Qualitative accounting research: special issue introduction

This special issue dedicated to qualitative accounting research shows the commitment of Accounting & Finance to support and publish qualitative research. This introductory piece explains the rationale behind this commitment and recounts the process followed with this special issue, before introducing the papers published in it. The first paper in the special issue, co‐authored by De Villiers, Dumay and Maroun, will be of interest to a large cross‐section of accounting researchers, even those with a quantitative bent, because it dispels some myths around qualitative research, and it sets a research agenda that others may pursue.     

Management Accounting Research: 20 years on

This Editorial Report charts the progress of Management Accounting Research in its second decade. Starting by noting that in 2009 there were almost a quarter of a million downloads of papers from Management Accounting Research, it describes the range and diversity of the papers published in the Journal, their topics, research settings, and the theories and research methods used. It emphasises that the editors strongly encourage the use of a broad range of theories and research methods, and they want such diversity to continue to be a defining feature of the papers published in Management Accounting Research in the future. Finally, they urge management accounting researchers to undertake innovative research and to be both original and creative, thereby avoiding the homogeneity and narrowness which seem to be an increasing feature of accounting research more generally. In this way Management Accounting Research will continue to be the major source of leading edge research in the field of management accounting.     

中国会计理论研究应有历史使命感

不同文化背景下的会计问题只能用相应的语境研究才能得以准确表达。目前我国简单强调在西方英文期刊发表论文的做法值得反思。中国会计研究界目前存在较为严重的"自娱自乐"现象,导致了理论成果对中国会计实务难以产生应有的指导作用。中国会计研究的健康发展亟需解决说"真话、明白话"问题,而中国会计学会在解决这一重大问题上负有不可推卸的历史责任。     

Objectivity in accounting

This paper defends the possibility of objectivity in accounting. The views presented are shaped by the antirepresentationalist philosophy of Donald Davidson, and in particular by the conviction that objectivity can and must be founded upon intersubjectivity. A critique of Shapiro’s [Shapiro, B. (1997). Objectivity, relativism and truth in external financial reporting: What’s really at stake in the disputes. Accounting Organizations and Society, 22(2), 165–185; Shapiro, B. (1998). Toward a normative model of rational argumentation for critical accounting discussion. Accounting Organizations and Society, 23(7), 641–664] essentially representationalist analysis of the presuppositions of financial reporting, and an exploration of the metaphor of accounting as a language, are used to elucidate the antirepresentationalist view of accounting advanced in the paper. The elucidation continues through a reconsideration of the question of presuppositions of accounting, and the issue of the politicization of accounting: it is concluded that accounting has no philosophical presuppositions, and that the difference between desirably objective and politically distorted accounts essentially lies in the practices carried out in the name of each.     

Accounting education literature review (1991–1997), part I: Curriculum and instructional approaches

This paper updates the work of Rebele, Stout, and Hassell (A review of empirical research in accounting education: 1985–1991. Journal of Accounting Education, I, 167–231, 1991) and Rebele and Tiller (Empirical research in accounting education: A review and evaluation. In A. C. Bishop, E. K. St. Pierre and R. L. Benke (Eds), Research in Accounting Education, 1–54. Harrisonburg, VA: Center for Research in Accounting Education, James Madison University, 1996) by reviewing a subset of the accounting education literature published during the period 1991–1997. Specifically, we review articles (both empirical and nonempirical) related to the accounting curriculum and instructional approaches in accounting that were published in the following journals: Journal of Accounting Education, Issues in Accounting Education, The Accounting Educators' Journal, and Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice and Research. A second paper, Part II, will review articles published in these same journals during the period 1991–1997 on the topics of assessment, use of technology, students, faculty concerns, cases, and instructional resources.     

