educating professionals – perceptions of the research–teaching nexus in accounting (a case...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Victoria]On: 04 June 2014, At: 13:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Studies in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20
Educating professionals – perceptionsof the research–teaching nexus inaccounting (a case study)Ilse Lubbea
a Department of Accounting, University of Cape Town, Cape Town,South AfricaPublished online: 08 Apr 2014.
To cite this article: Ilse Lubbe (2014): Educating professionals – perceptions of theresearch–teaching nexus in accounting (a case study), Studies in Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/03075079.2014.881351
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881351
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Educating professionals – perceptions of the research–teachingnexus in accounting (a case study)
Ilse Lubbe*
Department of Accounting, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
The teaching–research ‘nexus’ has been an area of historic and ongoing controversywithin universities and discussions into the nexus between teaching and researchcontinues to expand. Within the accounting discipline, where new knowledge isperceived to be located ‘outside’ the university, academics struggle to describeand evaluate their roles as teachers and researchers. This paper investigates theperceptions of accounting academics and professional accountants in SouthAfrica with regards to the meaning of research, their role as teachers, and thenexus between teaching and research. This study suggests that the externalproduction and application of specialised knowledge in accounting, the strongcontrol by the profession of the accounting curriculum offered by accrediteduniversities, and their loyalty towards the profession, obstruct the perceivedresearch role and value of accounting academics. Accounting academics anduniversities are encouraged to break away from the simple categories of‘research-teaching’ and accept the multi-faceted understanding of academic workwithin a professional programme, as demonstrated in the paper.
Keywords: accounting; nexus; research; scholarship; profession; educatingprofessionals
Introduction
In a developing country such as South Africa, accounting academics find themselvestorn between their roles as teachers, where they must meet the requirements of thecountry and global economy in producing well-educated, professional accountants ata time when both government and business are in dire need of filling vacant postsand addressing racial imbalances, and the requirement in a research-led universitythat they be actively involved in research. This tension results in accounting academicsidentifying the time and focus required for effective teaching and learning in a profes-sionally oriented programme as factors contributing to their difficulty in becomingexperienced and recognised researchers.
The academic training of potential chartered accountants (CAs) has long been themain academic focus of departments of accounting at South African universities.The reasons given for this are often the extended content of the undergraduate and post-graduate syllabus as prescribed by the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants(SAICA), and the increased numbers of students who are interested in entering the fieldof accounting. The status currently enjoyed by departments of accounting in
© 2014 Society for Research into Higher Education
*Email: [email protected]
Studies in Higher Education, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881351
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
South Africa in the academic and business communities depends largely on whether ornot their academic programmes are accredited by professional institutions (Van derSchyf 2008). This has created a close, but often uneasy, relationship between univer-sities and the profession, which has highlighted the question of whether the mainfocus of departments of accounting at South African universities should be to meetand maintain the high standards in teaching and learning as set by SAICA, or topromote a research culture that is nationally and internationally recognised. Alterna-tively, can the demands of both be met?
The roots of this tension lie in the shared interest in exercising control over the pro-duction and application of specialised knowledge. The aspiration of most South Africanuniversities is to pursue a research mission, to be classified as a research-led university,and to enjoy international recognition (University of Cape Town 2009). In research-intensive universities, the argument is very strong that departments of accountingshould be equally committed to this aspiration and to professional education (giventhat all these departments are an integral part of their universities and their missions).Most academics consider research to be an essential function of their roles, notwith-standing that its main purpose may be to inform their teaching. However, the shortageof CAs willing and able to be educators, the necessary intensity of the teaching load,and recent massive increases in student numbers in the professionally orientedcourses all mean that teaching loads in departments of accounting in South Africaare significant.
One of the main difficulties in making sense of the research–teaching nexus is thatresearch does not have a single, generally accepted, meaning (Griffiths 2004). It oftenhas different meanings in different contexts. A general conclusion emerging from someliterature studies is that the relationship between teaching quality and research pro-ductivity is much more elusive than the conventional wisdom would suggest (Griffiths2004). To help contextualise the concept of the nexus (a complicated series of connec-tions between different things) between teaching and research, the next section providesa summary of the descriptions of research and teaching within a professionally orientedprogramme.
Descriptions of meaning
As this study investigates how the different tasks of research and teaching are under-stood differently by academics, and the meanings associated with ‘scholarly activity’,it is important to recognise that academics could have various conceptions of teachingand research.
To count as research, there should be a systematic process of investigation, result-ing from an act of inquiry that is carefully designed and executed with regard to relevantmethodological principles (Brew 2001). Generally, it is expected that the research find-ings and methods are made public, so that the wider community of experts in the fieldcan assess their validity and contribution to the existing knowledge base (Griffiths2004). Then there are the Boyer-type conceptions of scholarship, where research canbe more tightly defined (following Boyer 1990) as the ‘Scholarship of Discovery’(‘what is to be known, what is yet to be found’). Further, the ‘Scholarship of Inte-gration’ (‘what do the findings mean?’) and the ‘Scholarship of Application’ (‘howcan the findings be responsibly applied to consequential problems?’) point to the emer-gent character of knowledge-based work (Boyer 1990). This knowledge is not only amatter of knowledge being applied to a practical situation (as in the Scholarship of
2 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
Application) but is a matter of knowledge-in-use, where what counts as knowledge iswhat is worked out in real-time in the pressure of the moment (Barnett 2000).
Barnett (2000) refers to ‘Mode 1’ and ‘Mode 2’ knowledge, as identified byGibbons et al. (1994), where Mode 1 claims that knowledge is propositional in form,set out in the journals, and subject to systematic peer scrutiny. Gibbons’s Mode 2knowledge, on the other hand, is seen as emerging characteristically in knowledge-based work. Based on the description of Mode 1 knowledge in Gibbons et al.(1994), it is easy to assume that the term ‘research’ refers to the discovery of new knowl-edge which is subject to peer scrutiny in any form. For the academe, to be counted asresearch, an act of inquiry or ‘finding out’ is generally expected to involve a systematicprocess of investigation that is carefully designed and executed in line with relevantmethodological principles. Most academics interpret the meaning of the term ‘research’as ‘classical research’, which is research aimed at advancing knowledgewithin the fieldof inquiry, where the findings and methods are made public so that their validity andtheir contribution to the existing knowledge base can be assessed by the wider commu-nity of experts in the field (Griffiths 2004).
While these descriptions might provide a preliminary, basic definition of ‘research’that is familiar and broadly acceptable to most sections of the academic world, itsprecise meaning and weight still varies widely. Within a particular field of enquiry,the meaning of ‘research’ depends on whether knowledge advance is viewed interms of the production of universal theories or explanations; on whether the emphasisis placed on primary empirical investigation; or on whether the body of knowledge inquestion is conceived in terms of a single established discipline, instead of from looser,multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary conceptions (Griffiths 2004).
