Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
The first two-thirds of this paper is a review and analysis of the evolution of the accounting
research and education environments, primarily in the United States but also with respect to
Canada, from the 1960s to the present time. The final third of the paper consists of a critique of
contemporary approaches to both accounting research and education.
INTRODUCTION
Since the 1960s there have been profound changes in the culture of the accounting professoriate in
North America. It is my aim in this paper to trace the essential developments and trends that have
marked these changes, and I will then offer some critical comments on the present state of affairs in
accounting and auditing research and education. As I am more familiar with the change that has
occurred in the United States, most of my discussion will centre on the US scene, although I have reason
to believe that the change that has occurred in Canada has been roughly parallel. The two countries are
closely intertwined, and many, if not most, Canadian accounting academics pursuing PhDs in the past 40
years took them in the United States and then returned to Canada.2
Perhaps the most salient changes over the past five decades in accounting have been (1) an
evolution from a culture of heavy teaching loads and a modest expectation of publication, to one of
much lighter teaching loads coupled with an enforced, high expectation of top-flight research published
in the best journals, and (2) the “invasion” in the accounting literature of research bringing insights and
methodologies from such basic disciplines as economics, the behavioral sciences, mathematics, and
statistics. In addition, the research dimension became more “formalized,” as the journals added a more
structured review process. With the “explosion” in the number of research journals, the practitioner-
1
This paper is an outgrowth of my keynote address to the annual conference of the Canadian Academic
Accounting Association, held in Calgary on June 15-16, 2018. I am grateful for the comments of Bill Beaver, Jake
Birnberg, Philip Brown, Tom Dyckman, Peter Firmin, Yves Gendron, Michael Granof, Dana Hermanson, Bob Jensen,
Bob Kaplan, Ed Ketz, Pascale Lapointe-Antunes, Morley Lemon, Ted Mock, Jim Ohlson, Al Rappaport, Mary Stone,
Bob Swieringa, and Dan Thornton on earlier versions. I am solely responsible for what remains.
2
Based on an examination of J. R. Hasselback’s Accounting Directory over the years, this generalization seems to
hold more for universities in Ontario and the Prairie Provinces than for those in Québec and the Maritime
Provinces.
The objective of this paper is twofold. In Part I, it is to present a review and analysis of the
evolution of the accounting professoriate from the 1960s to the present. In Part II, it is to provide a
critique of contemporary approaches to accounting research and to financial accounting education.
PART I
THE EARLIER ERA IN THE UNITED STATES (PRIOR TO THE MIDDLE 1960s)
In the early 1960s, the teaching loads for assistant professors were heavy: 12 to 18 semester hours per
year, with multiple and changing preparations. In my first year, 1961-62, after I completed a PhD at the
University of Michigan and became an assistant professor of accounting at Tulane University, I taught six
semester-length courses, involving four preparations. In the second year, my teaching load went down
to five courses, but they were five different courses, including one new preparation. At some of the elite
business schools, to be sure, the annual teaching load at that time was no more than 12 hours with two
preparations.
The terminal qualifications for US accounting faculty in business schools back then were a
masters degree in economics or business and a CPA. The professional degree of LLB (Bachelor of Laws)
was also considered terminal (AACSB, 1967: 17). Relatively few accounting educators at most schools
then held doctorates, and many had an accounting or tax practice on the side. Better schools, especially
those in the Big Ten, had a significant number of faculty with doctorates.3 Many were in economics
because, as will be seen, relatively few business schools then offered the doctorate in accounting.
Research productivity was expected but not required. Equal valence was accorded to major
service in the accounting profession, for example, membership on important boards and committees.
Textbook authorship was accepted as an alternate to published research.
3
The 1916-1966 history of the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) reported on a
survey of its business schools conducted in 1963, which found the following (1966: 240): “In 58 percent of the
schools reporting, more than half of the faculty held a Ph.D. degree or its equivalent and in only 6 percent of the
schools did fewer than 30 percent of the faculty hold a doctor’s degree.”
