Melco Management Accounting Research
Discussion Paper Series
No.MDP2017-011
What Causes the Gap Between Academic Findings and Practice inJapanese Management Accounting?

December 2017

Kosuma Shinohara*
Associate Professor, Fukuoka University,
Faculty of Commerce Department of Business Management
8-19-1 Nanakuma, Jonan-ku, Fukuoka-city, 814-0180, Japane-mail: shinohara@fukuoka-u.ac.jp
Kazunori Fukushima
Associate Professor, Chuo University
Faculty of Commerce*Corresponding author

The Melco Foundation
Nagoya, Japan
Discussion Paper Series of the Melco Management Accounting Research, in order to promote
the study of management accounting, has published this unfinished paper onto the Web. Pleaseobtain the permission of the author when citing this paper.

What Causes the Gap Between Academic Findings and Practice in JapaneseManagement Accounting?

Kosuma Shinohara
Fukuoka University

Kazunori Fukushima
Chuo University

Abstract
This paper aims to show the factor of the gaps between the management accounting
academic knowledge and management accounting practice in Japan. We applied innovation
diffusion theory to reveal the problem based on the previous research (Tucker and Lowe, 2014,
Tucker and Parker, 2014; Tucker and Schaltegger, 2016). We surveyed the head of the generalaccounting department or the business administration department at 895 Japanese manufacturingfirms listed in first section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Based on the results of questionnaires,two findings are determined. First, it is important for bridging the gaps to generalize academic
knowledges, to consider the way to diffuse knowledges and to show the introduction method topractice. Second, it suggests the characteristics of the management accounting staffs influence thefactor of the gaps.

Keywords: Research Practice Gap, Innovation Diffusion Theory, Management Accountant in
Corporation

11. Introduction
Management accounting scholars often discuss the relationship between management
accounting research and the practice of management accounting in real organizations, as evidenced
by some special issues in prominent journals (cf., Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Management Accounting Research, Accounting[Kigyou Kaikei in Japanese]). These discussions
refer to the inconsistency between practice and academic discussion as the research-practice gap.
Two research streams investigate this gap by either by aiming to determine whether there is a gap
and what the gap is (Kato, 1989; Sakurai, 1991; Nishizawa, 1996) or aiming to resolve the gap bydescribing, theorizing, or conceptualizing management accounting practices (cf., Japan Accounting
Association Special Committee, 1996; Miya et al., 1999; Cooper, 1995).
Some resent research shows the existence of a research-practice gap and the need to
discuss how to bridge the gap (Tucker and Parker, 2014). Others point out that the gap exists due tothe researchers’ unconsciousness of contribution to management accounting practice(Baldvinsdottir et al., 2010; Inanga and Schneider, 2005; Kaplan, 2011; Merchant, 2012; Parker etal., 2011). In response, some studies aimed to solve the problem of diffusing academic knowledge
to practice (Tucker and Lowe, 2014, Tucker and Parker, 2014; Tucker and Schaltegger, 2016).
Tucker and Schaltegger (2016) indicated that the problems differ by country. It is therefore
important to find the issue for each individual country. Therefore, this study investigates the issues
that may lead to the research-practice gap in Japan. We address the problem using a survey basedon innovation diffusion theory (Brownson, et al., 2006; Dearing, 2008; Gautam, 2008), which has
been used in previous studies (Tucker and Lowe, 2014; Tucker and Parker, 2014; Tucker and
Schaltegger, 2016).
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 reviews the previous
research and proposes the research question. Section 3 describes the data collection, variables, andanalysis. Section 4 presents the results with a related discussion before Section 5 concludes.