Research activities, however, do not always fall into one or other distinct category.Within each specific discipline it is possible to delineate a number of modes of knowl-edge production or ways of making knowledge. Within the natural sciences themaking of knowledge is associated mainly with the mode of discovery of explanationsand theories. The stance of the investigator is one of detachment and objectivity whichallows for highly specialised, narrowly focused forms of research. On the other hand,the way of producing knowledge within humanities focuses on interpretative under-standing; the knowledge base is less settled, and more marked by competing or con-flicting frameworks of understanding. This mode may be labelled as one ofinterpretive inquiry. A third mode of knowledge production is situated withinapplied or professional fields, such as law, business studies, engineering, accountingand education. Knowledge within these applied fields is oriented more towardsknowledge and understanding in addressing conflicts, tackling problems andmeeting the needs of client or other groups (Griffiths 2004). From the perspectiveof the empirical science community, research within the applied fields of inquiry isoften viewed as an eclectic, derivative quality, an intellectually dubious combinationof codified, discipline-based (explicit) knowledge and intuitive (implicit) knowledge.The point at issue here is that the applied mode of knowledge production is not redu-cible to the empirical, scientific mode where different principles apply. Rather, theapplied mode of knowledge production (Gibbons’ Mode 2 knowledge) is integrated,socially distributed, cross-disciplinary and task-oriented, on the leading edge ofchange. This is confirmed by the position taken by Jenkins and Zetter (2003), claim-ing that professional and vocational areas of knowledge are moving to Mode 2 formsof knowledge creation.
Studies in Higher Education 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
Accounting academics are faced not just with preparing students for a complexworld but with preparing them for a super-complex world: a world with changing pat-terns, with conceptual and curriculum overload (Barnett 2000). The epistemology ofthe accounting discipline calls for knowledge that is multi- and inter-disciplinaryand, according to Barnett’s university in the age of super-complexity (Barnett 2000),includes knowledge that is worked out in real time: problem-solving in teams, com-bined with critical thinking and inter-disciplinary collaboration. There is a place forMode 1 knowledge (the thesis) and Mode 2 knowledge (knowledge in use), butunless universities embrace Mode 2 knowledge, their knowledge functions will beovertaken, as major professional schools and bodies are now addressing the complexityof knowing, interrogating and revealing the multi-layered character of knowing-in-the-world (Barnett 2000).
Teaching, in contrast with research, is a relational social activity that includes stu-dents. Teaching can be observed, and teaching portfolios can demonstrate levels ofachievement and development, and experience and progression of an academic (Fryand Ketteridge 2009). Boyer (1990) identifies the ‘Scholarship of Teaching’ as the rec-ognition of the work that goes into the mastery of knowledge as well as the presentationof information so that others may understand it.
A broad description of the activity of ‘Teaching’ is found in much of the highereducation literature and in many textbooks. According to Ramsden (2003), teachingis possible only through learning and understanding, which are acquired from bothresearch and scholarly activities. Theories of learning and teaching support theproposition that sound teaching strategies encourage students to relate to the subjectmatter they are studying in a purposeful way. Teaching is an attempt to improve andmould students’ understanding, so that they begin to conceptualise phenomena andideas in the way the academic (for example accounting experts) conceptualises them.
Teaching in accounting and other business disciplines requires the academic toprovide practical contexts, based on his or her professional or business experience,in which the theoretical knowledge becomes relevant and may, therefore, be effectivelychallenged (Lucas and Milford, 2009). The massification of higher education ingeneral, and the popularity of the CA qualification, have created new challengeswhen teaching on a professional programme, including large classes, increased teach-ing demands, and the volume and complexity of the curriculum that requires accountingacademics to stay updated and participate in the continuous pedagogic updating ofstudy materials, textbooks, tutorials and case studies.
Many studies have discussed the notion of a nexus between research and teaching inhigher education at a generic level, with comparatively little attention paid to the sig-nificance of subject-based variations. Through their literature review, Trowler andWareham (2007) identifies a multiple possible meanings of the ‘teaching–research’nexus. Even though the term ‘nexus’ suggests a concrete and singular set of linksbetween the two phenomena, there are, in fact, multiple sorts of linkages and relation-ships being referred to, and authors, academics and policy-makers tend to trip betweenthese different meanings. They identify at least seven different categories of relation-ship between teaching and research, and suggest that these be clearly defined inorder to prevent the slippage and the inappropriate unitary use of the term ‘nexus’(Trowler and Wareham 2007).
This paper aims to describe the research–teaching nexus in accounting education,and suggests that accounting academics and universities work with the broader con-ception of research, and move towards a more multi-faceted understanding of academic
4 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
work. In this case study, the focus is on the meaning of ‘nexus’ (Trowler and Wareham2007) with specific reference to:
. How do academics in professional programmes view research? Alternativelystated, is there a research culture in disciplines that focus on professionalprogrammes?
. How (if at all) does a research culture influence teaching and learning?
Studies of the nexus between teaching and research
Many authors have publicly commented upon the existence of a set of nexuses betweenteaching and research. Feldman (1987) undertook one of the first meta-analyses inves-tigating the relationship between research productivity and teaching excellence,demonstrating a minimal positive correlation between teaching and research. Bymoving away from the quantitative correlation studies, Neumann (1992, 1993)argues that academic staff believe a nexus between teaching and research does exist,even if it is not always possible to prove it statistically. Neumann speculates on theresults of the correlation/quantitative studies outlined above and comments that thequantitative ‘marginal at best relationship’ between teaching and research suggeststhat the deeply held values of academics are not being translated into day-to-day teach-ing practices. In their study almost a decade later, Hattie and Marsh (1996) establishedsimilar results, specifically that a nexus did exist, but that the relationship was marginalat best. In later studies Marsh and Hattie (2002) clarified their earlier stance and com-mented that ‘teaching effectiveness and research productivity are nearly uncorrelated…’ (Marsh and Hattie 2002, 635; Hattie and Marsh 2004). Elton (2001), in a theoreti-cal analysis of the nexus literature, and Brew (2001), interviewing academic staff in oneAustralian university, both suggest that academic staff have perceived that a nexusexists.
Several studies focus on the strong value in enhancing the teaching–research nexusin terms of improving student learning (Jenkins 2005; Brew and Ginns 2008), with thecommon assumption that this enhanced relationship between teaching and research canand should be achieved. While positions taken by Rowland (2000) and Badley (2002)suggest that teaching and research are in effect the same activity, simply with differentaudiences. Jenkins and Zetter (2003) acknowledge that a better focus on the nexus canaid student learning, staff morale, and reshape the overall effectiveness of departmentsand institutions. They further claim that professional and vocational areas of knowledgeare moving to Mode 2 forms of knowledge creating, which are inter-disciplinary andpractice-oriented.
In a study of knowledge production and the research–teaching nexus in the builtenvironment disciplines (and the uneasy relationship between universities and pro-fessions), Griffiths (2004) draws attention to the key differences in the modes of knowl-edge production employed in practice-oriented fields. This study describes four modelsof how students can be involved in activities that are ‘research-based’ or ‘enquiry-based’, and concludes that it is entirely possible that such interaction between researchand teaching can be found in all disciplinary fields.
Visser-Wijnveen et al. (2009) studied the relationship between academics’ con-ceptions of knowledge, research and teaching by using a metaphor study. The focusof their research project was to investigate the way different conceptions in the
Studies in Higher Education 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
research–teaching nexus, knowledge, research and teaching, relate to each other. Thestudy shows that academics’ conceptions of knowledge and research were closelylinked, while their conceptions of teaching had a weaker association with their con-ceptions of knowledge and research.
Of particular interest is the study by Grant and Wakelin (2009), because of thesimilarities between information systems and accounting disciplines and the roles ofboth these professions in the business environment. The paper extends the workundertaken during the Nexus Project (2001, cited in Grant and Wakelin 2009), inwhich the term nexus is used to describe the complicated series of connectionsbetween teaching, research and scholarship, which is usually perceived as beingable to provide students with ‘cutting-edge’ disciplinary knowledge, to increase stu-dents’ interest in the subject through the teacher’s passion for research, and tomake what is taught seem more relevant to the student. Their study suggests that aperceived nexus does exist between research and consultancy and it is bi-directional.Teaching practice was perceived to be informed by both the processes and products ofresearch and consultancy, but there was little indication that research and consultancypractices informed teaching.
