THE RESEARCH PRACTICE GAP: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Ileana Steccolini Newcastle University London XXX CIGAR conference, Porto, 8 th June 2017
The “research-practice gap”: a taken for granted myth? Anecdotal evidence • The “usual” rhetoric and anecdotes: • Academics are focused on top tier publications, constrained by university performance measurement systems and incentives, and by journals’ editors asking for sophisticated methodological contributions with scant practical relevance • From past conferences’ “editors’ fora • “…we are not interested in practical implications” • “we are responsible for representing reality, not changing it”… • Practitioners (and policy makers) are too focused on solving day-by-day problems, very detailed and idiosyncratic practical issues, in need for prompt solutions • Time and resource pressure, no time (or money!) to wait for academic reflection! • Looking at academia more as a source of legitimation than a source of ideas, improvements, dialogue… ………A dialogue of the deaf?
Academic research on the “gap”…a problem of “means” or “ends”? Academics are divided on the Academics described as remote from “mission” of research (Tucker and practice (Tucker and Lowe, 2014, on Parker, 2014, interviewing 64 professional accounting bodies in A matter of academics internationally) Australia) “ends”? • A majority thinks that research Barriers for practitioners: should be relevant for practice • Dissemination: locating research • But a minority does not think that this is a mission for academics findings (do practitioners know accounting journals?), But they agree that translation and dissemination of research for • Translation: understanding them (too practice are critical much detail on aspects irrelevant to The The practice) practice academia side side A matter of “means”
IRSPM Accounting and Accountability Group 2015 Workshop, Nottingham • Practitioners AND academics discussing together in an unconventional setting • Taking for granted that a gap exists and we interpret our mission as “including” impact and engagement with practice… • Identifying • Themes to be developed AND that are relevant to practice (WHAT) • Means for closing the gap (HOW) • Writing a “polyphonic” paper with the experiences of colleagues from 14 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain and the UK) and practitioners from ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA • In order of “appearance”: • Laurence Ferry, Iris Saliterer, Ileana Steccolini, Ron Hodges, Peter Murphy, Lee Parker, James Guthrie, Sanja Korac, Wouter van Dooren, Marleen Brans, Marie-Soleil Tremblay, Bertrand Malsch, Anniina Autero, Harri Laihonen, Raluca Sandu, Yves Levant, Hans Juergen Bruns, Sandra Cohen, Constantinos Caramanis, Nikolaos Hlepas, Enrico Bracci, Salvatore Russo, MariaFrancesca Sicilia, Tom Overmans, Scott Douglas, Susana Jorge, Delfina Gomes, Lidia Oliveira, Graciete Costa, Adina Iulia Dudau, Isabel Brusca-Alijarde, Danny Chow, Hugh Coombs, Peter Eckersley, Florian Gebreiter, Martin Jones, Manj Kalar, Rebecca McCaffry, Gillian Fawcett.