William A. Paton, Accounting Theory, with Special Reference to the Business Enterprise (1922)
John B. Canning, The Economics of Accountancy (1929)
Henry W. Sweeney, Stabilized Accounting (1936)
Kenneth MacNeal, Truth in Accounting (1939)
W. A. Paton and A. C. Littleton, An Introduction to Corporate Accounting Standards (1940)
A. C. Littleton, Structure of Accounting Theory (1953)
Edgar O. Edwards and Philip W. Bell, The Theory and Measurement of Business Income (1961)
George J. Staubus, A Theory of Accounting to Investors (1961)
Richard Mattessich, Accounting and Analytical Methods (1964)
Raymond J. Chambers, Accounting, Evaluation and Economic Behavior (1966)
Yuji Ijiri, The Foundations of Accounting Measurement (1967) and The Theory of Accounting
Measurement (1974)
Arthur L. Thomas, The Allocation Problem in Financial Accounting Theory (1969) and The Allocation
Problem: Part Two (1974)
Robert R. Sterling, Theory of the Measurement of Enterprise Income (1970)
Today, the names of these theorists and their works are unknown to all but a relatively small number of
US accounting academics under the age of 55, because (1) normative accounting research has
disappeared from the major journals and (2) the “golden age” of a priori and axiomatic research in
accounting (Nelson, 1973) is missing from courses of instruction and PhD research. To be sure, a lively
dialogue, often invoking these theorists and their works, does appear in the AECM listserv (Taylor and
Murthy, 2009),4 blogs, forums, and other forms of networked communications, but not in the journals or
in books.
In the 1960s and into the 1970s, research published in books was encouraged and rewarded on
a plane with research published in articles.
In the 1960s, accounting academics were rewarded for publishing in professional as well as
academic journals. Many academics published their work in the AICPA’s Journal of Accountancy and in
the journals of the state societies of CPAs. Research in the academic journals was then a mixture of
surveys of practice, theorizing and policy prescription, criticisms of practice, reports on education,
historical studies, and commentaries on accounting principles, practices, and relevant laws.
4
For a record of such exchanges treating the grand theorists and their work, see
http://faculty.trinity.edu/rjensen/theory02.htm#FairValue
In the 1960s, the only active, major academic accounting association was the American
Accounting Association (AAA). Today, there are many, including the Canadian Academic Accounting
Association (CAAA), the European Accounting Association (EAA), the British Accounting and Finance
Association, the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, the Japan
Accounting Association, and the Association Francophone de Comptabilité (in France).
Up to the 1970s, Intermediate Accounting textbooks were “change agents,” that is, they were
regularly critical of standards and practice, and they recommended improvements in financial reporting,
such as general price-level accounting and the inclusion of funds statements (Zeff, 2016). Accounting
textbooks were then considered to be a recognized source in the “hierarchy of GAAP,” when
practitioners were seeking authoritative support for accounting practice.
THE FORD FOUNDATION AND CARNEGIE CORPORATION REPORTS OF 1959, AND OTHER FORD
INITIATIVES
In the 1950s, the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York became interested in
fortifying business education and research in US business schools. Ford gave a large financial grant to
five business schools as “centres of excellence” for management education and research: Carnegie
Institute of Technology’s Graduate School of Industrial Administration, the Harvard Business School, the
University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business,
and Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business – to lead the way towards nationwide reform.5 In
1959, Ford and Carnegie published major reports (Gordon and Howell, 1959; Pierson, 1959) which
argued for a greater investment by business schools in research and for research and doctoral education
to make greater use of hypothesis-testing and be rooted in the behavioral sciences, mathematics,
5
For an extensive discussion of the content and impact of the Ford Foundation initiatives on migrating accounting
and other business programs away from purely vocational orientations towards embracing economics and
quantitative approaches, see Khurana (2007: chap. 6) and Swieringa (2018).
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Ford Foundation sponsored programs, usually during the
summer, to train faculty in these new lines of research, and from 1957 to 1962 Ford sponsored 13 New
Developments in Business Administration seminars, mostly at Carnegie Tech and Chicago, to bring
faculty “on board” with these new research methodologies (Khurana, 2007: 263-268). In particular, Ford
sponsored a New Developments seminar at Chicago, with emphasis on accounting, dealing with
conceptual issues as well as the application to accounting of capital budgeting, behavioral research, and
quantitative methods (Dyckman and Zeff, 1984: 233). The AAA, by the latter part of the 1960s, began
offering short courses in quantitative methods and the behavioral sciences to accounting faculty who
were not proficient in these areas.