2. Literature Review and Research Question
2.1 Literature review
The discussion of the research-practice gap dates back to comments noting a
difference between the use of management accounting knowledge that academics prefer and theuse in practice (Scapens, 1985) and that note that academic discussions of management accounting
cannot provide methods or mechanisms for use that are suitable for practical situations (Johnson
and Kaplan, 1988). There are two gaps: one is that academics do not describe or theorize the2observed widespread management accounting practice, and the other is that academics actively
discuss some management accounting phenomenon or techniques rarely used in practice (Kato,
1989; Scapens, 1985). In Japan, the former gap has been bridged by finding new management
accounting practices such as target costing, micro-profit centre management, and amoeba
management through observation, theorization, or conceptualization in several case studies andfield studies (Japan Accounting Association, 1996; Miya et al., 1999, Cooper, 1995).
On the other hand, other researchers find that management accounting tools or
techniques that academics discuss actively, such as balanced scorecard (BSC) and activity based
costing (ABC) are rarely used in practice (Kawano, 2014; Yokota and Senoo, 2011; Yoshida et al.,2015). This finding appears through the widespread use of unsophisticated capital investment
techniques, which are disagreeable academically or theoretically (Shimizu and Tamura, 2010;
Sugiyama, 2002; Yoshida et al., 2015). Although some researchers began investigating the factorsthat help or hinder the use of new tools such as BSC or ABC (Otomasa, 2005; Tani, 2004), there isno evidence showing the diffusion of new tools.
While some research findings may bridge the research-practice gap, it is important toconsider the cause of the gap to solve the problem. Some researchers pointed out that it is because
management accounting scholars are not conscious of their contribution to practice (Baldvinsdottir
et al., 2010; Inanga and Schneider, 2005; Kaplan, 2011; Merchant, 2012; Parker et al., 2011).
Kaplan (2011) indicates that management accounting scholars do not provide information that
improves practice, despite trying to describe practice by observation or estimation, leading
practitioners to lose interest. Baldvinsdottir et al. (2010) argue that ‘management accounting
research is to maintain its distinctiveness from the other social sciences and disciplines to which it
has become linked’ in an MAR special issue. To do so, management accounting researchers needto find the relationship between academic research and practice and explain the stages of theempirical research: identify, describe, explain, understand, and prescribe. The identify and describe
stages explore the data and are conducted during the research process. The explain and understandstages are directly linked to research publications, in which researchers have great interest. Thus,
there are many publications in these stages. However, there are few publications in the prescribe
stage. Moreover, some argue that the management accounting discussion should be interested in
improving practice rather than describing or evaluating practice (Kazusa and Sawabe, 2006;
Merchant, 2012; Parker et al., 2011).
In response to this debate, some studies aimed to determine the problem in order tosolve the research-practice gap (Tucker and Lowe, 2014; Tucker and Parker, 2014; Tucker and
Schaltegger, 2016). These investigations utilized the barrier to innovation diffusion theory to findthe causes of the gaps. The barrier to innovation diffusion theory consists of discovery, translation,3

dissemination, and change (Rogers, 2003). The discovery stage is ‘the creation of knowledge
through rigorous research that provides the scientific foundation of a discipline’ (Gautam, 2008, p.
156). The translation stage is associated with making the research findings understandable topractitioners (Tucker and Lowe, 2014, p. 402). The dissemination stage relates to the accessibilityof the research findings for practitioners, and addresses the ‘concern that management accounting
research fails to engage with practice frequently relate to this stage’ (Tucker and Lowe, 2014,
p.403). The change stage is associated with improving practice, which is ‘the ultimate goal of
applied academic research’(Tucker and Lowe, 2014, 403).
Tucker and Lowe (2014) utilized this theory and collected and analysed data from aquestionnaire survey and follow-up interviews with 19 representatives of the four principal
professional accounting bodies in Australia. They found that professional accounting bodies
perceive the gap between academic research and practice in management accounting to be oflimited concern to practitioners. In addition, they indicate two large barriers: (1) difficulties inunderstanding academic research papers and (2) limited access to research findings. They thenpoint out the importance of accounting professionals who can potentially bridge the gaps.
Tucker and Parker (2014) surveyed 64 senior management accounting academics
from 55 universities in 14 countries about the extent to which academic management accounting
research does, and should, inform practice. According to this paper, most academics realize theexpanding gap between academic research and practice, and the need to bridge the gap. This
viewpoint relies on the assumption that management accounting research has to be helpful toimprove practice. On the other hand, ‘the other school holds that a divide between academic
management accounting research and practice is appropriate, and that efforts to bridge this divide
are unnecessary, untenable or irrelevant’(Tucker and Parker, 2014, p. 104). This viewpoint assumes
that academic research has to explore new knowledge, and the impact on practice is a secondary
matter. Then, ‘management accounting research as appropriately or unavoidably distinct anddivorced from the practice of management’(Tucker and Parker, 2014, p. 133).
Tucker and Schaltegger (2016) conducted a questionnaire survey of German andAustralian professional accountants to examine the influence of the country context. They foundthat both share the recognition that the problem is in generalising research findings in the translation
stage. On the other hand, there were some differences between those two countries. Australianaccountants recognize the difficulties in accessing academic knowledge, which is represented as abarrier to dissemination because the academic discussion of management accounting is interested
in Australia. In Germany, there seems to be a barrier to diffusion in the discovery stage, whichmeans that management accounting scholars and practitioners’ have diverging interests because
practitioners in Germany are sceptical of the usefulness of academic discussion.

