The practical relevance of public sector research: the potential contributions of the interventionist approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/rco.v11i30.137816Keywords:
Interventionist approach, Public sector, Learning processAbstract
The practical relevance of accounting research is one of the main issue currently present in the debate. Scholars engagement and impact of accounting research are all the more required nowadays. Interventionist research (IVR) is considered a potential methodology that allows researchers to contribute to the advancement of both practice and theory. The aim of this paper is to present an analysis of the characteristics of IVR, providing guidance on how it can provide a fruitful methodology to bridge academics and practitioners in the context of public sector research.
Downloads
References
Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method: a behavioural science view. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science - Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arnaboldi, M., & Azzone, G. (2004). Benchmarking University Activities: An Italian Case Study. Financial Accountability and Management, 20(2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2004.00193.x
Arnaboldi, M., & Palermo, T. (2010). Translating ambiguous reforms: Doing better next time? Management Accounting Research, 22, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.10.005
Avenier, M.-J., & Nourry, L. (1999). Sciences of the Artificial and Knowledge Production: The Crucial Role of Intervention Research in Management Sciences. Design Issues, 15(2), 55–70. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1511842.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:24c5e6ae97acb3b59a62f3dd61c563a3
Baard, V. (2010). A critical review of interventionist research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 7(1), 13–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091011034262
Baldvinsdottir, G., Mitchell, F., & Nørreklit, H. (2010). Issues in the relationship between theory and practice in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.02.006
Berry, A. J., Coad, A. F., Harris, E. P., Otley, D. T., & Stringer, C. (2009). Emerging themes in management control: A review of recent literature. The British Accounting Review, 41(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2008.09.001
Chiucchi, M. S. (2013a). Intellectual capital accounting in action: enhancing learning through interventionist research. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931311289011
Chiucchi, M. S. (2013b). Measuring and reporting intellectual capital: Lessons learnt from some interventionist research projects. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(3), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2013-0036
Coleman, H. (2007). New development: Connecting public service researchers and practitioners. Public Money and Management, 27(4), 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2007.00595.x
Cuganesan, S. (2005). Intellectual capital‐in‐action and value creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(3), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930510611102
Demski, J. S., & Feltham, G. A. (1976). Cost Determination: A Conceptual Approach. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Dumay, J., & Baard, V. (2017). An introduction to interventionist research in accounting. In Z. Hoque, L. D. Parker, M. A. Covaleski, & K. Haynes (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 265–283). New York: Routledge.
Dumay, J. C. (2010). A critical reflective discourse of an interventionist research project. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 7(1), 46–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091011034271
Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action Research for Management Research. British Journal of Management, 7(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00107.x
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557
Hastrup, K. (2005). Social anthropology. Towards a pragmatic enlightenment? Social Anthropology, 13(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0964028205001199
Hopwood, A. (2002). “If only there were simple solutions, but there aren”t’: some reflections on Zimmerman’s critique of empirical management accounting research. European Accounting Review, 11(4), 777–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818022000047073
Joerges, B., & Czarniawska, B. (1998). The question of technology, or how organizations inscribe the world. Organization Studies, 19(3), 363–385.
Jönsson, S. (1996). Accounting for Improvement. Elsevier. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=4SPDxfXhWMUC&pgis=1
Jönsson, S. (2010). Interventionism – an approach for the future? Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 7(1), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091011034307
Jönsson, S., & Lukka, K. (2005). Doing interventionist research in management accounting. Gothenburg: Gothenburg Research Institute.
Jönsson, S., & Lukka, K. (2006). There and back again. Doing interventionist research in management accounting. In C. S. Chapman & A. G. Hopwood (Eds.), Handbook of Management Accounting Research (pp. 375–397). Elsevier.
Kasanen, E., Lukka, K., & Siitonen, A. (1993). The Constructive Approach in Management Accounting Research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5(Fall), 243–264.
Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall.