Grant and Wakelin (2009) found the area of scholarship problematic in that it wasdifficult to ‘pin down’ the concept of scholarship. When discussing the nexus betweenscholarship and teaching, interviewees were unable to discuss or speculate as to the ideaof teaching experience being used to inform their own personal scholarship of being ateacher (Grant and Wakelin, 2009). However, it is suggested that a nexus betweenresearch and scholarship may be possible, since knowledge of the area (scholarship)was felt to be a springboard into ‘doing’ research.
The various studies described above highlight that the nexus between teaching andresearch can be tenuous, and it goes to the heart of academic work. According to Brew(2010), academics and faculties should begin to base the design of their curricula onresearch and scholarship in higher education and to engage students in a variety ofresearch-based approaches. She argues that a research-enhanced learning and teachingstrategy is needed to meet the needs of students in the twenty-first century. Within aprofessionally oriented programme, and within the strong control of the profession(SAICA) on the curriculum, this study investigates new ways of considering the ten-sions between professional and academic imperatives in accounting, given the continu-ous evolvement of the accounting discipline in line with new business practices in thetwenty-first century, and the equally important teaching challenges in the developingeconomy of South Africa.
The research design and methodology are discussed in the next session, summar-ising how teaching and research are perceived and valued by accounting academicsand non-academic accountants in the profession.
Research design and methodology
This is a descriptive case study in which the participants were purposively selected andthe data were gathered through interviews and questionnaires. The study draws on theviews of eight accounting academics working in two South African universities onwhat is generally referred to as ‘a professional programme’. A professional programmeis defined as a prescribed study programme that is based on the requirements of a pro-fession, and in this case is accredited by SAICA. The views of four academics in
6 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
Management Studies and Economics were selected to provide a comparison betweenstaff expectations and practices regarding teaching and research, with the aim of iden-tifying differences and similarities between the views of academics in different disci-plines, but still associated with commercial and business studies. To helpcontextualise the role of academics, and more specifically accounting academics, theviews of four non-academic accountants employed in the accounting profession werealso obtained, with a focus on their perceptions of the accounting academic’s roleand their expectations of the accounting academic’s contributions to the profession,specifically relating to teaching, scholarly activities and research. The opinions of thenon-accounting academics provide a comparison to the perceptions of the accountingacademics in all aspects of scholarship, while the opinions of the non-academic pro-fessional accountants give insight into the value to be added by accounting academics.
In this study, the terms ‘conception’ and/or ‘perception’ are used when referring to abelief regarding a specific concept. Understanding academics’ beliefs is essential if wewant to improve educational practice (Pajares 1992). Conceptions are regarded as beingcontext-dependent and relational; in other words, the product of an individual’s inter-action with his or her world. It is not a deliberate taking up of a position, nor is it an act;it is the background from which all acts stand out, and is presupposed by them. In orderto understand how academics perceive their role as academics, and the linkage (ornexus) between teaching and research, we need to understand more about academics’perceptions of research and teaching, and their perception of scholarship and its role inteaching and research.
Methodology
The information gathered covers the perceptions and interpretations of the participants,and focuses on individuals’ experiences of the phenomena that form the basis of thestudy. This study is not so much about establishing facts, but rather about exploringwhat certain ‘facts’mean to the individual research participants, and how the participantsexperience these ‘facts’. This study aims to describe the experiences and interpretations(conceptions and perceptions) of the participants individually rather than collectively,and,within this, to focus on the differences rather than the similarities in their experience.In order to provide a language to describe the perceptions of the participants, this casestudy draws on the work of Ernest Boyer (1990) for the Carnegie Foundation.
In his report entitled Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate,Boyer (1990) argues for a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar, recog-nising that knowledge is acquired through research, synthesis, practice and teaching.While earlier views of scholarship meant engaging in original research, Boyer’sview of scholarship has a much broader meaning. This wider interpretation goesbeyond the age-old ‘teaching versus research’ debate and suggests that academicswithin academic disciplines need to consider four separate, yet interlocking aspectsof scholarship: Scholarship of Discovery, Scholarship of Integration, Scholarship ofApplication and Scholarship of Teaching. The meanings of these four forms of scholar-ship provide a vocabulary for discussion of the intellectual life of the academe (Glassick2000).
. The Scholarship of Discovery most closely resembles what is traditionallythought of as research, that is, the creation or discovery of new knowledge. Orig-inal research requires qualities such as enthusiasm for the subject matter,
Studies in Higher Education 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
creativity, critical thought, perseverance, and attention to detail. This implies thatscholarly investigation, in all the disciplines, is at the very heart of academic life.In his description of the scholarship of discovery, Boyer (1990) stresses that thepursuit of knowledge must be diligently cultivated and defended, and that, in ourcomplicated and vulnerable world, the discovery of new knowledge is absolutelycrucial.
. The Scholarship of Integration has as its primary goal to make new connectionswithin and among disciplines and asks, ‘What do the findings mean?’ (Boyer1990, 19). When disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge is synthesised,interpreted and connected, the work brings new insight to original research(Austin and McDaniels 2006). Some of the products of the scholarship of inte-gration are policy papers, reflective essays, research translations, popular presspublications, syntheses of the literature on a topic, and textbooks (Braxton,Luckey, and Helland 2002; Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff 1997).
. The Scholarship of Application, also known as the scholarship of engagement(Boyer 1990, 21), asks, ‘How can the findings be responsibly applied to conse-quential problems?’ This involves the use of a scholar’s disciplinary knowledgeto address important individual, institutional, and societal problems. It is nor-mally demonstrated by the scholar’s ability to solve problems of importance topolicymakers, community members, corporate leaders, and other stakeholders,as well as having the skills to communicate with these diverse stakeholders byusing alternative communication channels and language understandable tothose without disciplinary expertise (Austin and McDaniels 2006).
. The Scholarship of Teaching has as its purpose the development and improve-ment of pedagogical practices (Braxton, Luckey, and Helland 2002). The precisewording to describe the scholarship of teaching was initially not clear, resulting indialogue in the literature about what it means and how it is done. Such scholarshipis more likely to follow existing educational, teaching and learning theories.Hutchings and Shulman (1999) contributed to the discussion by examining thedifferences among effective teaching, scholarly teaching and the scholarship ofteaching and by separating the scholarship of teaching from scholarly teaching.They suggested that, for it to be scholarship, the work must meet these criteria:the work must be made public, must be available for peer review and critiqueaccording to accepted standards, and must be able to be reproduced and builton by other scholars (Shulman 1999).
The earlier considerations by Boyer (1990) of the priorities of academia (the professori-ate) resulted in a new way in which higher education viewed the role of educationalists(the faculty). After a decade of high-profile discussion, Boyer’s conceptualisationshave not had a major, measureable impact on teaching, the developments withinhigher education, or the way that teaching excellence is viewed and rewarded(Arreola, Theall, and Aleamoni 2003). However, his work did lead to discussionsand considerations around the design and implementation of faculty evaluationsystems, leading to the conceptualisation and understanding of the multiplicity of theroles of academics as fitting into a larger, more comprehensive meta-professionmodel. This gave rise to the development of a meta-professional model in order topromote a better understanding of the full complexity and variety of faculty work(Arreola, Theall, and Aleamoni 2003). The concept of the meta-professional role ofacademics provides a clearer identification and description of the multiple roles that
8 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
academics are required to play in the arenas of teaching, research and service. Thismeta-professional model replaces the ‘research’ role with the more encompassingrole of ‘scholarly/creative activities’; where scholarship is described as activitiesfocused exclusively on the academic’s recognised area of content expertise (Arreola,Theall, and Aleamoni 2003). The (accounting) academic must perform at a professionallevel in a variety of roles that require expertise and skills in areas that often extendbeyond his or her specific area of expertise.
