The teaching–research gestalt: the development of a discipline-based scale

Abstract

This paper reports the development and empirical testing of a conceptual model of the factors that influence the relationship between teaching and research in the discipline of accounting using the extant literature. This we term the teaching and research gestalt. The conceptual model is derived from 13 propositions grouped into four sets of factors relating to rewards, researchers, curriculum, and students. This is then used to construct a measurement instrument to capture the research and learning nexus in accounting. In this paper, the research and learning nexus is defined by 13 propositions, operationalised by 61 scale-items, and empirically recomposed by factor analysis on data obtained from 247 UK accounting and finance academics. The final model consists of two second-order factors calibrating the positive and negative aspects of the gestalt respectively. In turn the two second-order factors are measured by 11 first-order factors. IntroductionThe relationship between teaching and research in higher education (HE) has been the subject of recent and vigorous debate. The debate is far from conclusive (Simons and Elen, 2007). Some literature identifies the mutuality of research and teaching, where active engagement in one will benefit the other (e.g., Colbeck, 1998;Zamorski, 2002;Zimbardi and Myatt, 2012). Other thinking suggests research and teaching have few synergies and vie for academic time and institutional resources (Coate et al., 2001;Hattie and Marsh, 1996). This debate has often been labelled 'the teaching-research nexus ' (e.g., Neumann, 1992, Ramsden and Moses, 1992; uz Zaman, 2004) which implies there should be a favourable relationship between the two academic activities.The current topicality of relations between teaching and research comes in an era reflecting unprecedented interest in measuring academic performance. On an international scale research is measured via selectivity exercises (e.g. the UK's Research Excellence Framework and Australia's ERA). Similarly, national surveys of student satisfaction increasingly influence university league tables which affect an institution's ability to compete for students and resources.With academic labour being increasingly commoditised, subject to managerialism and the forces of so-called New Public Management, the shibboleth that quality teaching and student learning goes hand in hand with quality research is under increasing strain (Robertson, 2007). The situation is hardly new, as Elton (1986 p.299) suggests:The problem of whether research and teaching in universities support each other has become a matter of urgent public importance, now that the University Grants Committee (1985) as decided to be selective in its research funding to universities. The f whether research and teaching in universities support each UK higher education policy makers are somewhat divided in their opinion about the relationship of research to teaching, with the balance of evidence ebbing and flowing over time. At one end of the spectrum, the Hattie and...

Research–teaching yin–yang? An empirical study of accounting and finance academics in Australia and New Zealand

“…A comprehensive validation exercise of the measurement properties of the scores yielded by the inventory has been undertaken (Duff and Marriott, ) to create a nested model consisting of two higher‐order factors that are in turn described by 11 first‐order factors. Internal consistency reliability analysis, followed by EFA, was used to assess the measurement properties of the inventory when applied to our sample of accounting and finance academics in ANZ (Hinkin, ).…”

“…The past four decades have seen a number of investigations into linkages between accounting research and practice (Hines, ; Lee, ; Zeff, ,b; Albrecht and Sack, ; Gray and Collinson, ; Inanga and Schneider, ). However, relatively little research has examined the relationship between accounting and finance research and teaching (Rebele et al ., ; Duff and Marriott, , ,b). Some tensions between accounting education and research are alluded to by Solomons and Berridge (), Kitchen and Parker () and Wright and Chalmers ().…”

“…These 19 propositions are operationalised by means of a number of statements (items) with which respondents are asked to agree or disagree on a five‐point Likert scale. The administration of the questionnaire to samples of UK accounting academics found the 19 propositions was empirically composed of 11 factors; the development of the empirical model is reported in Duff and Marriott ().…”

“…Add to this increased use of casual staff (some of whom may be research students); the move to appoint more teaching‐only or teaching‐focused positions in ANZ; the impact of private providers who deliver accounting education at a cheaper cost as academics are only employed to teach and not complete research, it is an opportune time to address this question. Most prior investigations into the teaching–research nexus in accounting and finance have been undertaken in the United Kingdom (UK) (Duff and Marriott, , ,b) and South Africa (Lubbe, ). The ANZ context is markedly different to the UK.…”

“…We establish the validity of scale scores when applied to a sample of ANZ accounting and finance academics and then use the constituent scales to undertake an intraindividual analysis of survey responses. Unlike Duff and Marriott (,b), we also assess qualitative responses to five open‐ended questions and consider in greater depth the demographics of the sample rather than just the measurement qualities (Duff and Marriott, ) or pattern of responses to the inventory (Duff and Marriott, ).…”