Labro, E., & Tuomela, T.-S. (2003). On bringing more action into management accounting research: process considerations based on two constructive case studies. European Accounting Review, 12(3), 409–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818032000083559
Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
Lukka, K. (2007). Management accounting change and stability: Loosely coupled rules and routines in action. Management Accounting Research, 18(1), 76–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.06.006
Lukka, K., & Mouritsen, J. (2002). Homogeneity or heterogeneity of research in management accounting? European Accounting Review, 11(4), 805–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818022000047109
Lukka, K., & Suomala, P. (2014). Relevant interventionist research: balancing three intellectual virtues. Accounting and Business Research, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2013.872554
Lukka, K., & Vinnari, E. (2017). Combining actor-network theory with interventionist research: present state and future potential. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(3), 720–753. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2015-2176
Lyly-Yrjänäinen, J., & Suomala, P. (2012). Management accountin research in practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Malmi, T., & Granlund, M. (2009). In Search of Management Accounting Theory. European Accounting Review, 18(3), 597–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180902863779
Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., & Mitchell, F. (2016). Understanding practice generalisation – opening the research/practice gap. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 13(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-09-2015-0088
P. Tucker, B., & D. Lowe, A. (2014). Practitioners are from Mars; academics are from Venus? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(3), 394–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2012-00932
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: a philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Shotter, J. (2003). Wittgenstein’s philosophy and action research. Concepts and Transformation, 8(3), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.8.3.10sho
Skoog, M. (2003). Visualizing value creation through the management control of intangibles. Journal of Integrated Care, 4(4), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310504527
Sunding, L., & Odenrick, P. (2010). A method for action research interventions to improve joint problem solving in operational teams in the Swedish construction industry. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 7(1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091011034299
Suomala, P., Lyly-Yrjänäinen, J., & Lukka, K. (2014). Battlefield around interventions: A reflective analysis of conducting interventionist research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2014.05.001
Swieringa, R. J. (1998). Accounting research and policy making. Accounting and Finance, 38(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-629X.t01-1-00003
Tucker, B., & Parker, L. (2014). In our ivory towers? The research-practice gap in management accounting. Accounting and Business Research, 44(2), 104–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2013.798234
Vagnoni, E., & Oppi, C. (2015). Investigating factors of intellectual capital to enhance achievement of strategic goals in a university hospital setting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 331–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2014-0073
van Helden, J. G., & Northcott, D. (2010). Examining the practical relevance of public sector management accounting research. Financial Accountability & Management, 26(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2010.00499.x
Weick, K. E. (2001). Gapping the Relevance Bridge: Fashions Meet Fundamentals in Management Research. British Journal of Management, 12(s1), S71–S75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12.s1.9
Weick, K. E., & Browning, L. D. (1986). Argument and Narration in Organizational Communication. Journal of Management, 12(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200207
Westin, O., & Roberts, H. (2010). Interventionist research – the puberty years: an introduction to the special issue. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 7(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091011034253
Westley, F. R. (1990). Middle managers and strategy: Microdynamics of inclusion. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110502
Wouters, M., & Roijmans, D. (2011). Using Prototypes to Induce Experimentation and Knowledge Integration in the Development of Enabling Accounting Information. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(2), 708–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01055.x
Wouters, M., & Wilderom, C. (2008). Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics department. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 488–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.002
Published
Issue
Section
License
The RCO adopts the Free Open Access policy, under the standard Creative Commons agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The agreement provides that:
- Submission of text authorizes its publication and implies commitment that the same material is not being submitted to another journal. The original is considered definitive.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with necessary recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their personal page) before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
- The journal does not pay copyright to the authors of the published texts.
- The journal's copyright holder, except those already agreed in the Free Open Access Agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), is the Accounting Department of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo.
No submission or publication fees are charged.
Up to 4 authors per article are accepted. Exceptionally duly justified cases may be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the RCO. Exceptional cases are considered as: multi-institutional projects; manuscripts resulting from the collaboration of research groups; or involving large teams for evidence collection, construction of primary data, and comparative experiments.
It is recommended that the authorship be ordered by contribution of each of the individuals listed as authors, especially in the design and planning of the research project, in obtaining or analyzing and interpreting data, and writing. Authors must declare the actual contributions of each author, filling the letter to the editor, at the beginning of the submission, taking responsibility for the information given.
Authors are allowed to change throughout the evaluation process and prior to the publication of the manuscript. The Authors should indicate the composition and final order of authorship in the document signed by all those involved when accepted for publication. If the composition and authoring order is different than previously reported in the system, all previously listed authors should be in agreement.
In the case of identification of authorship without merit or contribution (ghost, guest or gift authorship), the RCO follows the procedure recommended by COPE.