Sampling and data sources
The population of academics (accounting academics and non-accounting academics)and other qualified accountants can be described as globally unquantifiable. Thisstudy focuses on individuals in each of these three groups, and more specificallywithin the boundaries of South Africa. Furthermore, academics and other qualifiedaccountants are diverse in that they are either male or female, with ages rangingfrom around 25 to 65 years, come from different race and cultural backgrounds, andhave studied and/or taught (or still teach) at different universities in South Africa.More specifically, they hold different qualifications, have different job descriptionsand titles, and are at different levels of experience with regard to teaching, researchand practical experience. The sampling approach adopted for data collection for thisstudy is therefore purposive sampling, where the researcher used her own judgementabout which participant to approach, and selected those who best met the purpose ofthis study. Participants were therefore selected on the basis of having the followingcharacteristics in common: on the one hand, they were not new appointments (theyhave/have had at least three years’ experience, either as an academic or a professionalaccountant) and, on the other hand, are not considered expert (a senior person with anestablished testimony and extended research experience), resulting in participantsranging between 28 and 45 years of age, with at least three to five years’ experienceas either an academic or professional accountant, and still developing his or her teach-ing and/or research identity and status. Apart from these pre-defined characteristics,other differentiating factors, for example race, gender, cultural background and jobtitles, were all insignificant in this purpose-driven selection process.
The selective sample of 16 participants consisted of four accounting academics inthe Department of Accounting at the University of Cape Town (UCT), four accountingacademics from other South African universities (excluding UCT), four non-account-ing academics (within the general commercial fields of economics and management)and four non-academic accountants in public practice. Interviews were conductedand/or questionnaires were completed by all the participants. The interview processincluded the completion of a questionnaire that was formulated to identify the partici-pant (as an accounting academic, non-accounting academic, or practicing accountant),and to elicit his or her views on the relationship between teaching and research in SouthAfrica and in exercising his or her role(s) and responsibilities.
The views obtained from the participants are contextually analysed and decoded inan attempt to identify synergies and tensions between the requirement to do researchwhile teaching is prioritised; and to determine how research is perceived to informteaching and learning (that academics are hired as teachers, but evaluated primarilyas researchers; Boyer 1990). The data collection process and interviews are discussedbelow.
Studies in Higher Education 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
Data collection
The academic participants were asked to answer predetermined questions which aimedto obtain details of qualifications and academic role, if any, his or her views relating tothe meaning of teaching, scholarly activities and research, what takes preference, andwhat motivates each participant. The researcher noted comments and responses madeby each participant and either completed the questionnaire with the participant (for thefirst participant), or requested that each participant complete the questionnaire indepen-dently and return it to the researcher (for all the other participants in academia). Thecomments and responses were contextually analysed and decoded in order to drawsome meanings from them.
The interviews with the non-academic accountants in the profession were less struc-tured. This style of interview with non-academic accountants was specifically necess-ary, as the researcher had to provide more background to these participants relating tothe particular issue being investigated, and how the views and opinions of non-aca-demics might inform this study. The non-academic accountants are not situated inthe academic field and as they are not directly affected by the teaching/scholarlyactivity/research nexus, were able to reflect on the expectations of the accounting pro-fession and the role of accounting academics, as viewed from the outside.
Analysis of data
The data gathered in this study indicates that accounting academics are mainly involvedin ‘scholarly activities’ and teaching, while non-accounting academics have a muchclearer concept of research and of how it informs their teaching. Accounting academicsindicated a loyalty towards their profession, evidenced by their focus on high-qualityundergraduate and postgraduate teaching. Non-academic accountants in the professionconfirmed that this role is critical for the future of the profession. SAICA requires mostacademics involved in teaching on the accredited programmes to be qualified CAs,which places a further burden on this small pool of qualified CAs willing to be involvedin education. In fact, seven of the accounting academic respondents in this study indi-cated that they are qualified CAs.
The perceptions of the respondents are linked with Boyer’s four domains of scholar-ship, thereby providing a language of description of these perceptions.
1. Academics’ perceptions of research and teaching
Academics’ perceptions are difficult to measure. An important problem is that theycannot be accessed directly, as they are often held unconsciously. People do notalways have language to describe their perceptions, or are not willing to describethem, particularly if they hold a view that they believe may be unpopular. Anotherproblem is that perceptions are contextualised. Researchers have used many differentmethods in their attempts to approach them indirectly, depending on the kind of cogni-tion they are trying to capture (Calderhead 1996). Individuals’ epistemological beliefsgreatly influence their conceptions of teaching and research (Brew 2003).
Six accounting academic respondents indicated that they consider themselves to beactively involved in research in their respective fields, while all of the non-accountingacademic respondents indicated their active involvement in research. However, it isnoticeable that most of the accounting academics have a different conception of the
10 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
value role of research when teaching on a professionally orientated programme. Viewsraised by most of the respondents (irrespective of their disciplines) on why they areinvolved in research include:
for promotion and recognition (Respondent G),
to build research capacity (Respondent F) and
required for promotion (Respondent K),
thereby clearly indicating that research is considered to be the key criterion by whichthe performance of most academics is assessed. These respondents failed to recogniseBoyer’s (1990) scholarship of discovery that refers not only to the outcomes, but to thepassion and excitement of research studies, which give meaning to the effort. Someaccounting academic respondents indicated their excitement with comments such as
[I] enjoy it (Respondent B) and
because the topic interests me. (Respondent G)
Understanding what academics value as research and scholarly activities is essential ifwe want to understand how academics perceive their roles when teaching on a profes-sionally orientated programme. One accounting academic sees the role of researchwhen teaching on a professionally-orientated programme as
‘improving your knowledge’ and is motivated to do research ‘to make [me] a betterteacher’. (Respondent C)
On the other hand, academics in the fields of Economics and Management Studies pro-vided a clear indication of how research informs their teaching. One non-accountingacademic indicated that
research makes for a more thoughtful and interesting academic, and helps me to makelinks beyond those in the textbook. (Respondent L)
The need to identify the term ‘scholarly activities’ separately gave rise to the question:‘How does scholarship differ from research?’ Accounting academics’ responsesinclude
research is more focused (Respondent B),
research is scholarly activities plus more (Respondent H) and
research is only research once an article is published. (Respondent D)
Seven of the eight accounting academic respondents view research and scholarship astwo separately classified and insulated activities. Accounting academic respondentsclearly confirmed their involvement in scholarly activities in the form of authoring orediting textbooks, supervising research, attending conferences, participating in discus-sion groups, and training professionals. On the other hand, non-accounting academicsseem to have very little understanding of and patience for the term ‘scholarly activities’.One non-accounting academic referred to scholarly activity as
Studies in Higher Education 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
‘no idea, a cop-out’ (Respondent L), indicating a conception that scholarly activity is‘created by those who does not want to do research’.
