| Abstract: | 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. |