Accounting education literature review (1991–1997), part II: students,educational technology,assessment and faculty issues

This paper updates literature reviews by Rebele et al. (1991)and Rebele and Tiller (1986)by reviewing a subset of the accounting education literature published during the period 1991–1997. In a preceding paper (Part I), Rebele et al. (1998)reviewed accounting education articles related to two topics: curriculum and instructional approaches. In this paper (Part II), we review articles related to the topics of students, educational technology, assessment and faculty issues, published primarily in the following five journals: Journal of Accounting Education, Issues in Accounting Education, The Accounting Educators' Journal, Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice and Research and Accounting Perspectives. Recommendations for future research are offered at the end of each major section. An appendix identifies instructional cases and educational resources published in accounting education journals during the 1991–1997 period.     

Testing the limits of structuration theory in accounting research

In 1985 I published a paper in Accounting Organizations and Society with Bob Scapens titled Accounting Systems and Systems of Accountability; understanding accounting practices in their organisational contexts. The paper suggested the potential usefulness of Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory for efforts to understand accounting in its organisational contexts. Rather than engage in a further review of the use of structuration theory in accounting, this paper sets out to test our original proposition as to the usefulness of Giddens ideas for accounting research. I explore three points of possible criticism in the paper. That structuration theory does not take the ‘agency’ of accounting sufficiently seriously; that Foucault and Lacan allow us to get much closer to the ways in which accounting information works back upon human subjects; and that Giddens and accounting share a lack of ethics.     

Differences between domestic accounting standards and IAS: Measurement,determinants and implications

This study analyzes determinants and effects of differences between Domestic Accounting Standards (DAS) and International Accounting Standards (IAS). We use an extensive list of differences between DAS and IAS to create two indices, absence and divergence. Absence measures the extent to which the rules regarding certain accounting issues are missing in DAS but are covered in IAS. Divergence applies in circumstances where the rules regarding the same accounting issue differ in DAS and IAS. It measures the extent of differences between DAS-based rules and IAS-based rules.     

Developments in accounting regulation: A synthesis and annotated bibliography of evidence and commentary in the 2017 academic literature

In this paper, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature are synthesized in annotated bibliography form. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. Papers in top accounting outlets such as The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, The Journal of Financial Reporting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Research in Accounting Regulation and Review of Accounting Studies are included. Threads in the 2017 literature included general regulatory accounting issues, general financial reporting issues, examinations of the impact of specific guidance, and examination of issues surrounding the independent audit.     

Potential model misspecification bias: Formative indicators enhancing theory for accounting researchers

This paper describes why and when formative factors, in combination with reflective measures, can be used in accounting research to better represent complex theoretical constructs. We argue that the exclusive use of reflective factors constrains theory development and may lead to imprecise measurement. We provide a review of 66 published research papers from Accounting, Organization and Society, The Accounting Review, Contemporary Accounting Research, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal, Behavioral Research in Accounting, International Journal of Accounting, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Management Accounting Research, Abacus, and Journal of Management Accounting Research using Structural Equation Models (SEM) from 1992 to 2008 to illustrate improvement of misspecification bias in leading accounting journals. Our findings suggest that most of the studies modeled constructs that did not include formative indicators.     

Why is research on management accounting change not explicitly evolutionary? Taking the next step in the conceptualisation of management accounting change

In this article we discuss the evolutionary foundation of the OIE-guided management accounting change research building on the framework of [Scapens R.W. 1994. Never mind the gap: towards an institutional perspective on management accounting practice. Management Accounting Research, 5, 301–321.] and [Burns, J. and Scapens, R.W., 2000. Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework. Management Accounting Research, 11, 3–25.]. We argue that research on management accounting change should be based on evolutionary theory, but that the full potential of evolutionary theory has not yet been described or used in management accounting research. The conceptualisation and understanding of management accounting change can be improved and expanded if the evolutionary approach is developed beyond the general belief that it describes only small and gradual, often slow, changes. In this article we show that an evolutionary perspective on management accounting change implies that management accounting’s development is explained as the interaction between the evolutionary sub processes of retention (inheritance), variation and selection. Thus, both continuity and change are seen as evolutionary outcomes. These processes follow the cumulative causality that Charles Darwin proposed and Thorstein Veblen applied to the social sciences. Such a comprehensive theory, here labelled Universal Darwinism, must, however, be given substance with supporting details.     

