The research practice gap on accounting in the public services

PUBLIC SECTOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT The Research-Practice Gap on Accounting in the Public Services An International Analysis Laurence Ferry Iris Saliterer Ileana Steccolini Basil Tucker Public Sector Financial Management Series Editors Sandra Cohen Athens University of Economics and Business Athens, Greece Eugenio Caperchione Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia Modena, Italy Isabel Brusca University of Zaragoza Zaragoza, Spain Francesca Manes Rossi Department of Management and Innovation Systems University of Salerno Fisciano, Italy This series brings together cutting edge research in public administration on the new budgeting and accounting methodologies and their impact across the public sector, from central and local government to public health care and education It considers the need for better quality accounting information for decision-making, planning and control in the public sector; the development of the IPSAS (International Public Sector Accounting Standards) and the EPSAS (European Public Sector Accounting Standards), including their merits and role in accounting harmonisation; accounting information’s role in governments’ financial sustainability and crisis confrontation; the contribution of sophisticated ICT systems to public sector financial, cost and management accounting deployment; and the relationship between robust accounting information and performance measurement New trends in public sector reporting and auditing are covered as well The series fills a significant gap in the market in which works on public sector accounting and financial management are sparse, while research in the area is experiencing unprecedented growth More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15782 Laurence Ferry • Iris Saliterer Ileana Steccolini • Basil Tucker The Research-Practice Gap on Accounting in the Public Services An International Analysis Laurence Ferry Durham University Business School Durham University Durham, UK Ileana Steccolini Newcastle University London London, UK Iris Saliterer Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg Freiburg, Germany Basil Tucker UniSA Business School University of South Australia Adelaide, SA, Australia Public Sector Financial Management ISBN 978-3-319-99431-4    ISBN 978-3-319-99432-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018957073 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019 This work is subject to copyright All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Cover illustration: Prisma by Dukas Presseagentur GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland An International Analysis of the Research-Practice Gap on Accounting in the Public Services Summary Purpose—This book considers how the practical and public policy relevance of research might be increased, and academics and practitioners can better engage to define research agendas and deliver findings relevant to accounting and accountability in the public services Design/Methodology/Approach—An international comparative analysis of the research-practice gap on accounting in the public services has been undertaken This involved academic perspectives from 21 countries and practitioner perspectives from the heads of the public services at leading international professional accounting bodies actively involved in the public services arena Findings—Research can be useful to inform practice, but engaging at a high level of policy engagement has been primarily by a small group of experienced researchers For other researchers, the impact accomplished may not always be valued highly in the academic community relative to other, more scholarly, activities Research Limitations/Implications—The book covers a broad range of countries in an attempt to get a detailed comparative analysis of the extent to which academic research is seen to resonate, engage, and impact public sector practice The main coverage is relatively advanced western liberal democratic countries from Europe, alongside Australia, and North America (Canada and the USA) However, importantly, as part of a broader comparative analysis, it also includes contributions v vi  AN INTERNATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP… from Africa—Nigeria and Ghana, South America—Brazil, and Asia— Malaysia and Thailand Nevertheless, it does not cover other developing economies, where findings could be different and are worthy of investigation Originality/Value—The book is both ambitious and innovative in building on calls to address the research-practice gap through engaging a broad cross-section of academics and practitioners at an international level Acknowledgements We would specifically like to thank Ron Hodges (Emeritus Professor of Accounting, Birmingham University, UK), Aileen Murphie (Director at National Audit Office (NAO), UK), Pete Murphy (Professor of Public Management, Nottingham Trent University, UK), Lee Parker (Professor of