During the first half of the 1960s, the Ford Foundation sponsored the publication of a total of 26
doctoral dissertations in business that embodied the new empiricism and that drew heavily on the basic
disciplines (Dyckman and Zeff, 1984: 232-233).
Following publication of the Ford and Carnegie reports, the emphasis in business schools began shifting
towards the creation of knowledge via empirical, hypothesis-testing research and mathematical
modeling, thus displacing qualitative research which had historically been the source of new thinking.
And it was not long before academic researchers gained access to high-speed computers and to
6
For a discussion of the impact of the Ford and Carnegie reports on the development of management accounting,
see Maher (2000: 337-338).
Especially at the major business schools, the importance of doctoral studies in accounting began
to grow. In 1960, there were only 20 US accounting doctoral programs – today there are 107. Only 17
accounting doctorates had been conferred in 1955, which rose to 47 in 1965, and more than tripled to
149 in 1975.7 By 1967-68, only 31% of US accounting faculty held doctorates (Williams, 1969: 17). It was
not until 1969 that the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), as it was then
known, finally prescribed “bright lines” in support of its call upon accounting (and other) faculty in
business schools to hold doctorates. In the interpretations of its accreditation standards, it set at 40%
and 75% the lowest percentage of the faculty who must possess a doctorate, depending on whether
they taught at the undergraduate or graduate level, respectively (AACSB, 1969: 27).8
In 1963, the University of Chicago launched its semi-annual Journal of Accounting Research
(JAR). Sidney Davidson (1984: 282), the founder of JAR, wrote as follows about the genesis of the
journal:
The previous decade had seen substantial advances in the development of statistical
techniques and quantitative analysis. The emergence of the computer indicated that large new
data bases of financial information would be readily accessible to researchers; also new
information and theories on motivation and other aspects of behavioral science were
developing. Research in accounting was beginning to capitalize on these advances in the related
fields. A more scientific approach to accounting research was clearly on the horizon. We at
Chicago felt it important that there be a journal exclusively devoted to research in all areas of
accounting, a journal that would serve as a vehicle for publication of this expected new wave of
accounting research.
Davidson (1984: 282) added that “the editors of The Accounting Review at that time seemed reluctant to
accept articles with a heavy empirical or quantitative content. Few, if any, articles on ‘behavioral
accounting’ appeared in the Review.”9 In fact, Ball and Brown (1968), “An Empirical Evaluation of
Accounting Income Numbers,” which did so much to stimulate capital market research, had been
rejected by the Review as not being accounting research. Nicholas Dopuch, by then the editor of JAR,
appreciated the potential of this line of research and had heard Ball and Brown present their paper at a
7
These data were culled from various editions of J. R. Hasselback’s Accounting Directory.
8
I am grateful to Dale L. Flesher for advice on the AACSB’s early accreditation standards.
9
For a discussion of the state of the academic accounting literature in the 1950s and 1960s, see Dyckman and Zeff
(1984: 226-238).
The first five volumes of JAR, from 1963 to 1967, largely edited by David Green, Jr., contained a
mixture of articles reflecting theory development, normative argument, and historical enquiries, but by
1968, when Nick Dopuch became the editor, the journal increasingly catered to the research for which
Chicago became well known: empirical studies drawing on computerized databases as well as employing
behavioral and experimental approaches. After 1967, historical and normative argument articles
virtually disappeared from JAR. The percentage of empirical main articles in JAR rose from 27% in 1969
to 60% by 1972 (Dyckman and Zeff, 1984: table 15, p. 265). Before long, The Accounting Review followed
suit, as this mode of research “caught fire” among US accounting academics.
In March 1965, Stanford University hosted the first-ever conference devoted wholly to
accounting research, which was sponsored by the AAA. The conference was titled Seminar on Basic
Research in Accounting Measurement (Jaedicke, Ijiri, and Nielsen, 1966). Since then, the number of such
research conferences has increased to the point where they are now held almost incessantly around the
world. Today, universities hold “summer research camps” and the AAA’s Sections put on very well-
attended Midyear Meetings to hear research papers. In May 1966, Chicago held its first annual
Conference on Empirical Research in Accounting, supported by the Ford Foundation, with the
proceedings published in JAR. Although no longer dubbed “empirical research” after 1973, the JAR
conference has continued to be held every year since then, and it celebrated its 50th anniversary in May
2016.