Is accounting a global or a local discipline? evidence from major research journals

Accounting research is torn between two competing forces. On the one hand, a quest for general results and internationalization of financial markets calls for a global approach and international co-operation. On the other hand, domestic institutional settings call for research that deals with the relevant problems of the existing accounting systems. In this paper we address the issue of how global or local the accounting research community currently is through an analysis of empirical studies published by six leading English language accounting research journals from the U.S.A., Europe and Australia, during the period 1984–1993. Our findings indicate that accounting still is a rather local discipline by nature: both empirical evidence and authors are significantly clustered along country lines. We find that 77% of papers fall in a category where the origin of the researcher, data and the journal, is the same. Especially there is a close link between the origin of the researcher and that of the data. The interpretation of the empirical findings lead us to a view of competing research élites. A powerful and currently dominating U.S. academic élite is centred around The Accounting Review, the Journal of Accounting Research and the Journal of Accounting and Economics; and an emerging, mostly European élite around Accounting, Organizations and Society. The functioning of research élites produces competing quality criteria which are intertwined with methodological and cultural issues. The emerging “policentric oligarchy” of research élites helps to remove institutional barriers to the knowledge production process and offers legitimate outlets for a wider range of approaches.     

No premature closures of debates,please: A response to Ahrens

In this response to Ahrens [Ahrens, T. (2008). Overcoming the subjective–objective divide in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(2–3), 292–297.] we clarify both the motivation and the core points of the Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. [Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., & Kuorikoski, J. (2008). Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(2–3), 267–291.] paper. We remind the management accounting academia that we should be careful not to close prematurely examinations and debates on issues, which are not yet truly resolved.     

Using the 2019 JBE conference and 2017 JIS themed issue as natural experiments to examine the role of editors as gatekeepers of the research literature in AIS and ethics

In April 2019, the Journal of Business Ethics (JBE) held a conference devoted to the “The Impact of Technology on Ethics, Professionalism and Judgement in Accounting”. This follows the summer 2017 Journal of Information Systems (JIS) themed issue on “Accounting Information Systems and Ethics” I treat this conference and the themed issue as two natural experiments into the evolution of the research literature on Accounting Information Systems (AIS) and ethics. I label this literature as “AIS-ethics”, which I describe as the intersection of the fields of accounting, ethics and information systems. The choice of papers for these two initiatives is amongst the best available metrics of both the latest research on AIS-ethics, and of the kind of research considered desirable by editors/gatekeepers. In particular, I analyze whether these editors/gatekeepers desire papers that fit unambiguously into AIS-ethics, or whether they are willing to accept papers with a more tenuous connection in order to encourage broader participation by researchers. I find that of nine papers selected for special issues or conferences in AIS-ethics over the last three years, only three clearly fall into this domain, suggesting that achieving a critical mass of papers is prioritized over specialization at this stage in the development of a research literature into AIS and ethics.     

Accounting information systems research: Is it another QWERTY?

This article examines the research within accounting information systems (AIS) as found in articles published in leading accounting, management information systems, and computer science journals from 1982 to 1998. Trend analysis is performed on AIS articles found in the following journals: The Journal of Information Systems; Advances in Accounting Information Systems; Journal of Accounting Research; The Accounting Review; Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory; Behavioral Research in Accounting; Journal of Management Accounting Research; Management Science; MIS Quarterly; Decision Sciences; Information Systems Research; and Communications of the ACM, among others. The trend analysis is structured across underlying theory, research method, and information systems lifecycle topics of AIS articles in these journals. This article identifies the extant research streams in AIS, where AIS research has been published from 1982 to 1998, and seeks to provide insight into the question: should AIS exist as its own separate research domain? Is AIS research like the QWERTY keyboard (David, 1985), widely adopted due to popular demand, but ineffective and inefficient, with a better AIS research and teaching model available?     