This ‘grey’ area identified by respondents between research and scholarly activitiesis in fact identified by Boyer (1990) as the Scholarship of Integration and the Scholar-ship of Application. Respondents in this study support the findings by Boyer (1990) thatacademics struggle to identify what counts as basic research and how this is different(or not) from their work. According to Boyer (1990), to be a scholar is so muchmore: it includes the acquisition of knowledge through research, through synthesis,through practice, and through teaching. Scholarship is considered to include, as oneof its many components, research. This was confirmed by a non-accounting academicrespondent (who described his current position as a ‘junior research fellow’), whoclaimed that his involvement in research includes supervising postgraduate research.Several other respondents also included supervision of Masters Studies, review ofarticles in journals, and attending conferences as examples of research activity inwhich they are involved.
It is very likely that the different perceptions among academics stem from theirvarying perceptions of the production of new knowledge within their respective disci-plines. Accounting academics have, in fact, created their own impediment through theirconception of scholarship as differentiated from research. The key to these commonal-ities lies in the process of research (and scholarship) itself. In all works of scholarship(Boyer 1990), be they discovery, integration, application, or teaching, six sharedthemes were identified. It was found that
when people praise a work of scholarship they usually mean that the project in questionshows that it has been guided by these qualitative standards: clear goals, adequate prep-aration, appropriate methods, significant results, effective communication, reflective cri-tique. (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff 1997)
These six standards of excellence in scholarship encompass the existing quality criteriaof the research process, which is often described by research guidelines as original, sys-tematic investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge and understanding,with the following steps or actions involved: exploring the research topic, formulatingresearch questions, selecting the research design, data collection, data analysis, report-ing of findings, and theory building. Even though accounting academics are not alwaysinvolved in original research studies of gaining new knowledge and understanding (thescholarship of discovery in the field of production), their involvement in the recontex-tualisation of knowledge demonstrated by their involvement in the forms of authoringor editing textbooks, supervising research, attending conferences, participating in dis-cussion groups, and training professionals (evidenced from their responses) demon-strate their involvement in scholarship, and more specifically the scholarship ofintegration and the scholarship of application (Boyer 1990). These reconstructions ofknowledge are associated with the three specific fields of activity, namely a field of pro-duction (where ‘new’ knowledge is constructed and positioned), a field of recontextua-lisation (where discourses from the field of production are selected, appropriated andrepositioned to become ‘educational’ knowledge), and a field of reproduction (wherepedagogic practice takes place) (Bernstein 1996, 2000).
In reply to the questions about whether the respondents were aware of any tensionbetween research and teaching (on a professionally orientated programme), two of thenon-accounting academics were clear that, in their opinion, no tension exists. It is worth
12 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
mentioning that these non-accounting academics for whom no tension exists are bothmainly responsible for postgraduate studies and supervision. However, all of theaccounting academics confirmed that for them, a tension does exist. The reasonsgiven for the tension include
more research results in less investment in students, there is no extra time available to helpstudents (Respondent B), and
both require time… time taken for teaching and… administration of large classes is veryonerous… creating no gaps for research… (Respondent C)
Rowland (1996) states that closer relationships between research and teaching canprovide the basis for improving the quality of university teaching, and he sees astrong link between research and teaching as an essential part of academics’ jobsatisfaction.
At undergraduate level, research work often competes with classroom obligations,both in time and content (Boyer 1990). Seven of the accounting academics indicatedthat time is the main reason such a tension exists, and this conception was confirmedby some of the non-accounting academics, who identified time as the main issue, aswell as the needs of students, as the contributing factors to such tension. However,the non-accounting academics clearly indicated that, because of the value placed onresearch and its strong link to informing teaching, time is set aside for research. Thisdoes not seem to be the case for accounting academics. This leads to the conclusionthat teaching in accounting is too onerous to allow for time to be set aside for research,or, alternatively, that accounting academics do not perceive research as a sufficientlyimportant component in the role of an academic to allocate time to it. This is evidencedby this comment made by an accounting academic who states that
SA [South African] universities tend to classify themselves as research-orientated insti-tutions. Professionally-orientated programmes [that] tend to focus on teaching are thuscontrary to the norm in a SA university. The argument is usually that the teaching loadis such that time for research is not available. My belief is that the momentum orinertia of a professionally-orientated programme keeps a research culture from developingin a professional department. A very heavy intervention would be necessary to changethis. (Respondent D)
The proposal by Boyer (1990) that higher education move beyond the tired old ‘teach-ing versus research’ debate, and the broader meaning that he gives the term ‘scholar-ship’, is particularly useful for a professional department (departments ofaccounting), where there is a need to blend quality and innovation, to make connectionsacross the disciplines, and to give priority to programmes that build bridges betweenteaching and practice, where academics are required to establish and maintain stronglinks with their profession, relate their intellectual life to contemporary problems,and get involved in service to the communities that surround them.
Moving on to the question of what takes priority in their academic jobs, all respon-dents indicated an involvement in teaching in some form or the other. Accounting aca-demics indicated that teaching is prioritised in their schedule of activities, and that theyare mostly motivated by teaching. Non-accounting academics indicated that theybalance their teaching and research activities, indicating a
shift from time to time (Respondent L) and
Studies in Higher Education 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
time… is a balancing act (Respondent J),
while some accounting academics indicated that they focus only on teaching, comment-ing that
research is too time-consuming (Respondent C),
and that teaching is favoured.These conceptions that the time academics are spending on teaching has a negative
impact in the time available for conducting research are supported in other studies (referto Nieuwoudt and Wilcocks 2005; Nieuwoudt, Wilcocks, and Kilpert 2006). The dys-functional relationship between time spend teaching, and the resultant effect of squeez-ing research into a ‘spare-time’ activity, is just one of many dysfunctions identified inthe nexus literature (Trowler and Wareham 2007). However, within the professionalprogramme of accounting, factors that extend teaching time include large, diverseundergraduate classes that require lectures to be repeated, resulting in a requirementfor a variety of smaller tutorial groups to support learning, complex and integrated dis-cipline and cross-discipline content that require additional contact time, as well as largeassessment loads.
Closely linked to the two questions discussed above, of what takes your time andwhat takes priority, is the question to respondents of what motivates you. Despite theprevious observation that teaching is very onerous in the accounting discipline, thereis clear evidence that accounting academics enjoy teaching. From the responses bythe accounting academics, four indicated that they enjoy teaching and that teachingmotivates them. Boyer’s (1990) faculty survey,1 indicating that for 70% of today’s pro-fessors (academics), teaching represents their primary interest, confirms this study’sdata. The accounting academic respondent who admitted to favouring researchpointed out that this was mainly because of the motivation to do research as part offurther postgraduate studies:
getting [my] PhD (Respondent D),
while the accounting academic respondent who indicated other aspects gave his motiv-ation as
[an] international imperative. (Respondent B)
From these responses, it is evident that academics have different interests and motiv-ations, and even though it is important for academics to establish their credentials asresearchers and stay in touch with developments in their fields, the respective disci-plines and the teaching requirements of a professionally orientated programmedictate their priorities and what they spend time on.
2. The accounting profession’s perception of the role of an accounting academic
The emphasis on teaching and producing ‘accounting students of a high quality’ is verymuch the view of non-academic accountants in the profession. Those respondents whoare not academics, but are CAs in the professional accounting and auditing fields, statedclearly that they see the role of accounting academics as being exclusively to
14 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
produce quality students who can apply their knowledge in practice. (Respondent O)
This conception of fellow professionals has no doubt affected the views of accountingacademics who believe that teaching should be prioritised. In response to the questionof where accounting academics can best add value to the profession, responsesincluded
engaging in topical matters and recommendations that are relevant and practical (Respon-dent Q) and
by research into the ever-changing nature of financial instruments and disclosure (Respon-dent P),
both underscoring the need for accounting academics’ involvement in the scholarshipof integration and the scholarship of application (Boyer 1990).