Accounting, RMIT, Australia, and University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK), and all of the other colleagues who supported in the development of this book vii Contents 1 Concerns About the Research-Practice Gap on Accounting in Public Services   1 2 Where There’s a Will… The Research-­Practice Gap in Accounting   9 3 A Global View of the Research-Practice Gap in a Public Sector Context  33 4 We Build Too Many Walls and Not Enough Bridges 115 5 Closing Reflections 129 Index 135 ix About the Authors Laurence  Ferry is a Professor of Accounting at Durham University Business School (UK) and a prestigious Parliamentary Academic Fellow in public accountability 2018–2019 He is a well-recognized international expert in public financial management Iris Saliterer  is a Professor of Public and Non-Profit Management at the Albert-Ludwigs University in Freiburg (Germany) and was Schumpeter Fellow at Harvard University (USA) in 2015–2016 Her main research interests include performance management, public sector accounting and financial management (reforms), financial and administrative resilience, and innovative forms of public service delivery Ileana Steccolini  is a Professor of Accounting and Finance at Newcastle University London (UK) and the chair and founder of IRSPM Accounting and accountability special interest group Her research develops at the interface between accounting and public administration Basil Tucker  is currently a senior lecturer in the School of Commerce, UniSA Business School (Australia) He has published extensively on the relevance of academic research, and in particular, the research-practice ‘gap’ in management accounting xi   WE BUILD TOO MANY WALLS AND NOT ENOUGH BRIDGES  123 (Rousseau 2006) Broadly, EBP argues that practices are informed by the best available evidence rather than conventional wisdom, tradition, habit, or intuition (Rousseau 2006) Having achieved wide acceptance in such fields as medicine, education, criminal justice, and advertising (Rousseau and Barends 2011), EBP involves assisting practitioners attain research-­ based content knowledge in particular areas, as well as helping practitioners to access and critically interpret research findings on their own (Rousseau and McCarthy 2007) With its emphasis on practitioner needs and practical problems, the adoption of EBP has, in common with Engaged Scholarship, the potential to not only ensure research questions are directly pertinent to a ‘real-world’ context, but also is likely to demonstrate that, by working directly and more closely with practitioners, academic researchers need not be detached from the day-today problems and challenges facing managers and others ‘at the coalface’.1 Unsurprisingly perhaps, a greater attention to EBP is a common observation of the professional accounting bodies contributing to this book The fifth obstacle outlined in Fig. 4.1, that of the readability of research findings, has long been regarded as a prime reason for the disconnect between research and practice generally Indeed in an accounting context, four decades ago, Mautz (1978) identified the presentation, comprehensibility, and language used to communicate research findings as a principal disincentive for practitioners to engage with accounting research—an observation subsequently raised by Baxter (1988), van Helden and Northcott (2010), and Kaplan (2011) However, as noted earlier, peer-­ reviewed academic journals are by no means the exclusive outlet for the communication of research findings, and the tailoring of messages to a more ‘user-friendly’ style would be a necessary—but surely not unachievable—goal of academics seeking to convey their research findings to a non-academic (practitioner) audience By the same token, there is an obligation on practitioners to be open to the findings of academic research It may very well be that practitioners need ‘site- and time-specific insights’ (McKelvey 2006, p. 826), however, as reported by a nursing academic in Tucker and Leach’s (2017) investigation comparing the research-practice gap in nursing with that of management accounting:  However, we point out that in no way has the applicability or acceptance of EBP been uncontested See, for example: Learmonth (2006, 2008), Learmonth, Lockett and Dowd (2012), Morrell and Learmonth (2015), Morrell, Learmonth, and Heracleous (2015) 124  L FERRY ET AL Nurses say they are time poor, but that is just an excuse I think they not see the value of research They need buy in The same might be said of accounting practitioners—if digesting and evaluating research is perceived to be sufficiently important, time will be found to direct to it Collaboration is, by definition, a function of two or more parties working together Just as academics have a role to play in bringing research ‘to the table’, so too practitioners need to be receptive to new techniques, processes, and ideas generated by and through academic research As Baskerville (2009, p.  524) provocatively asserts, ‘The notion that competent business practitioners