Accounting education literature review (1997–1999)

By reviewing a subset ot the accounting education literature published during the period 1997–1999, this paper updates literature reviews by Rebele, Apostolou, Buckless, Hassell, Paquette, and Stout [Rebele, J.E., Apostolou, B.A., Buckless, F.A., Hassell, J.M., Paquette, L.R., & Stout, D.E. (1998a). Accounting education literature review (1991–1997), part I: curriculum and instructional approaches. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(1), 1–51.] [Rebele, J.E., Apostolou, B.A., Buckless, F.A., Hassell, J.M., Paquette, L.R., & Stout, D.E. (1998b). Accounting education literature review (1991–1997), part II: students, educational technology, assessment, and faculty issues. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(2), 179–245.]; Rebele, Stout, and Hassell [Rebele, J.E., Stout, D.E., & Hassell, J.M. (1991). A review of empirical research in accounting education: 1985–1991. Journal of Accounting Education, 9(2), 167–231.]; and Rebele and Tiller [Rebele, J.E., & Tiller, M.G. (1986). Empirical research in accounting education: a review and evaluation. In A. C. Bishop, E. K. St. Pierre & R. L. Benke (Eds.), Research in accounting education (pp. 1–54). Harrisonburg, VA: Center for Research in Accounting Education, James Madison University]. We review published articles related to the topics of assessment, curriculum and instructional approaches, educational technology, faculty issues, and students from the following five journals: Journal of Accounting Education, Issues in Accounting Education, Accounting Education, The Accounting Educators’ Journal, and Advances in Accounting Education. A large number of accounting educators have contributed to the literature between 1997 and 1999, with over 390 different authors cited in the body of the text (30 authors published two articles, 11 published three, and one author published four articles). More than 120 individuals are cited as authors of cases and instructional resources (seven authors published two cases and one published three). Recommendations for research are offered at the end of each major section. An appendix identifies instructional cases and educational resources published during the 1997–1999 period by journal and topic.     

A fundamentalist perspective on accounting and implications for accounting research

This paper presents a framework for addressing normative accounting issues for reporting to shareholders. The framework is an alternative to the emerging Conceptual Framework of the International Accounting Standards Board and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The framework can be broadly characterized as a utilitarian approach to accounting standard setting. It has two main features. First, accounting is linked to valuation models under which shareholders use accounting information to values their stakes. Second, the desirable characteristics of accounting information are inferred from the demand of investors and analysts who use the information in practice. This stands in contrast to the “qualitative characteristics” in the Boards’ Framework which are embraced largely on the basis of their aesthetic appeal. These features lead to a set of broad accounting principles that resolve “recognition” and “measurement” issues at the core of the Boards’ Conceptual Framework and also the central issue of a balance sheet approach versus an income statement approach. The framework in the paper also frames the research questions for researchers interested in accounting policy.     

Capital markets research and accounting standard setting

Accounting academics and practitioners have been known to question whether accounting research is as efficacious as it might be. This paper focuses on capital markets-based research in accounting and how its potential contribution to the wider regulatory process can be realised more fully. Examples used are: research on corporate regulation; the move to 'harmonise' accounting standards; accounting for R&D; accounting for goodwill; and equity accounting.     

Accounting Research in Abacus,A&F,AAR, and AJM from 2008–2015: A Review and Research Agenda

This paper uses bibliographic mapping techniques to map the research conversation in four Pacific Basin accounting journals listed on the Social Sciences Citation Index (Abacus, Accounting and Finance, Australian Accounting Review, and the Australian Journal of Management). We identify the main research streams in these journals as Accounting Standards, Environmental Accounting, Earnings Management, Disclosure, Conservatism, Auditing, Impairment, Cost of Capital, and Corporate Governance. We critically review each research stream, identify emerging research trends, and suggest an agenda for future research on accounting in the Pacific Basin.