SAICA acknowledges that its emphasis on the delivery of competent CAs shouldnot hinder accounting academics from meeting their research responsibilities. NazeerWadee (CA(SA)), Chief Operations Officer at SAICA, made the following commentsin Accountancy SA (October 2009):
As an extension to the accreditation process, SAICA, keenly aware of the critical need forresearch, is actively assisting the universities, most of which have been increasing theirfocus on such endeavours. There could be any number of reasons for this, though fore-most among them is the obligation on the part of Accounting professors at higher learninginstitutions to produce several research papers every year to progress and be recognisednot only within the universities but throughout the broader academic universe. (Wadee2009)
He acknowledges the difficulties attached to the two-pronged approach of achieving aneffective balance between the resources, human and financial, devoted to research onthe one hand, and to qualifying a consistent stream of students for the market on theother. This problem of balance is compounded by academics’ perception that timespent on research benefits the university, but detracts from the time that could otherwisehave been allocated to qualifying a greater number of students (Boyer 1990). This is avery real concern as, against a background of a highly dynamic environment that makesit imperative for academics to stay constantly up to date on matters ranging from rapidlychanging accounting and auditing standards to new tax legislation, the variety of func-tions academics are expected to perform have not been in the best interest of the studentand undergraduate teaching.
Mandi Oliver2 (2013) from SAICA has recently indicated in a letter addressed todepartments of accounting at accredited South African universities that
SAICA recognises the demands placed on academic staff by the accredited programmeand also by the research output expectations of universities. Its [SAICA’s] primaryconcern is with the quality of the accredited programme and it expects, therefore, thatstaff resources allocated to the programme will be sufficient to meet the demands ofthe programme and of university research requirements.
SAICA’s prolonged support of the accounting academe underscores its commitmentto providing quality education on the professional programmes, and their stronginvolvement and control of the education of accountants. SAICA provides clear
Studies in Higher Education 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
guidelines to accounting academics (through its accreditation programme and strongcontrol of the accounting curriculum) on the knowledge to be transmitted (the curri-culum) and the competencies linked to that knowledge (conceptual changes, to beembedded in learning outcomes). The strong control of the curriculum by SAICA(again emphasising teaching on a professionally orientated programme) inhibits theaccounting academic’s motivation or eagerness to investigate new knowledge andto produce ‘unthinkable knowledge’. One of the professional accountants inter-viewed confirmed this: ‘[We] are not expecting [accounting] academics to comeup with new knowledge… ’ and that ‘new knowledge is investigated in-house’3
(Respondent O).A further concern raised by professional accountants relating to the possible partici-
pation of accounting academics in client-specific research4 is the confidentiality of cor-porate information. Specific investigations performed by professional accountants onbehalf of their clients may be valuable for further research, but without the consentof the client, such investigations and data are not available to the accounting academic.However, it is my opinion that such concerns should not hinder the accountingresearcher from investigating applications in practice, within the confidential agree-ments and consent required for empirical research, or from pursuing such researchinterests. However, it may prove to be difficult for permission to be granted for thepeer review and publication of such research studies.
SAICA, through its strong control of the requirements for the CA qualification,determines the value of a department of accounting, which, in many cases, is influencedby the numbers of successful (Black) students produced per year, and their subsequentsuccess in the professional qualifying exams. One of the professional accountants inter-viewed made it clear that
we need universities to produce students who are able to apply their knowledge practically(Respondent O)
Another more specifically observed that
[universities] must produce good quality students, mainly blacks, so that we [theprofessional firms] can meet our transformation targets. (Respondent N)
In the interviews, when asked about their knowledge and inspection of accountingresearch produced by academics (that is, publications in peer-reviewed local andinternational accounting journals), the professional accountants acknowledged thatthey were unaware of any such journals, and have therefore never read any paperspublished in such journals. This view underscores the perception that, in the account-ing discipline, the university is not the producer of new knowledge and that new dis-ciplinary material produced by the institutes and professional firms (InternationalAccounting Standards Board, SAICA and others) is considered official and legiti-mate. Furthermore, it was suggested that accounting academics should rather focuson the applications of these sources of new knowledge, for example, how new knowl-edge is applied in different industries. These sentiments by professional accountantssupport the perception that new knowledge in accounting is created outside the uni-versity, and this no doubt influences how accounting academics see and value theirown research.
16 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
Knowledge production in the accounting discipline – structures and agency
Accounting academics struggle to see their role as academics in the discovery of newknowledge, for reasons such as the perception that such work is not valued (by otheraccountants and the profession), that new knowledge is produced only by the pro-fessional institutions, as well as the lack of emphasis on research and research method-ologies in the accounting curriculum. This narrow view focuses on the discovery ofnew knowledge, without taking into account investigations into inter-disciplinaryrelations, the interpretation of legal issues, standards and new regulations, and practicalapplications. Often, teaching within the professional contexts portrays research assomewhat detached or separate from the people who discovered it.
Several accounting academics questioned the value of their role as researchers incontrast to their duties as scholars of accounting, despite the fact that there is a clearmessage of support from the profession for accounting academics to engage in the scho-larship of integration. Often accounting academics fail to see these activities as overlap-ping. In short, accounting academics are underestimating their role in the developmentof pedagogic discourse in accounting. There are different forms of scholarship takingplace in the university, and this issue is crucial in making sense of the research–teachingnexus in accounting. Different forms of scholarship include ‘modes of knowledge pro-duction’ or ‘ways of making knowledge’ (Gibbons et al. 1994; Boyer 1990) and vary interms of how that can be integrated into student learning activities. This study arguesthat accounting academics should accept a broader description of scholarship, and beactive in the interpretation, or interpretive understanding, of new knowledge, ratherthan on the search for highly specialised, narrowly focused accounting researchstudies. Within the vocational fields of law, social policy, engineering, businessstudies and accounting the orientation is not towards knowledge and understandingfor their own sake, but rather towards the use of knowledge and understanding inaddressing conflicts, tackling problems and meeting the needs of clients or other group-ings (Griffiths 2004). One can argue that the business of professional and practice-based disciplines is to be concerned with managing the interaction between explicitknowledge and implicit knowledge, and between knowledge and values. This requiresdealing with complexities relating to the application of knowledge to given problemswithin given contexts and results in a particular type of knowledge production, requir-ing intellectual challenges that are certainly no less demanding than those involved indiscovery research.
From these discussions it is noticeable that the accounting profession relies stronglyon accounting academics, as agents, for their specialised knowledge in the recontextua-lisation of accounting knowledge into pedagogy, and the successful reproduction ofpotential accounting professionals in the classroom. The profession (principal) boastscareful and competitive selection procedures through SAICA (as agent), which offerstraining and credentialing, licensing, recertification and mandatory continuing edu-cation, and uses accounting academics (as agents) as part of its credible mechanismto produce more CAs. The profession entrusts the education of potential CAsthrough the selection, monitoring and sanctioning of agents: departments of accountingcompete to meet the accreditation criteria; this represents a brilliant marketing strategyfor the profession and creates a way to stave off the encroachment of other would-beagents who seek to offer the same services to principals (Shapiro 2005).