should actually search for the facts related to their immediate practical problems ought not to be surprising’ The final obstacle revealed by our contributors is that research seeking to engage with practitioners and impact practice is not pursued because it takes a secondary priority to the ‘main game’ of publishing in peer-­ reviewed academic journals Once again, this obstruction to a closer connection between academic research and practice has been recognized by academic commentators on the divide between academic research and accounting practice (e.g see Parker et al 2011; Merchant 2012; Lindsay 2012), as well as professional bodies participating in this study It is understandable that academic researchers are cognizant of the need to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals, and to direct their efforts to achieving this end However, there is no reason why academic rigour and practice relevance should be regarded as mutually exclusive As Tucker and Leach (2017) argue, some of the most influential scholars and thinkers have been able to make theoretical as well as practical contributions that have shaped the societies in which they lived Arguably, academics such as Einstein and Hawking (physics), Weber, Durkheim and Marx (sociology), Lewin and Freud (psychology), and Smith and Keynes (economics) have had a considerable influence on society, and their achievements demonstrate that the separation of academic research from its practical application is a false dichotomy At a less lofty level perhaps, and as also identified by ACCA, CIMA, and CIPFA, the research-practice gap itself is a topic that has currency in many top academic journals, and research attention directed towards this area can be a fruitful source of inspiration and contribution In the general management area, senior academics such as Jean Bartunek, Andrew Van de Ven, Denise Rousseau, Tima Bansal, and Sara Rynes have published   WE BUILD TOO MANY WALLS AND NOT ENOUGH BRIDGES  125 extensively on various aspects of the divide between research and practice In accounting, Lee Parker, James Guthrie, Ken Merchant, Bob Scapens, Jane Broadbent, Richard Laughlin, and Anthony Hopwood have all made significant and important contributions to this challenging area The fourth insight offered by Fig. 4.1 up to here is the preponderance of informal structures as facilitators to bridging the research-practice gap The creation and use of informal structures were repeatedly raised by our contributors as ways to achieve congruence between academic research and practice at the individual level It may be that the adage ‘nature abhors a vacuum’ applies to efforts to bridge the divide between research and practice We have seen in Fig. 4.1 that the absence of formal structures, processes, and mechanisms provided to at the institutional level is perceived to be one of the principal contributors at the institutional level inhibiting research from more effectively informing practice It seems as though the formation and exploitation of informal structures have a compensatory effect of making a closer relationship between research and practice possible As related by our contributors, these informal structures assume various guises including associations with professional accounting bodies, collaborations with consultants, participation in ‘think tanks’, proactive contacts with practitioners, the formation of partnerships with like-­ minded academics, and networking with Government agencies, Politicians, the media, and past colleagues in industry Such reliance on organizational, institutional, and individual relationships to achieve a closer relationship with practice reflects the ingenuity and persistence of researchers who are seeking to influence practice through their research efforts However, it also reinforces the point made earlier: that institutional obstacles to ‘crossing the divide’ by no means prevent genuine attempts to engage with and influence practice This point is particularly pertinent in view of the support for such research by the ACCA, CIMA, and CIPFA, as articulated in their contributions to this book In summary then, as with the experience of other disciplines, recurrent obstacles and facilitators can be associated with the relationship between research and practice in accounting Moreover, few if any of these obstacles and facilitators identified, be they at the Institutional or Individual level are unique to a public sector management context Although little can be done by individual researchers to change institutional constraints and restrictions on their ability to engage with and impact practice, the opportunities to ‘make a difference’ with practice-relevant research at the individual level are numerous 126  L FERRY ET AL 4.4   Concluding Reflections The nature and degree of the relationship between academic research and practice has generated considerable discussion in a range of disciplines including management, finance, human resource