4

2.2 Research problem
These discussions indicate that even people with a certain knowledge of accounting,such as consultants, have difficulty in understanding the research findings described throughacademic works and theorization, which is necessary to publish papers in the international
academic journals that most researchers prefer (van Helden et al., 2010). Therefore, utilizing theinnovation diffusion theory is a suitable means to reveal the issues behind the problem of diffusing
academic knowledge to practice in Japanese context.
In this study, we consider the cause of the research-practice gaps in Japan by analysing
the process (discovery, translation, dissemination, change) of knowledge related to management
accounting practice. In contrast to previous studies that used surveys of accounting professionals(Tucker and Lowe, 2014; Tucker and Schaltegger, 2016) and management accounting scholars(Tucker and Parker, 2014), this study targets practitioners responsible for management accounting
systems in companies. The use of management accounting should be influenced not only by theorganizational context such as strategy or environment, but also by people who play important roles
in designing or operating management accounting systems (Hopwood, 2008; Scapens, 1994), thus,
it is important to consider the role these people play in solving the cause of the research-practicegap.

3. Research Design
3.1 Sample
In February to March of 2016, a questionnaire with a cover letter and a stamped
self-addressed return envelope was mailed to either the head of the general accounting department
or the business administration department at 895 Japanese manufacturing firms listed in firstsection of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. We chose chief controllers as respondents because they are
the most knowledgeable about their respective firms’ design and use of management accounting
systems. To incentivize potential participants to respond, we promised to provide them with an
executive summary of the study at their request. Moreover, we attempted to contact respondents
twice with follow-up messages. Of the 895 questionnaires mailed, 122 (13.6%) were returned.
Some questionnaires were discarded due to missing data, resulting in a final sample size of 115(Table 1).

5

Table 1. Questionnaire response rates
Industry classification

Sent

Received

3050

Foods

78

9

11.5%

3100

Textiles and apparels

39

5

12.8%

3150

Pulp and paper

11

1

9.1%

3200

Chemicals

137

17

12.4%

3250

Pharmaceutical

40

6

15.0%

3300

Oil and coal products

11

2

18.2%

3350

Rubber products

11

4

36.4%

3400

Glass and ceramics products

33

2

6.1%

3450

Iron and steel

32

4

12.5%

3500

Nonferrous metals

24

2

8.3%

3550

Metal products

39

5

12.8%

3600

Machinery

129

14

10.9%

3650

Electric appliances

161

23

14.3%

3700

Transportation equipment

66

8

12.1%

3750

Precision instruments

29

5

17.2%

3800

Other products

55

7

12.7%

Unknown

1
895

Total

115

12.8%

Two tests were conducted to assess whether the data suffered from any response bias.
First, a comparative analysis (t-test) between the responding and non-responding firms indicated nosignificant differences in size (sales and number of employees). Second, a chi-square goodness of
fit test between the sample and responding firms indicated no significant difference in industry
distributions. Therefore, these results suggest no evidence of response bias in the empirical data.

3.2 Measurement of Variables
The questionnaire sought to identify the dominant barriers or impediments that prevent
research from more adequately informing practice as perceived by respondents. The questionnairemeasurement items were mostly adapted from previous research, which should enhance thecomparability, relevance, and reliability of the results. The questionnaire measurement items were
designed and adapted in accordance with prior research (Tucker and Lowe 2014). First, since thesurvey targeted accounting department chiefs in private firms rather than accounting professionals
or academics, some questions unrelated to private firms were excluded. Second, the questionnaire
wording was designed to evoke management accounting, we asked about performancemeasurement. Third, the questionnaire was pilot tested with a few academics and two practitioners
who head business administration departments to establish the content and face validity. This
resulted in minor changes to the questionnaire in terms of wording and format.

