Understanding practice generalisation – opening the research/practice gap

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to enhance the relationship between research and practice. It addresses the question: How can practitioners’ use of generalisations be understood, with a view towards producing research-based generalisations that facilitate use in practice? Design/methodology/approach Language games are used to explore generalisation in practice, and the framework of pragmatic constructivism is adopted to characterise the generation of practice generalisation. Findings Practice is conceptualised as a complex set of clusters of organised actions run by a set of applied generalisations and driven by human intentions. Practice also encompasses reflective activities that aim to create the generalisations and reflect them into the specific circumstances to create functioning practice. Generalisations depend on underlying concepts. The formation and structure of concepts is explored and used to create the construction and use of different types of generalisation. Generalisations function as cognitive building blocks in constructing strings of interconnected functioning activities. Managers make their own functioning generalisations that, however, do not satisfy the research criteria for acceptable generalisations. The research/practice gap is shaped by the very different language games played. Research limitations/implications If research is to be useful to practice, the generalisations produced must methodologically articulate the types of generalisation that pervade the methods with which practitioners construct functioning activities. Further research has to give more insight into such processes. Originality/value The paper contributes insight into both the generalisation debate and the research/practice gap debate.

The role of the controller in strategic capital investment projects: bridging the gap of multiple topoi

“…Rather, our study reveals that one of the most important roles for controllers in SCIPs is to align the different views among the multiple actors involved in SCIPs in order to create successful investment proposals. As we were unable to find support for our results in previous controller role research, we turned to the accounting literature and found the pragmatic constructivist framework (Nørreklit et al 2016;Pianezzi and Cinquini 2016;Seal and Mattimoe 2016) which helped to explain our findings.…”

“…According to this view, investment decisions are human constructions constructed by several different actors, rather than single decisions made by top management. Therefore, researchers should pay more attention to the processes for managing and coordinating capital budgeting processes and the actors involved therein (Nørreklit et al 2016;Miller and O'Leary 2007).…”

“…The role of the controller in strategic capital investment… constructivism, viewing plans and investment decisions as human constructions, where organizational actors can use accounting tools and techniques to develop and support successful organizational outcomes. Similarly, to the social constructivist view, pragmatic constructivism assumes that individual and organizational actors construct their relationship to the world (Nørreklit et al 2016;Pianezzi and Cinquini 2016;Seal and Mattimoe 2016). However, the pragmatic constructivist framework highlights that in order to create a successful basis for undertaking actions, the four dimensions of reality; facts, possibilities, values and communication, need to be integrated .…”

“…For the actors to make their plans work in practice, i.e. for creating construct causality, the projected constructs must be integrated with facts (Nørreklit et al 2016). For organizations to create successful outcomes, a pragmatic integration of the four dimensions has to be accomplished.…”

The practical relevance of public sector research: the potential contributions of the interventionist approach

“…Jönsson, 1996;Malmi & Granlund, 2009;Tucker & Parker, 2014;Van Helden & Northcott, 2010) for both managers and policy makers (Coleman, 2007;Swieringa, 1998). The academic/practitioner gap represents an unsolved issue still debated in many facets (Baldvinsdottir, Mitchell & Nørreklit, 2010;Nørreklit, Nørreklit & Mitchell, 2016;Tucker & Lowe, 2014), showing the risk of developing a loop where academic research outputs produced only for academic researchers. In the context of public sector, in particular, we are observing many cases of difficulties and/or failures in bringing about accounting innovations (Arnaboldi & Palermo, 2010) and producing practical relevant accounting research (Tucker & Lowe, 2014), calling for developing research capable of delivering the advancement of both theory and practice.…”