WHAT? Identifying topics that are relevant Use and Accounting Risk Accounting as Accounting Accounting and usefulness of systems and the accountability: management: it relates to rules and accounting “dark side “ of value: frameworks: •Audit •The growth of risk systems in post accounting: management as •Governance •Best value •International NPM regimes: a discipline •Fraud •Compliance accounting •Public value •The impact of risk •Co-production •Corruption standards •Boundary •Value for money management management •Audit principles •Wicked problems •Performance •How do public systems on manipulation •Performance •Harmonisation of •Street level managers view accounting auditing budgeting standards……. the debate on systems •Transparency VFM? •….…but needs to •Participatory be understood in budgeting •Audit committees •Public value context •Social enterprises budgeting – can •Sustainability it be done? reporting •Structural ambiguity Dudau, Korac, Saliterer, 2015
HOW? Engagement map Research Re Br Bridging Pr Practice Pr Provider er-in init itiat iated en engagem emen ent Pr Practitioners Research ch (S (Senior Ex Executives) Consultancy cy Academics Ac Teach ching (execu cutive, , st students) Ou Outl tlets ts Policy-ma Po makers User-in Us init itiat iated en engagem emen ent CO CONTINGENCI CIES Pr Professional - Di Discipline (le level of of ap applic licat atio ion- as associat iatio ions or orientation on) - In Incen centive e sc schemes Media Me - Im Importance ce an and in influ luence of of Th Think ta tanks buf buffer or organisation ons - Ga Gap be between ac acad ademia ia an and pr practice In Informal al co communities Soc Society (me meetings) - Ac Acces essibility of of publ publications ns Research pr Re provi vide ders / / pr produc ducers Bo Boundary sp spanner ers Re Research us users / / ad addressees Dudau, Korac, Saliterer 2015
Observatories (France), shared laboratories and Funded chairs executive training (Netherlands), fora for discussion (UK) Funding from the Weak private sector/Big institutionalization 4/professional (Germany) associations (Canada, UK) Limited Involvement in standard access/availability setting (Portugal) and of practitioners and public sector reforms organizations to (Spain, Italy) or input to research (Canada, policy/parliamentary but common to debate (Uk) most of the others) Individual initiative, driven Performance by interest, measurement curiosity, Practice oriented systems and journals (PMM?) and passion, incentives in newsletters academia (most money, countries) ambition, ethics
The polyphonic debate Structure: enablers, constraints Agency Performance measurement systems and incentives in academia (most • countries) • Individual initiative, driven by interest, curiosity, Limited access/availability of practitioners and organizations to • research (Canada, but common to most of the others) passion, money, ambition, ethics (most Weak institutionalization (Germany) • contributions) Risks of commissioned research (Belgium) • • Academics as entrepreneurs…and even Blocking critique and development of free thought • opportunistic? (Italy, Romania) From evidence-based policy to policy-based evidence • Contested disciplines: research is not value free (need for interdisciplinarity • • Exchange of legitimacy (between and pluralism in research) politicians/practitioners and academics) Funded chairs • Observatories (France), shared laboratories and executive training • • Direct involvement of academics in politics (Netherlands), fora for discussion (UK) (Greece) or even as civil servants (more as an Funding from the private sector/Big 4/professional associations • exception, UK) (Canada, UK) Involvement in standard setting (Portugal) and more generally public • • Role of consulting (Italy, Romania, Australia) sector reforms (Spain, Italy) or input to policy/parliamentary debate (Uk) • Windows of opportunity (Germany) Practice oriented journals (PMM?) and newsletters •
Critical issues and risks • Risks of commissioned research • Blocking critique and development of free thought • From evidence-based policy to policy-based evidence • Contested disciplines: research is not value free (need for interdisciplinarity and pluralism in research) • Academics as entrepreneurs…and even opportunistic? • The “grey area” between applied research and consulting • Exchange of legitimacy (between politicians/practitioners and academics) (several countries, more or less implicitly)
An “ethos” issue? • “Idealized” view of engagement and impact as a panacea and something we should also aim for…but…. 1 st level: • Engagement and impact depends on how we define our roles as academics mission/ethos • Need to legitimize engagement and impact as “part” of our mission/ethos • For example…how much are “impact” and “engagement” part of a Phd path and of recognition in our professional communities? • For some, they are NOT simply part of our mission/profession (pure research as an “end” in itself) • Research “representing reality” • Pointing to barriers as an excuse for not engaging • For others, at the other extreme, research is the basis for reputation to be spent in the practice and policy world (applied research as a means for playing a role in the world of practice and policy or as a by-product of consulting and engagement) • Is this research independent? How can rigour be ensured in this type of research? Which standards should be respected to ensure that this research is unbiased and can also be relevant to other contexts and cases? • In-between, there are researchers trying to strike an “individual” balance between practical relevance, rigour and independence, in contexts that are not always conducive. 2 nd level: ethical • Need for clear ethical standards at the interface between research and practice? standards
Recommend
More recommend