6

The questionnaire measurement items consisted of 31 questions (Table 2). An
exploratory factor analysis indicated 6 items with loadings less than 0.4, which was thenrecalculated after deleting these items. This resulted in four factors within constructs above 0.4(Table 3). The first factor relates to barriers to the closer integration of research and practicepresented at the discovery stage. The discovery stage has been framed as a knowledge production
problem, such as a failure to ask more managerially interesting questions (Rynes et al., 2001). The
second factor relates to barriers at the translation stage, which requires that academic research bepresented in a form that practitioners can understand (Tucker and Lowe, 2014). The third factor
relates to barriers at the dissemination stage, which is associated with the extent to which
practitioners can access research findings via usable channels, such as books, media, and so on(Gautam, 2008). The fourth factor relates to barriers at the change stage, which represents adoption
or implementation of practices based on evidence from research findings (Gautam, 2008).
Collectively, these items produced a good reliability estimate (α = 0.894, 0.860, 0.819, 0.806). Like
the other scales, the high reliability estimate allowed for the calculation of a mean that could serveas the composite score for these scales.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the survey questions
Questions

Range

Mean

S.D.

Academics’ selection of research questions is inadequately informed and influenced by businesspractitioners

1–5

3.02

0.783

Academics currently do not select research topic that are importance to practitioners

1–5

2.90

0.713

Academics currently do not select research topics that are relevant to practitioners

1–5

2.94

0.704

The formulation of research questions by academics researcher is too narrow in that it fails to take
into account the influence of other disciplines

1–5

3.23

0.949

Most academics research are unconcerned with the immediate and short-term needs of practitioners

1–5

3.03

0.760

Higher levels of direct contact with practitioners should improve the quality of academics research

1–5

3.82

0.833

1–5

3.43

0.992

1–5

3.50

0.842

1–5

2.83

0.840

1–5

3.44

0.840

1–5

3.20

0.850

1–5

3.17

0.861

1–5

3.56

0.774

An important barrier in the selection of relevant academic research is that performance measurement
practices remain for the most part, confidential
Research has had a very limited effect on practice because it is typically oriented towards otheracademics, rather than practitioners
Practitioners do not particularly value academic research, relative to other kinds of information they
may access in pursuing their management development
Joint symposia between academics and practitioners are likely to significantly enhance the relevanceof academic research to practitioners
Development of consulting relationships is likely to significantly enhance the comprehension ofacademic research to practitioners
Academics taking sabbaticals in industry are likely to significantly enhance practitioners’
understanding of academic research
Undertaking action research programs are likely to significantly enhance the coherence of academic
research to practitioners

7

Joint academic-practitioner research teams are likely to significantly enhance the coherence of
academic research practitioners
Practitioner training based on academic research findings is likely to significantly enhance theunderstanding of academic research to practitioners

1–5

3.20

0.850

2–5

3.30

0.725

Business practitioners do not access academic research

1–5

3.34

0.999

Important research results are not effectively disseminated for practitioners

1–5

3.59

0.815

Many important research findings that could be helpful to managers go unutilized

1–5

3.17

0.991

Improving how research findings are transmitted to practicing managers is necessary

1–5

3.70

0.840

Practitioners are not aware of relevant academic journals that publish academic research

1–5

3.33

1.015

Practitioner are unaware of how they might inform themselves of the findings of academic research

1–5

3.19

1.154

Practitioners are not aware of relevant academics research that might inform their practices

1–5

3.57

0.918

The findings of academic research are difficult to locate

1–5

3.26

0.828

1–5

3.10

0.737

1–5

3.56

1.045

1–5

3.07

1.024

1–5

3.36

0.929

1–5

3.24

0.979

1–5

3.10

0.927

Practitioners receive sufficient training in using research (R)

1–5

3.72

0.843

Practitioners possess the ability to critically appraise research (R)

1–5

3.18

0.884

Insufficient time spent by academic research at organizational sites is a major barrier to theimplementation of research findings
Academics research should propose new performance measurement techniques that meet changing
needs and opportunities facing practitioners
Academic research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of existing performancemeasurement techniques and approaches used by practitioners
Academic research should direct more attention to identifying the conditions necessary forsuccessful implementation of performance measurement techniques
Academic research should be directed at explaining, understanding and critiquing the motivations
behind the adoption and use of performance measurement techniques
Academic research should focus more on issues of communication, leadership and trust buildingthat can facilitate performance measurement change

In answering each question, use rage from 1 to 5, where ‘1’represents ‘strongly disagree’and ‘5’represents ‘strongly agree’.