management, economics, marketing, education, psychology, psychotherapy, nursing, librarianship, dentistry, social work, medicine, and the natural sciences, in addition to accounting The media have hosted repeated expressions of concern, as have senior members of the academic community, over the perceived limited relevance of much academic research Commentators and practitioners generally contend that very little academic research is usable or useful, and consequently, the impact that academia has had on society has not been meaningful Although the veracity and generalizability of this charge as it relates to different disciplines is arguable, the extent to which academic research can be considered to be relevant has long-term implications for the academic community, as well as practice It raises fundamental questions about the role of academic research in society and, from the perspective of the academic accounting community, is an issue that requires resolution if we are to avoid becoming largely irrelevant to business, professional, and government practitioners The relevance of academic research has implications for the nature, type, scale, and research questions that researchers choose to study Changes in the ways in which universities across the globe are evaluated and supported are gathering momentum Research engagement, impact and contribution to government, business, and community priorities are demonstrably becoming part of the developing university environment, and the days of ‘publish or perish’ appear destined to be replaced with ‘partner or perish’ Universities and academics that are able to demonstrate their relevance and return on research investment will be best positioned to capitalize within this environment The importance of examining the question of research relevance then is that universities in response to political pressures, financial constraints, and public policy necessarily and inexorably exercise a major influence upon the creation and dissemination of knowledge for the individual researcher It is therefore an issue germane to most research-active academics The barriers that have been shown to prevent a closer union between the worlds of research and practice are formidable, but by no means insurmountable for accounting researchers who are well equipped to unpack this problem Importantly, these barriers are an invitation and, at the same time, an opportunity for academics to make their contribution by converting walls into bridges   WE BUILD TOO MANY WALLS AND NOT ENOUGH BRIDGES  127 References Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O’Brien, J.  (2012) Bridging the research-practice gap Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73–93 Baskerville, R (2009) Preparing for evidence-based management European Journal of Information Systems, 18(6), 523–525 Baxter, W. T (1988) Accounting research–academic trends versus practical needs Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland Beattie, V., & Smith, S.-J (2012) Today’s PhD students–is there a future generation of accounting academics or are they a dying breed? A UK perspective Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) Bromwich, M., & Scapens, R. W (2016) Management accounting research: 25 years on Management Accounting Research, 31, 1–9 Gray, R., Guthrie, J., & Parker, L.  D (2002) Rites of passage and the self-­ immolation of academic accounting labour: An essay exploring exclusivity versus mutuality in accounting scholarship Accounting Forum, 26(1), 1–30 Irvine, H., & Gaffikin, M (2006) Getting in, getting on and getting out: Reflections on a qualitative research project Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(1), 115–145 Kaplan, R. S (2011) Accounting scholarship that advances professional knowledge and practice The Accounting Review, 86(2), 367–383 Laughlin, R. C (2011) Accounting research, policy and practice: Worlds together or worlds apart? In E. Evans, R. Burritt, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Bridging the gap between academic accounting research and professional practice (pp.  23–30) Sydney: Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability, University of South Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia Learmonth, M (2006) Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? A commentary on Rousseau’s 2005 presidential address Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1089–1091 Learmonth, M (2008) Speaking out: Evidence-based management: A backlash against pluralism in organizational studies? Organization, 15(2), 283–291 Learmonth, M., Lockett, A., & Dowd, K (2012) Promoting scholarship that matters: The uselessness of useful research and the usefulness of useless research British Journal of Management, 23(1), 35–44 Lindsay, R. M (2012) We must overcome the controversial relationship between management accounting research and practice: A commentary on ken Merchant’s “making management accounting research more useful” Pacific Accounting Review, 24(3), 357–375 Mautz, R. K (1978) Discussion In A. R Abdel-Khalik & P. F Keller (Eds.), The