This classic agency paradigm emphasises the goal conflict when agents depart fromthe interests of the principal. In order to control the actions of the agent, the principal
Studies in Higher Education 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
uses incentives to align the interests of the agent with that of the principal, in the form ofaccreditation, reputation and competing for the student market (Shapiro 2005). Thechallenge is that the accounting academic (agent) is serving many masters, with con-flicting interests. As mentioned earlier, the accounting academic is loyal to the pro-fession, but employed by the university, where the tangible incentives of salaries andpromotion are located. The agenda of the university, as an institute of knowledge cre-ation, includes a strong emphasis on the production of research, and to be identified as aresearch-led institution. Serving the interests of a profession is often in direct conflictwith this agenda. Thus, how can accounting academics meet the employment, evalu-ation and promotion criteria of their employer (the university) while focusing on theeducational needs of their profession? Such conflicts of interest are avoided whenthe accounting academic locates his or her research interests within the recontextualisa-tion of specialised accounting knowledge. This implies that the focus of the accountingacademic of his or her scholarship activities is on the dissemination and translationof recognised findings in the form of publications and new and beneficial productsof value to the profession and the university. Described as the meta-professional roleof academia, such scholarship activities focus on the recognised area of content exper-tise and are expressed by keeping current (that is, attaining advanced levels of expertisein one’s content field [Arreola, Theall, and Aleamoni 2003]). Even though the account-ing academic is entangled in the teaching and research nexus, it is possible to honourthe preferences of both the university and the profession.
In recent years, several international accounting journals have produced meaningfulacademic research studies that include meta-analyses and several commentaries cover-ing a number of different aspects of accounting research. However, an investigationinto South African accounting research production (West 2006) has highlighted thataccounting academics in South Africa seem to lag far behind those of their counterpartsabroad. Barth (2008) and Kaplan (2011) both encourage accounting academics to par-ticipate in research and scholarship. Mary E. Barth (2008), a member of the Inter-national Accounting Standards Board (IASB), identified several questions for futureresearch and invited accounting academics to get involved in research on the globalisa-tion of financial reporting, among other topics. Kaplan (2011) challenges accountingacademics to actively investigate the implications of recent global changes and tobring this knowledge into the scholarly arena when teaching professionals. His studyencourages
Accounting scholars to devote more resources to obtaining a fundamental understandingof contemporary and future practice and how analytic tools and contemporary advances inAccounting and related disciplines can be deployed to improve the professional practiceof Accounting. (Kaplan 2011, 367)
Accounting academics participate in scholarship when collecting and integrating newaccounting knowledge in order to recontextualise it into a professional curriculum.Accounting knowledge is abstracted from the context in order to be codified andmade explicit, but because there is a professional field of practice, it has to be recontex-tualised in specific contexts in order to be useful. The research focus is therefore farremoved from the traditional approach to classical research for the development ofnew knowledge in the accounting discipline, but instead is clearly related to the Scho-larship of Integration (Boyer 1990), which underscores the need for academics to givemeaning to isolated facts by putting them in perspective. This requires serious,
18 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring new insight to bear onoriginal research.
Further, by interpreting and pedagogising the principles of International FinancialReporting Standards (IFRS), applicable legislation and other accounting literature,accounting academics develop the undergraduate and postgraduate curriculums,write textbooks, design tutorials and case studies, and provide clarity on specificissues in articles, papers and other publications. The contributions by accounting aca-demics to the recontextualisation of knowledge are highly valued in South Africa andglobally. Both SAICA and CAs employed by auditing/accounting firms have, onseveral occasions, expressed their appreciation and support for accounting academics(Wadee 2009).
Without the teaching function, the continuity of knowledge will be broken and thestore of human knowledge dangerously diminished. This does not imply that all tea-chers should just teach, or be involved in scholarly teaching, rather that there isspace in accounting education for the scholarship of pedagogical procedures, carefulplanning, continuous investigation, and examination relating directly to the disciplinetaught. Academics involved in the scholarship of teaching should make their teachingprocesses, assessments, and outcomes public, opening them to critique by peers in theirdisciplines in formats (journals, presentations) within which the work can be accessedand reviewed (Glassick 2000). This implies that accounting academics should not onlysee teaching and the responsibility of the transmission of knowledge as their role, butthey are encouraged to be actively involved in the scholarship of teaching as scholarswho truly wish to understand, expand, and enrich teaching in their discipline.
Conclusion
Forefront to the teaching–research nexus is the observation that accounting academics,who tend to come from a professional rather than a research background, often have anambivalent attitude towards research. Not only is research and research methodologyoften not included in any postgraduate accounting studies, accounting academicstend not to consider a research focus of much value, except for promotion or furtherstudies. This is compounded by the fact that new knowledge in accounting is situatedoutside the university (agents are within the profession and larger business scene) andthat fellow professional members indicate that they value the teaching endeavours ofaccounting academics, as opposed to their research abilities and output. Further, thecomplexity of the accounting discipline and its continued evolvement around newbusiness practices in the twenty-first century, require accounting academics to beactive agents in the recontextualisation of new accounting knowledge into pedagogy,which is highly valued by the profession.
In reply to the question of the existence of a ‘nexus’ between teaching and research(how accounting academics view research and the existence of a research culture withina professional programme), the views obtained in this study indicate a very weakrelationship between teaching and research within the accounting discipline. Theresponses by the accounting academic participants point towards tension (or conflict),indicating that there exists a difficulty in answering to two institutional logics: firstly tothat of the university requirement to be active researchers, and secondly, their loyaltytowards their profession. There is no doubt a passion amongst accounting academicsfor their discipline, and contextual frameworks within the discipline are well developedand communicated to learners, but accounting academics indicated that they spend
Studies in Higher Education 19
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
most of their time and energy on teaching and the development of pedagogy, instead ofresearch. Time (if any) spent on research is also not viewed to inform teaching, butrather for its own benefits, such as promotion or further studies.
In a few cases, a research culture leaks into practices in teaching and learning, forexample research that investigates applications (used as case studies). Accounting aca-demics see, as part of their teaching role, the investigation and application of current‘cutting-edge’ content that originates from outside the university. However, accountingacademics tend to view such activities as the scholarship of application rather than clas-sical research, as it does not involve the discovery of new knowledge. Accounting aca-demics show a strong involvement in scholarship, indicating that their involvement inscholarly activities is motivated by their need to stay up to date (because of the rapidchanges in the accounting discipline and profession) and to inform their teaching.
Within the accounting discipline, approaches to teaching and research are rooted instructures, the roles of the agents and the accreditation process by the profession. Thisprovides for a strong control over the accounting curriculum, the development of newstandards, frameworks and regulations outside the university, and the social arrange-ment and distribution of the resources with only a few CAs willing to accept a rolein academia. Furthermore, the strong emphasis on quality teaching and learning, thesuccess rates in the external professional exams, together with the production ofquality students with critical thinking abilities, contribute to the accounting academics’dual identity and tension when serving both the profession and the university. Thistension is made more explicit by the need for world-class quality education in a pro-fession with international recognition, while South Africa’s local developingeconomy is in acute need of quality education, equity and transformation.
This study offers the opportunity for further investigations into the broader impli-cations of the research–teaching nexus in other vocational disciplines within a develop-ing economy, and raises the question of whether the problem does not rather lie in theways in which research and universities are assessed, judged and financially rewarded.Is it valid that there is a requirement for a university (and hence academics) to haveinternational recognition as being research-led, in a developing country such asSouth Africa – where access to good teaching and job creation is crucial? A further,and more detailed study, is recommended to investigate the validity of the ‘traditional’conceptions of research in the multi-complex university of today, and to evaluate thevalidity of existing appraisal formats for academics involved in research and teachingon professionally orientated programmes.