Table 3. Questionnaire items and measurement analysis
F1
Academics currently do not select research topic that are importance to practitioners

F2

F3

F4

0.869 -0.079 -0.128 0.041

Academics’ selection of research questions is inadequately informed and influenced by business0.814 -0.089 -0.032 -0.026
practitioners
Academics currently do not select research topics that are relevant to practitioners

0.790 -0.061 0.020

0.064

Most academics research are unconcerned with the immediate and short-term needs of practitioners

0.728

0.077

8

0.024

0.036

The formulation of research questions by academics researcher is too narrow in that it fails to take into
0.679
account the influence of other disciplines
Practitioners do not particularly value academic research, relative to other kinds of information they
0.674
may access in pursuing their management development
Research has had a very limited effect on practice because it is typically oriented towards other0.638
academics, rather than practitioners
Higher levels of direct contact with practitioners should improve the quality of academics research

0.089

0.194 -0.130

0.005

0.004 -0.182

0.149

0.009

-0.068 0.879

Joint symposia between academics and practitioners are likely to significantly enhance the relevance
0.046
of academic research to practitioners
Undertaking action research programs are likely to significantly enhance the coherence of academic
0.098
research to practitioners
Joint academic-practitioner research teams are likely to significantly enhance the coherence of
0.072
academic research practitioners
Development of consulting relationships is likely to significantly enhance the comprehension of-0.008academic research to practitioners

0.032

0.180 -0.187

0.770 -0.059 -0.007
0.694

0.076

0.108

0.662 -0.171 0.062
0.578 -0.209

0.112

Academics taking sabbaticals in industry are likely to significantly enhance practitioners’-0.138 0.546 -0.124 0.003
understanding of academic research
Practitioners are not aware of relevant academics research that might inform their practices

0.010 -0.024 0.766

0.015

Practitioners are not aware of relevant academic journals that publish academic research-0.079 0.051

0.009

Business practitioners do not access academic research-0.116 -0.181 0.703 -0.044

Important research results are not effectively disseminated for practitioners

0.023 -0.054 0.675

0.047

The findings of academic research are difficult to locate

0.176 -0.031 0.532

0.125

Improving how research findings are transmitted to practicing managers is necessary

0.230

0.068

Practitioners receive sufficient training in using research (R)-0.006 0.007

0.142

0.739

0.457

0.443 -0.123

Academic research should direct more attention to identifying the conditions necessary for successful-0.058 0.081 0.051 0.771
implementation of performance measurement techniques
Academic research should focus more on issues of communication, leadership and trust building that
0.070 -0.233 -0.158 0.697
can facilitate performance measurement change
Academic research should be directed at explaining, understanding and critiquing the motivations
0.012 -0.063 -0.092 0.688
behind the adoption and use of performance measurement techniques
Academic research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of existing performance-0.046 0.198
measurement techniques and approaches used by practitioners
Academics research should propose new performance measurement techniques that meet changing-0.029 0.073
needs and opportunities facing practitioners
Factor 1

0.184

0.638

0.114

0.616

－

Factor 2 -0.039－

Factor 3 0.350 -0.307－

Factor 4 -0.109 0.477 -0.398
This table reports the results of the factor analysis. Bold indicates the loading of the survey items’ wording.

9－4. Results
Having identified the barriers to diffusion of academic research to practice, we
conducted a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with a post hoc Bonferroni test(alpha levels of 0.0125 = 0.05/4). Table 4 summarizes the ANOVA results, which indicated astatistically significant difference between the four stages (F = 9.418, p < 0.01), reflecting thatpractitioners perceive that some barriers are more important than others are in diffusing academic
research findings to practitioners. The Bonferroni test results indicated that the barriers at thetranslation and dissemination stages were significantly higher than at the discovery stage (p < 0.01,
0.01).

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the discovery, translation, dissemination, and change stages
Theoretical Range

Range

Mean

S.D.