impact of accounting research on practice and disclosure Durham: Duke University Press McKelvey, B (2006) Response Van de Ven and Johnson’s “engaged scholarship”: Nice try, but… Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 830–832 128  L FERRY ET AL Merchant, K. A (2012) Making management accounting research more useful Pacific Accounting Review, 24(3), 1–34 Morrell, K., & Learmonth, M (2015) Against evidence-based management, for management learning Academy of Management Learning and Education, 14(4), 520–533 Morrell, K., Learmonth, M., & Heracleous, L (2015) An archaeological critique of ‘evidence-based management’: One digression after another British Journal of Management, 26(3), 529–543 Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D (2010) That’s relevant! Different forms of practical relevance in management science Organization Studies, 31(9–10), 1257–1285 Parker, L.  D (2011) University corporatisation: Driving redefinition Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(4), 434–450 Parker, L. D (2012) Beyond the ticket and the brand: Imagining an accounting research future Accounting and Finance, 52(4), 1153–1182 Parker, L.  D., Guthrie, J., & Linacre, S (2011) Editorial: The relationship between academic accounting research and professional practice Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24(1), 5–14 Rousseau, D. M (2006) Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256–269 Rousseau, D. M., & Barends, E. G R (2011) Becoming an evidence-based HR practitioner Human Resource Management Journal, 21(3), 221–235 Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S (2007) Educating managers from an evidence-­ based perspective Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(1), 84–101 Rynes, S.  L., McNatt, D.  B., & Bretz, R.  D (1999) Academic research inside organizations: Inputs, processes, and outcomes Personnel Psychology, 52, 869–898 Tucker, B.  P., & Leach, M (2017) Learning from the experience of others: Lessons on the research–practice gap in management accounting – A nursing perspective Advances in Management Accounting, 29, 127–181 Tucker, B. P., & Lowe, A. D (2014) Practitioners are from Mars; academics are from Venus? An empirical investigation of the research-practice gap in management accounting Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(3), 394–425 Tucker, B. P., & Schaltegger, S (2016) Comparing the research–practice gap in management accounting: A view from professional accounting bodies in Australia and Germany Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(3), 362–400 Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E (2006) Knowledge for theory and practice Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821 van Helden, G. J., & Northcott, D (2010) Examining the practical relevance of public sector management accounting research Financial Accountability and Management, 26(2), 213–241 CHAPTER Closing Reflections Abstract  In this final chapter, our aim is to draw together the observations, reflections, and recommendations provided by contributors to this book The challenge in locating research as a closer companion to practice is clear in each of the contributions provided It is fair to say that the so-­called research-practice gap is not only ubiquitous, but also has implications at the researcher, institutional, and disciplinary levels Our parting message is that although different countries are positioned quite differently in terms of academic research-informing practice, there are many paths to achieving a more effective engagement with, and impact on, public sector practice However, challenges also represent Laurence Ferry Durham University Business School, Durham University, Durham, UK Iris Saliterer Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany Ileana Steccolini Newcastle University London, London, UK Basil Tucker UniSA Business School, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia © The Author(s) 2019 L Ferry et al., The Research-Practice Gap on Accounting in the Public Services, Public Sector Financial Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1_5 129 130  L FERRY ET AL opportunities, and reflecting on the stories presented, should provide avenues for specific investigation and initiatives that are worth considering by those that seek to speak to practice through their research Keywords  Research-practice gap • Accounting • Research relevance • Public sector • Research policy This book aimed at capturing the multiple facets of academic engagement with, and impact on, practice in the public sector accounting and management area, as well as exploring its enablers and constraints In doing so, we had the ambition to capture geographical differences, looking at the experiences of 46 colleagues from 21 countries, covering continents, and professional associations This allowed us to add to the existing (and still limited) literature, reviewed by Basil Tucker in the second chapter (Tucker 2018, in this book), which tends to focus on a few countries