Academics should, rather than thinking in terms of the traditional dichotomy ofresearch and teaching, think about their role as knowledge agents who are concernedabout the learning of both academics (research) and students (teaching) and the waysin which the learning of one can benefit the other. Academics involved in educating pro-fessionals should be afforded the time to be involved in, and acknowledged for, theirinvolvement in the scholarships of integration, application and teaching. These activitiesstimulate their understanding of new and existing knowledge, its transformation andtransmission into pedagogy. This means that the multi-faceted role of the academicshould not be underestimated, as it is acknowledged and highly valued by the profession.
Notes1. Data from the 1989 Carnegie Foundation faculty survey, as cited in Boyer (1990, 43, 44,
Table 8).
20 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
2. Mandi Oliver is the Senior Executive: Professional Development at SAICA.3. ‘In-house’ implies that the professional firm has its own technical and research division that
investigates new knowledge – this supports the notion identified earlier that the field of pro-duction of new knowledge in accounting is mostly situated outside the university.
4. Research for specific clients refers to Boyer’s Scholarship of Application, where qualifiedaccountants consult regularly with clients on specific technical and practical issues. Becauseof the confidentiality relationship between practitioner and client, accounting academics arevery seldom included in such research.
ReferencesArreola, R.A., M. Theall, and L.M. Aleamoni. 2003. Beyond scholarship: Recognising the mul-
tiple roles of the professoriate. Paper presented at the 2003 AERA Convention, Chicago, IL.Austin, A.E., and M. McDaniels. 2006. Using doctoral education to prepare faculty to work
within Boyer’s four domains of scholarship. New Directions for Institutional Research,2006, no. 129: Chapter 4.
Badley, G. 2002. A really useful link between teaching and research. Teaching in HigherEducation 7, no. 4: 443–45.
Barnett, R. 2000. University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education 40:409–22.
Barth, M.E. 2008. Global financial reporting: Implications for US academics. The AccountingReview, American Accounting Association 83, no. 5: 1159–79.
Bernstein, B. 1996. Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique.London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
Bernstein, B. 2000. Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Rev. ed. New York and Oxford:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Braxton, J.M., W. Luckey, and P. Helland. 2002. Institutionalising a broader view of scholarshipthrough Boyer’s four domains. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 29, no. 2.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brew, A. 2001. The nature of research. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Brew, A. 2003. Teaching and research: a phenomelographic study. Studies in Higher Education
26: 271–85.Brew, A. 2010. Imperatives and challenges in integrating teaching and research. Higher
Education Research & Development 29, no. 2: 139–50.Brew, A., and P. Ginns. 2008. The relationship between engagement in the scholarship of teach-
ing and learning and students’ course experiences. Assessment and Evaluation in HigherEducation 33, no. 5: 535–45.
Calderhead, J. 1996. Teachers: beliefs and knowledge. In Handbook of educational research,ed. D.C. Berliner and R.C. Calfee, 709–25. New York: MacMillan.
Elton, L. 2001. Research and teaching: conditions for a positive link. Teaching in HigherEducation 6: 43–56.
Feldman, K. 1987. Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers asrelated to their instructional effectiveness. Research in Higher Education 26, no. 3: 227–91.
Fry, H., and S. Ketteridge. 2009. Enhancing personal practice – establishing teaching and learn-ing credentials. In A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education, ed. H. Fry,S. Ketteridge and S. Marshall, Chap. 28. London: Routledge.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The newproduction of knowledge. London: Sage.
Glassick, C.E. 2000. Boyer’s expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessingscholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Academic Medicine 75,no. 9: 877–80.
Glassick, C.,M.T.Huber, andG.I.Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship assessed: A special report on facultyevaluation. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Grant, K., and S.J. Wakelin. 2009. Reconceptualising the concept of a nexus? A survey of 12Scottish IS/IM academics’ perceptions of a nexus between teaching, research, scholarshipand consultancy. Teaching in Higher Education 14, no. 2: 133–46.
Studies in Higher Education 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4
Griffiths, R. 2004. Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the case of the builtenvironment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education 29, no. 6: 709–26.
Hattie, J., and H.W. Marsh. 1996. The relationship between research and teaching: a meta-analy-sis. Review of Educational Research 66, no. 4: 507–42.
Hattie, J., and H.W. Marsh. 2004. One journey to unravel the relationship between research andteaching. Paper presented at the international colloquium, March 1819, in Maxwell confer-ence Centre, Colden Common, Hampshire, UK.
Hutchings, P., and L.S. Shulman. 1999. The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, newdevelopments. Change 31, no. 5: 10–15.
Jenkins, A. 2005. A guide to the research evidence on teaching-research relations (December).York: Higher Education Academy (formerly ILTHE).
Jenkins, A, and R. Zetter. 2003. Linking research and teaching in departments. York: LTSNGeneric Centre.
Kaplan, R.S. 2011. Accounting scholarship that advances professional knowledge and practice.The Accounting Review 86, no. 2: 367–83.
Lucas, U., and P. Milford. 2009. Key aspects of teaching and learning in accounting, businessand management. In A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education, ed. H. Fry,S. Ketteridge and S. Marshall, Section 24. London: Routledge.
Marsh, H.W., and J. Hattie. 2002. The relationship between research productivity and teachingeffectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic or independent constructs? The Journal ofHigher Education 73, no. 5: 603–41.
Neumann, R. 1992. Perceptions of the teaching–research nexus: A framework for analysis.Higher Education 23, no. 2: 159–71.
Neumann, R. 1993. Research and scholarship: Perceptions of senior academic administrators.Higher Education 25: 97–110.
Nexus Project. 2001. Centre for educational development and interactive resources.Wollongong: University of Wollongong.
Nieuwoudt, M.J., and J.S. Wilcocks. 2005. The attitudes and perceptions of South African aca-demics in Accounting about research. Meditari Accounting Research 13, no. 2: 49–66.
Nieuwoudt, M.J., J.S. Wilcocks, and O.V. Kilpert. 2006. Time perceptions of South AfricanAccounting academics. Meditari Accounting Research 14, no. 2.
Pajares, M.F. 1992. Teacher beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research 62: 307–22.
Ramsden P. 2003. Learning to teach in higher education. New York: Routledge.Rowland, S. 1996. Relationships between teaching and research. Teaching in Higher Education
1: 7–20.Rowland. S. 2000. Teaching and research: A marriage on the rocks? Presented at the 6th
European Conference on Educational Research Edinburgh, September 20–23. TimesHigher Education Supplement October 27; p. 28–29.
Shapiro, S.P. 2005. Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology 31: 263–84.Shulman, L. 1999. The scholarship of teaching. Change 31, no. 5: 11.Trowler, P., and T. Wareham. 2007. Tribes, territories, research and teaching: Enhancing the
“teaching-research nexus”. Literature Review. www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/nexus/outputs.htm (accessed July 2013).
University of Cape Town. 2009. Research policy. http://www.researchoffice.uct.ac.za/research_integrity/policies/uct_research/.
Van der Schyf, D.B. 2008. The essence of a university and scholarly activity in Accounting, withreference to a department of Accounting at a South African university. Meditari AccountingResearch 16, no. 1: 1–26.
Visser-Wijnveen, G.J., J.H. Van Driel, R.M. Van der Rijst, N. Verloop, and A. Visser. 2009.The relationship between academics’ conceptions of knowledge, research and teaching –a metaphor study. Teaching in Higher Education 14, no. 6: 673–86.
Wadee, N. 2009. Accounting profession’s strategic association with SA’s universities.Accountancy SA, October.
West, A. 2006. A commentary on the global position of South African Accounting research.Meditari Accounting Research 14, no. 1: 121–37.
22 I. Lubbe
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f V
icto
ria]
at 1
3:23
04
June
201
4