Discovery

1.00 – 5.00

1.00 – 4.86

3.06

0.628

Translation

1.00 – 5.00

1.50 – 5.00

3.40

0.641

Dissemination

1.00 – 5.00

1.00 – 5.00

3.50

0.621

Change1.00 – 5.00

1.67 – 4.83

3.26

0.737

To check the reliability of these results, we conducted additional analysis. Specifically,
we focused on the potential influence of the extent to which respondents were interested inmanagement accounting research findings and use them as a reference. Practitioners’ interest andrecognition may affect the perception of the barriers to diffusing academic research findings topractitioners (Tucker and Schaltegger, 2016), the attempt to adopt new knowledge about
management techniques (Hattori, 2015), and how management accountants affect decisions about
which management accounting techniques to use and how to use them (Hopwood, 2008; Scapens,1994).
First, after dividing the data into three subgroups based on the respondents’ interest in
management accounting research findings (Table 5), we conducted another ANOVA test with apost hoc Bonferroni test (alpha levels of 0.0167 = 0.05/3). In the high interest level group, the
ANOVA analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between the four stages (F = 5.773,
p < 0.01) and the post hoc Bonferroni test indicated that the barriers at the translation and change
stages were significantly higher than at the discovery stage (p < 0.05, 0.1). In the middle interest
group, the ANOVA analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between the four stages(F = 9.371, p < 0.01) and the post hoc Bonferroni test indicated that the barriers at the translationand dissemination stages were significantly higher than at the discovery stage (p < 0.01, 0.01). In

10the low interest group, the ANOVA analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between
the four stages (F = 8.634, p < 0.01) and the post hoc Bonferroni test indicated that the barriers at
the dissemination stage were significantly higher than for the other stages (discovery: p < 0.05,
translation: p < 0.01, change: p < 0.05).
These results suggest that respondents’ interest in management accounting researchfindings may affect the perception of the barriers to diffusing academic research findings topractitioners. The ANOVA analysis also indicated a statistically significant difference between thethree subgroups in the translation (F = 12.563, p < 0.01), dissemination (F = 2.890, p < 0.1), andchange stages (F = 6.453, p < 0.01). The Bonferroni test’s results indicated that the high and middle
level groups perceived higher barriers at the translation stage than the low group did (p < 0.01,
0.01), and the high level group perceived higher barriers at the change stage than the low interest
group did (p < 0.01).

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the four stages based on respondents’ interest levels
High interest group(N=34)

Middle interest group (N=51)

Low interest group (N=30)

Range

Mean

S.D.

Range

Mean

S.D.

Range

Mean

S.D.

Discovery

1.14– 4.86

2.96

0.799

2.00– 4.43

3.04

0.480

1.00– 4.42

3.22

0.620

Translation

2.00– 5.00

3.64

0.760

2.83– 4.67

3.50

0.422

1.50– 3.83

2.95

0.596

Dissemination

1.00– 4.71

3.33

0.751

2.29– 4.86

3.50

0.476

2.29– 5.00

3.70

0.641

Change2.33– 4.83

3.57

0.529

2.00– 5.00

3.27

0.658

1.00– 4.20

2.92

0.838

In answering question about interesting on management accounting research findings, use range from 1 to 5, where ‘1’ stands ‘strong
disagree’and ‘5’stand strong agree. We divided 3 group based on the question’s score, high interest group is 4 or 5, middle interest groupis 3, low interest group is 1 or 2.

Secondly, after dividing the three subgroups based on respondents’ use ofmanagement accounting research findings as a reference (Table 6), we conducted another ANOVA
test with a post hoc Bonferroni test (alpha levels of 0.0167 = 0.05/3). In the high reference
frequency group, the ANOVA analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between thefour stages (F = 5.967, p < 0.01) and the post hoc Bonferroni test indicated that the barriers at thetranslation stage were significantly higher than at the discovery stage (p < 0.01). In the middle
group, the ANOVA analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between the four stages(F = 4.156, p < 0.01), with the post hoc Bonferroni test indicating that the barriers at thedissemination stage were significantly higher than at the discovery stage (p < 0.05). In the lowgroup, the ANOVA analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between the four stages(F = 10.904, p < 0.01) and the post hoc Bonferroni test indicated that the barriers at thedissemination stage were significantly higher than at other stages (p < 0.01, 0.01, 0.01).
Table 6. Descriptive statistics for each stage by respondents’ levels of referencing academic research

11

High reference group(N=34)

Middle reference group (N=51)

Low reference group(N=30)

Range

Mean

S.D.

Range

Mean

S.D.

Range

Mean

S.D.

