310805
 ACCOUNTING EDUCATION 407

Negash, M., Lemma, T. T., & Samkin, G. (2019). Factors impacting accounting research output in
developing countries: An exploratory study. British Accounting Review. 51(2), 170–192. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2018.09.003
Neumann, R. (1992). Perceptions of the teaching-research nexus: Framework for analysis. Higher
Education, 23(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143643
Neumann, R. (1993). Research and scholarship: Perceptions of senior academic administrators.
Higher Education, 25(2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384743
Neumann, R. (1994). The teaching-research nexus: Applying a framework to university students
learning experiences. European Journal of Education, 29(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1503744
Nieuwoudt, M. J., & Wilcocks, J. S. (2005). The attitudes and perceptions of South African
accounting academics about research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 13(2), 49–66. https://
doi.org/10.1108/10222529200500012
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
Paisey, C., & Paisey, N. J. (2017). The decline of the professionally-qualified accounting academic:
Recruitment into the accounting academic community. Accounting Forum, 41(2), 57–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2017.02.001
Parker, L. (2013). Contemporary university strategizing: The financial imperative. Financial
Accountability and Management, 29(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12000
Parker, L. D., Guthrie, J., & Linacre, S. (2011). Editorial: The relationship between academic
accounting research and professional practice. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 24(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571111098036
Pop-Vasileva, A., Baird, K., & Blair, B. (2014). The work-related attitudes of Australian accounting
academics. Accounting Education, 23(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2013.824689
Ramsden, P., & Moses, I. (1992). Associations between research and teaching in Australian higher
education. Higher Education, 23(3), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145017
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. https://doi.org/10/2169209320
Research Excellence Framework. (2019). What is the REF? https://www.ref.ac.uk/about/what-is-
the-ref/
Samkin, G., & Schneider, A. (2014a). Using university websites to profile accounting academics
and their research output: A three-country study. Meditari Accountancy Research, 22(1), 77–
106. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2014-0038
Samkin, G., & Schneider, A. (2014b). The accounting academic. Meditari Accountancy Research,
22(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2014-0041
Scapens, R. W., & Bromwich, M. (2010). Editorial: Practice, theory and paradigms. Management
Accounting Research, 21(2), 77–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.03.003
Schouteden, W., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2016). Teachers’ general and contextualised research
conceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.
2014.914915
Shin, J. C. (2011). Teaching and research nexuses across faculty career stage, ability, and affiliated
discipline in a South Korean research university. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 485–503.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003759052
Sikka, P., Haslam, C., Kyriacou, O., & Agrizzi, D. (2007). Professionalizing claims and the state of
UK professional accounting education: Some evidence. Accounting Education: An International
Journal, 16(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280601150939
Simons, M., & Elen, J. (2007). The ‘research–teaching nexus’ and ‘education through research’: An
exploration of ambivalences. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 617–631. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03075070701573781
Skoie, H. (2000). Faculty involvement in research in mass higher education: Current practice and
future perspectives in the Scandinavian countries. Science and Public Policy, 27(6), 409–419.
https://doi.org/10.3152/147154300781781760
408 A. DUFF ET AL.

Smeby, J. C. (1998). Knowledge production and knowledge transmission: The interaction between
research and teaching at universities. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1356215980030101
Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links
between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723–740.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903315502
Stainbank, L., & Tewari, D. D. (2014). Professional accounting education programmes in South
Africa and India. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 4(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JAEE-12-2011-0056
Stern Review. (2016). Building on success and learning from experience: An independent review of
the research excellence framework. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/research-
excellence-framework-review
Taylor, J. (2008). The teaching-research nexus and the importance of context: A comparative study
of England and Sweden. Compare, 38(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920701467792
Tight, M. (2016). Examining the research/teaching nexus. European Journal of Higher Education.
Taylor & Francis, 6(4), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2016.1224674
Trowler, P., & Wareham, T. (2008). Tribes, territories, research and teaching. Enhancing the teach-
ing–research nexus. Higher Education Academy.
Tucker, B. P., & Scully, G. (2020). Fun while it lasted: Executive MBA student perceptions of the
value of academic research. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 29(3), 263–290.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2020.1736590
Van Der Schyf, D. B. (2008). The essence of a university and scholarly activity in accounting, with
reference to a department of accounting at a South African university. Meditari Accountancy
Research, 16(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/10222529200800001
Veer-Ramjeawon, P., & Rowley, J. (2019). Embedding knowledge management in higher edu-
cation institutions (HEIs): a comparison between two countries. Studies in Higher Education,
45(11), 2324–2340. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1608431
Venter, R. E., & de Villiers, C. (2013). The accounting profession’s influence on academe: South
African evidence. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 26(8), 1246–1278. https://
doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2012-01027
Verhoef, G., & Samkin, G. (2017). The accounting profession and education: The development of
disengaged scholarly activity in South Africa. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
30(6), 1370–1398. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2015-2192
Visser-Wijnveen, G. J., van Driel, J. H., van der Rijst, R. M., Visser, A., & Verloop, N. (2012).
Relating academics’ ways of integrating research and teaching to their students’ perceptions.
Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.536913
West, A. (2006). A commentary on the global position of South African accounting research.
Meditari Accountancy Research, 14(1), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/10222529200600008
Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734282911406668