and only in some cases (Tucker and Parker 2014) has adopted a global perspective Interestingly, the book idea emerged not as an exploration of how academic and practitioners engage with each other, but rather from the need to recognize the absence of such engagement, what has been commonly dubbed as the ‘academia-practice gap’ As such, the use of this shorthand is telling per se, as it expresses the extent to which ‘the gap’ is often taken for granted and even accepted, and as such tends to frame any discussion and reflection on ‘impact’ and ‘engagement’ of academic research Thus, our study started as a study of ‘the gap’, but the advantage of adopting a qualitative approach to it (rather than, e.g., a more quantitative one) has been the transformation of the study from an analysis of absence (of engagement, impact, links between academics and practitioners) and its possible antecedents, to a rich analysis of how the main players in the arena perceive, make sense of, and explain the reasons of such absence, or difficult conditions and diverging incentives in some cases At the same time, this study has increasingly become an analysis of the presence of institutions, tools, systems, media, and people who actively create the conditions or reduce the constraints to build bridges between academia and practice, highlighting that our respondents could not conceive of their roles in the face of practice and policy in a passive way As we asked them to explain the specific features of the country context which in their view affect the research-practice gap issue in their countries, it became clear that, even at a time of global rankings, local cultures and   CLOSING REFLECTIONS  131 institutions play an important role in affecting how academics conceive of their roles, and what society expects from academics While in some cases being a consultant was seen as an integral aspect of academic life, in other countries, academics would see their engagement passing through different forms, yet in others, engagement was not seen sufficient as impact When being asked to identify the roles of institutions as well as of themselves (as academics) in widening or narrowing ‘the gap’, our colleagues pointed to a diversity of obstacles and facilitators, which are summed up in Chap 4, distinguishing between institutional (e.g incentives, role of consultants, funding, role of public sector accounting in teaching at tertiary level, low mobility across academic and practical careers, government policies, roles of accounting bodies) and individual (e.g access to data and funding, relevance of research questions and credibility or researchers, prioritization of activities) factors In the experiences that our colleagues shared with us, while institutional conditions have often fallen short of being conducive to stronger engagement and impact, individual researchers’ roles in initiating and driving relationships with practice and policy are striking Many respondents highlighted that positive experiences of engagement and diffusion of academic knowledge in the practice and policy realm appear to be rather a consequence of individual agency, a sort of academic entrepreneurial initiative, than of structural conditions conducive to research It is however fair to recognize there appears to be definitely no ‘best way’ to institutionalize links between the practical and academic worlds The comparative analysis showed a variety of more institutionalized forms of academic–practitioner engagement, which reflects the increasing diversification of interfaces between research and practice and the emergence of more interactive models where academics and practitioners make sense together (see van Dooren and Braens 2018, in this book) The different types and levels of institutional engagement are closely linked to the respective contextual/country-specific conditions Essentially, there was not one ‘isomorphic’ approach between countries to the institutions employed to close the research-practice gap, but rather heterogeneity It seems to be common that academics are part of (public sector) accounting boards, commissions, or committees; however, their role and impact are viewed differently across countries (e.g Greece, Spain, Romania, Austria) We can also observe the emergence of institutionalized ‘agora type/open space’ settings in some countries (e.g the Netherlands, Finland) providing the possibility for different stakeholders to come 132  L FERRY ET AL together for dialogue, debate, and co-production of knowledge (Ferlie et al 2010) More formalized or traditional forms of this engagement type are also present in France (observatories), Belgium, and the UK (think tanks and professional associations) In some cases, researchers have managed to establish research centres, which are largely formed of a small group of collaborators with a host heading it from a university (UK) However, in the majority of countries, relationships between academia and practice are weakly institutionalized (e.g Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Ghana, Italy, Malaysia, Nigeria, Romania) leading to more contract-­ based models, and again, to more agency-based forms of engagement All in all, the experiences told by our colleagues conveyed a strong reflection on the difficulties and barriers that in the mainstream largely separate the academics’ ‘ivory tower’ from the ‘real world’ (Tucker and Parker 2014) The academics who responded to our questions showed a clear awareness that the ‘gap’ remains an ‘all-to-real’ problem, but also a strong enthusiasm and willingness to close it At the same time, they also felt that not always the conditions under which academic life takes place are ideal to ensure and encourage impact on practice (and policy) Across countries, it also becomes evident that academic papers on their own were unlikely to lead to engagement or have impact Nevertheless, academic papers provided an important theoretical underpinning for engagement and impact-related activities that could be translated into something more understandable It is therefore important to consider ways in which knowledge can travel and be diffused More research and efforts are definitely necessary in this area However, tentatively, we suggest that engagement and the reach and significance of impact are undoubtedly influenced by how knowledge is produced and co-produced For example, we hazard a guess that long-term work with policy makers is more likely to lead to potential policy change that is traceable as part of an academic’s body of work and have impact, whereas shorter term reports with professional bodies provide evidence of engagement for dissemination of knowledge to practitioner communities Both are worthy in bridging the academic-practitioner gap, but fulfil different needs of engagement and impact The level of engagement and reach and significance of impact are also likely to be influenced by the different formats in which knowledge is diffused Academic journal articles are unlikely to have influence in their raw state, but if employed in professional reports, policy briefings, and parliamentary evidence, they may more evidently shape the debates   CLOSING REFLECTIONS  133 Importantly, very often the knowledge ‘travels’ with the people, not with papers For example, those people with—regional, national, and international—networks between academia and practice—and often strong professional ties, and even as proactive members of the accounting profession themselves—carry knowledge in ways that could be translated and have impact in different contexts How this can be captured is another question that needs to be addressed Finally, it was evident to us that for researchers, and especially those who successfully engage in practice, but not have high-ranking journal publications, the impact accomplished may not have always been appropriately valued in the academic community relative to other more theoretical activities In particular, international rankings as well as government and university scoring and funding systems drive academics in search of highly ranked journal publications as ends in themselves, so that incentives and reward systems not encourage engagement with or focus upon policy and practice communities and impacts (Guthrie and Neumann 2007; Parker 2012, 2013) Although (societal) impact has become increasingly important across countries, it seems to be mainly rhetorical at this stage and may concentrate on a relatively small elite of researchers Given that, at least from our limited exploration, the nature of engagement and impact-related research work appear to be strongly agency-driven, reward structures and incentives thus appear to be one of the first aspects requiring serious intervention for bridging the research-practice gap We hope this book, by highlighting existing solutions and experiences, but also pointing to a number of open issues and questions, will contribute to animate and further the debate on the gap between practice and research, and encourage more colleagues to engage and find yet new and original responses to this long-lasting challenge References Ferlie, E., McGivern, G., & De Moraes, A (2010) Developing a public interest school of management British Journal of Management, 21(1), 60–70 Guthrie, J., & Neumann, R (2007) Economic and non-financial performance indicators in universities: The establishment of a performance-driven system for Australian higher education Public Management Review, 9(2), 231–252 Parker, L. D (2012) From privatised to hybrid corporatised higher education: A global financial management discourse Financial Accountability and Management, 28(3), 247–268 134  L FERRY ET AL Parker, L. D (2013) Contemporary university strategising: The financial imperative Financial Accountability and Management, 29(1), 1–25 Tucker, B. P (2018) Where there’s a will… The research-practice gap in accounting In L. Ferry, I. Saliterer, I. Steccolini, & B. P Tucker (Eds.), An international analysis of the research-practice gap on accounting in the public services Switzerland: Palgrave Tucker, B. P., & Parker, L. D (2014) In our ivory towers? The research-practice gap in management accounting: An academic perspective Accounting & Business Research, 44(2), 104–143 Van Dooren, W., & Braens, M (2018) The research-practice gap in public sector accounting in Belgium In L. Ferry, I. Saliterer, I. Steccolini, & B. P Tucker (Eds.), An international analysis of the research-practice gap on accounting in the public services Switzerland: Palgrave Index1 A Academia, 2, 5, 18, 38, 39, 41–43, 47–50, 56, 58, 59, 64–66, 68–71, 75–80, 82–86, 88, 89, 95, 96, 100, 102–104, 106–108, 126, 130, 132, 133 Academic research, 2, 6, 10–25, 37, 39, 45, 59, 71, 78, 79, 83, 88, 89, 92, 96, 100, 102–106, 116–118, 121–126, 130 Academics, v, vi, 2–5, 10, 12–25, 34–39, 41–42, 44–50, 52, 53, 55–66, 68, 70–73, 75–89, 92–104, 106, 107, 117, 121–126, 130–133 ACCA, see Association of Chartered Certified Accountants Accountability, v, 3, 4, 13, 35, 36, 62, 90–94, 105 Accounting, v, 2–6, 10–25, 33–36, 38, 39, 44–50, 52, 54–57, 59, 60, 62–67, 72, 73, 81–83, 87–90, 92–95, 97–100, 102–104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 119, 122–126, 131, 133 Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), 96, 100–102, 117, 124, 125 Australia, v, 15n4, 17–19, 34–36, 132 Austria, 12, 37–40, 131, 132 B Belgium, 40–43, 132 Brazil, vi, 43–46 Business, 3, 5, 19, 22, 35, 38, 40, 47, 49, 52, 55–57, 63, 64, 66, 67, 81, 85, 88, 89, 92, 94, 100, 102–104, 119, 124, 126 C Canada, v, 12, 46–48, 132 Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), 72, 96, 102–105, 117, 124, 125  Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes © The Author(s) 2019 L Ferry et al., The Research-Practice Gap on Accounting in the Public Services, Public Sector Financial Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99432-1 135 136  INDEX Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), 95, 96, 106–108, 117, 124, 125 D Denmark, 12, 48–50 Divide, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 43, 44, 68, 116, 121, 124, 125 E Engagement, v, 2–4, 11, 14n1, 16, 18, 21, 34–40, 43, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 62, 69, 71, 73, 77–80, 92–97, 99, 102, 117–119, 121, 126, 130–133 F Finland, 51–53, 131 France, 12, 54–58, 54n10, 55n11, 132 G Germany, 12, 17, 18, 58–60, 132 Ghana, vi, 60–64, 63n15, 63n16, 132 Government, 5, 12, 21, 23, 35–38, 41, 42, 45, 47–51, 55, 58, 60, 61, 64, 66–69, 72, 73, 75–81, 85, 86, 88, 91, 93–99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 119, 121, 125, 126, 131, 133 Greece, 64–67, 131 I Impact, v, 2, 5, 12, 21, 23, 24, 34–37, 39, 42, 45, 48, 52–54, 56–58, 62, 68, 69, 72–75, 78, 81, 83–85, 89, 90, 92, 97, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 116–119, 121, 124–126, 130–133 Industry, 21, 23–25, 47, 48, 71, 73, 80, 85, 86, 103, 104, 122, 125 Interdisciplinary, 2, 3, 15n4, 42 Italy, 12, 67–70, 132 M Malaysia, vi, 70–74, 132 N Netherlands, the, 12, 41, 74–78, 131 Nexus, 12, 13, 15, 21, 25, 117, 121 Nigeria, vi, 78–80, 132 Not-for-profit, 25, 47 P Policy, v, 2, 5, 10, 13, 14, 20, 21, 34–43, 54–56, 59, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68, 74–77, 81–83, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95, 97, 100–102, 106–108, 119, 122, 130–133 Portugal, 81–83 Practitioners, v, vi, 2–5, 10, 16–23, 34, 35, 37–40, 42–46, 48–50, 54, 56–60, 63, 64, 68–70, 72–79, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95–104, 106–108, 117, 119, 121–126, 130–132 Profession, 2, 4, 5, 14, 34, 38, 47, 48, 50, 56, 66, 69, 72, 73, 81–83, 89, 95, 96, 100, 106, 107, 133 Public policy, v, 3, 20, 37, 38, 66, 92, 106, 126 Public sector, v, 3, 5, 10–14, 25, 33–108, 117 Public sector accounting, v–vi, 2–6, 33–101, 116, 121, 130, 131 Public sector management, 25, 36, 92, 116, 125  INDEX  R Relevance, v, 2–4, 10–13, 15–18, 20–22, 24, 25, 44, 52, 68, 77, 78, 80, 85, 91, 96, 97, 103, 106, 117, 122, 124, 126, 131 Research-practice gap, v–vi, 2–6, 10–25, 33–108, 116, 119–125, 130, 131, 133 Rigour, 44, 96, 101–105, 108, 124 Romania, 84–87, 131, 132 S Schism, 16, 20, 117 Spain, 12, 87–89, 131 137 T Thailand, vi, 90–93 U UK, 12, 17, 19, 60, 93–97, 102, 103, 107, 132 University, 2, 3, 5, 12, 16, 24, 35–39, 41, 43–45, 47–53, 55, 56, 61, 63–71, 73–76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88–90, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 104, 106, 119, 121, 126, 132, 133 USA, v, 17–19, 93, 97–99 ... Sector Accounting Standards), including their merits and role in accounting harmonisation; accounting information’s role in governments’ financial sustainability and crisis confrontation; the contribution... research both in their own countries and internationally   CONCERNS ABOUT THE? ?RESEARCH- PRACTICE GAP ON? ?ACCOUNTING? ??  It is within this motivation of interdisciplinary accounting research in the. .. universities who were engaged in research across accounting, public management, public administration, and other disciplines interested in accounting in the public services Initiating the process, an email