Discovery

1.71– 4.14

3.03

0.653

1.14– 4.86

3.05

0.718

1.00– 4.43

3.08

0.556

Translation

2.50– 5.00

3.86

0.608

2.00– 5.00

3.43

0.644

1.50– 4.00

3.20

0.563

Dissemination

1.00– 4.29

3.14

0.711

2.29– 4.86

3.44

0.525

2.29– 5.00

3.69

0.586

Change2.33– 4.33

3.42

0.588

2.00– 5.00

3.44

0.593

1.00– 5.00

3.08

0.806

Please use a range from 1 to 5 to answer the question about the frequency of using management accounting research findings as areference, where ‘1’ represents ‘strongly disagree’and ‘5’represents ‘strongly agree’. We divided the sample into 3 groups based on thescores, where the high reference group is 4 or 5,the middle reference group is 3, and the low reference group is 1 or 2.

These results suggested that respondents’ frequency of referring management
accounting research findings may affect the perception of barriers in diffusing research findings topractitioners. The ANOVA analysis also indicated a statistically significant difference between the 3
subgroups for the translation (F = 9.111, p < 0.01), dissemination (F = 7.002, p < 0.1), and change
stages (F = 3.303, p < 0.05). The Bonferroni test results indicated that the high level group
perceived higher barriers at translation stage than the other groups (p < 0.1, 0.01). On the other hand,
the low group perceived higher barriers at the dissemination stage than the high level group did (p <0.01).

4.2 Discussion
From the above results, it is conjectured that people responsible for management
accounting recognize that management accounting scholars should work on problems related to thetranslation, dissemination, and change stages rather than the discovery stage. It seems that academic
knowledge itself is not a barrier to diffusion because there was no significant difference at thediscovery stage, regardless of the degree of concern with, interest in, or reference to academic
knowledge. These results are consistent with those of studies (Tucker and Lowe, 2014; Tucker andParker, 2014). People who play important roles in designing or operating management accounting
systems in Japan do not see academic knowledge about management accounting as not useful forpractice.
Next, it is conjectured that the recognition of which stage to address varies with thedegree of concern with, interest in, or reference to academic knowledge. Organizations with highdegrees of concern with, interest in, or reference to academic knowledge recognize the problems toaddress at the translation stage, which relates to theorizing about practice, as well as in the change
stage, which introduces theorized knowledge to practice, rather than at the discovery anddissemination stages. Conversely, organizations at the lower end of the spectrum see an issue at the12dissemination stage, which relates to how to access academic knowledge.

5. Conclusions
This study investigated the problems in diffusing academic management accounting
knowledge to actual practice to reveal the cause of the research-practice gap in Japan. This study
offers some contributions though some challenges remain.
First, this study contributes to the literature by clarifying the knowledge diffusion stage
at which there is a research-practice gap based on practitioners’ perceptions of academic knowledge.
Though previous research discussed the issue based on accounting professions or academics(Tucker and Lowe, 2014; Tucker and Parker, 2014; Tucker and Schaltegger, 2016), this study
found a new aspect based on the perceptions of those who use management accounting.
The second contribution is that it is important to theorise academic knowledge, make iteasy to access, and illustrate how to introduce a method when a researcher contributes to practicewith new academic knowledge. The stage to address varies by degree of concern with, interest in,or reference to academic knowledge. Thus, academics should aim to solve the problem dependingon their target contribution.
However, this study has its limitations. First, since this study’s questionnaire took
management accounting as a performance management system, making another assumption may
lead to another result. Second, this study does not show the basis for the differing results incomparison to previous studies. It is unclear whether the difference is due to the country context or
the survey target, which will require further research.

References
Baldvinsdottir, G., F. Mitchell, and H. Nørreklit. 2010. Issues in the relationship between theory andpractice in management accounting. Management Accounting Research 21 (2): 79-82.
Brownson, R. C., M. W. Kreuter, B. A. Arrington, and W. R. True. 2006. Translating scientificdiscoveries into public health action: How can schools of public health move us
forward? Public Health Reports 121 (1): 97-103.
Cooper, R. 1995. When lean enterprises collide: Competing through confrontation. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Dearing, J. W. 2008. Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. Journal of Public HealthManagement Practice 14 (2): 99-108.
Gautam, K. 2008. Addressing the research-practice gap in healthcare management. Journal of
Public Health Management Practice 14 (2): 155-159.

13

Hattori, Y. 2015. The spread of management studies and their practical benefits. Kwansei Gakuin
University Economic Research 69 (1): 61-86 [In Japanese].
Hopwood, A. G. 2008. Management accounting research in a changing world. Journal ofManagement Accounting Research 20 (1): 3-13.
Inanga, E. L. and W. B. Schneider. 2005. The failure of accounting research to improve accounting
practice: A problem of theory and lack of communication. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting 16 (3): 227-248.
Japan Accounting Association. 1996. Challenges of cost accounting research. Moriyama Books [InJapanese].
Japan Accounting Association Special Committee. 1999. Research on the theory and practice ofABC and ABM. Final report of Japan Accounting Association Special Committee, [InJapanese].
Johnson, H. T. and R. S. Kaplan. 1988. Relevance lost: The rise and fall of management accounting.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S. 2011. Accounting scholarship that advances professional knowledge and practice.
The Accounting Review 86 (2): 467-383.
Kato, Y. 1989. Management accounting genealogy: To decision support models from the weighing
decision making model. Tax accounting association [In Japanese].
Kawano, K. 2014. The present situation and problems of management accounting and costaccounting in Japanese companies. Commercial Science Research 30: 55-86 [InJapanese].
Kazusa, Y. and N. Sawabe. 2006. The framework of next generation of management accounting.
The initiative for next generation of management accounting. Chuo-Keizai-Sha, 1-37
[In Japanese].
Merchant, K. A. 2012. Making management accounting research more useful. Pacific Accounting
Review 24 (3): 334-356.
Miya, H., T. Tani, T. and Kagono. 1999. Ameba management changes company – Motivating a
micro profit center. Diamond [In Japanese].
Nishizawa, O. 1996. Divergence of management accounting theory and practice as seen from asurvey. Management Accounting 4 (2): 51-66 [In Japanese].
Otomasa, S. 2005. Research about inhibiting and promoting factor in introducing balanced
scorecard in a Japanese company. Japan Cost Accounting Research 29 (1): 58-73 [InJapanese].
Parker, L. D., J. Guthrie, and S. Linacre. 2011. The relationship between academic accounting
research and professional practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24(1): 5-14.
14

Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed., Free Press. New York.
Rynes, S. L., J. M. Bartunek, and R. L. Daft. 2001. Across the great divide: Knowledge creationand transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal
44 (2): 340-355.
Sakurai, M. 1991. Building CIM: Corporate environmental change and management accounting.
Dobunkan publishing [In Japanese].
Scapens, R. W. 1985. Management accounting: A review of contemporary developments. London,
UK: MacMillan.
Scapens, R. W. 1994. Never mind the gap: Towards and institutional perspective on management
accounting practice. Management Accounting Research 5 (3/4): 301-321.
Shimizu, N. and S. Tamura. 2010. Capital investment management in Japanese companies.
Accounting (Kigyo Kaikei) 62(8)(9)(10)(11): 1185-1191. 117-125. 1487-1495.
1641-1649 [In Japanese].
Sugiyama, Z. 2002. Capital budgeting. Chuo-Keizai-Sha [In Japanese].
Tani, T. 2004. Management accounting system – Introduction and revolution Chuo-Keizai-Sha [InJapanese].
Tucker, B. P. and A. D. Lowe. 2014. Practitioners are from Mars; academics are from Venus?: An
investigation of the research-practice gap in management accounting. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal 27 (3): 395-425.
Tucker, B. P. and L. Parker. 2014. In our ivory towers?: The research-practice gap in management
accounting. Accounting and Business Research 44 (2): 104-143.
Tucker, B. P. and S. Schaltegger. 2016. Comparing the research-practice gap in management
accounting: A view from professional accounting bodies in Australia and Germany.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 29 (3): 362-400.
van Helden, G. J., H. Aardema, H. J. ter Bogt, and T. L. C. M. Groot. 2010. Knowledge creation forpractice in public sector management accounting by consultants and academics:
Preliminary findings and directions for future research. Management Accounting
Research 21 (2): 83-94.
Yokota, E. and T. Senoo. 2011. A survey of management control systems in Japanese companies.
Mita Business Review 53 (6): 55-79 [In Japanese].
Yoshida, E., K. Fukushima, T. Senoo, and C. Jo. 2015. Survey of Japan’s management accounting:Comparison

of

the

manufacturing

andnon-manufacturingindustries.

Accounting(Kigyo Kaikei) 67(1)(2)(3). 166-171. 122-127. 117-127 [In Japanese].

15