The dawn of empirical research, drawing on computerized databases, and to some extent
experimentation, and on the basic disciplines to accounting, was an exciting time at Chicago (Hopwood,
2007; Beaver and Wolfson, 2013: 434; Ball and Brown, 2014). Its PhD graduates, their dissertations
reflecting the new empirical research, left to spread the word in PhD programs and through their
published research at other universities. Joel S. Demski went to Columbia and then a year later moved
to Stanford, and William H. Beaver went to Stanford; George J. Benston and Ross L. Watts went to the
University of Rochester; Anthony G. Hopwood (who studied behavioral science and organizational
sociology) returned to the UK; Philip Brown and Ray Ball returned to Australia, Ball coming back to the
US, at Rochester, in the 1980s; Baruch Lev returned to Israel, coming back to the US, at the University of
California, Berkeley, also in the 1980s; T. Ross Archibald went to the University of Western Ontario; and
William R. Scott went to Queen’s University.
For his part, Anthony Hopwood founded the UK-based journal, Accounting, Organizations and
Society (AOS), in 1976. It did much to inspire researchers to draw widely on the behavioral sciences,
expanding beyond cognitive psychology, which was the main focus of most US-based behavioral
research.11
Thomas J. Burns, director of the accounting PhD program at The Ohio State University, gave
impetus to behavioral accounting via three behavioral research symposia which he convened in 1966,
1968, and 1971 (Burns, 1967, 1970, 1972). Burns motivated many students to pursue accounting PhDs
elsewhere, and his behavioral perspective influenced Ohio State PhD students and faculty.12 In addition,
in October 1970 the AAA’s director of education convened a Symposium on Behavioral Research in
Accounting, to which he invited leading researchers in the fields of psychology and sociology to
comment on papers presented by young behavioral accounting researchers. The symposium did much
to instill confidence in the accounting researchers who attended.
10
For his reviews of the early development of empirical research, see Dopuch (1980, 1983).
11
Gendron and Baker (2005: 530) report that “in most years from 1985 to 2003 the proportion of
sociological/organizational papers [in AOS] was greater than 50%.”
12
E-mail communication received from Theodore J. Mock, dated July 25, 2018.
In 1971, under the leadership of AAA President James Don Edwards, the Association launched its annual
Doctoral Consortium, sponsored by the Big 8 audit firm of Haskins & Sells (now Deloitte). University PhD
programs across the United States nominated a student to attend and hear presentations from leading
researchers in the new methodologies. Beginning in 1985, PhD students were invited also from
Canadian universities. The Consortium, which steadily increased in attendance as the number of
accounting PhD programs grew, now is more international in intake and continues to be a very
successful annual program. It has been imitated by other academic associations, some of the AAA’s
Sections, and as an adjunct to some research conferences.
In the 1970s, the process for awarding tenure at American universities was made much more
formal and rigorous, as research overtook teaching and service as the most important factor to weigh in
such decisions. Tenure, not just promotion in rank, became the high bar to surmount for assistant
professors. One reason for the increase in rigor in the tenure decision, one supposes, is that research
achievements can be quantitatively measured and thus are susceptible to a more objective assessment,
while the quality of teaching and service requires a more subjective assessment, on which different
evaluators can easily disagree. By the end of the 1970s, it became increasingly commonplace for
business schools to write for tenure and promotion letters from scholars at other universities, in order
to obtain an independent set of views to complement that of the business school’s own departmental
faculty.
The movement to “scientific research” in accounting in the 1970s was strongly influenced by the
institutional context: accounting departments in particular, and business schools in general, were
seeking academic legitimacy in their institutions. They wanted to be evaluated under the same
standards used to evaluate faculty and schools in the rest of the university, especially departments of
science and economics.14 This was yet another factor that led to more stringent criteria for tenure.
Also in the 1970s, the attention of quite a number of empirical and analytical researchers was
directed at the needs of accounting standard setters and of the practicing community. William Beaver’s
1973 article in the Journal of Accountancy, “What Should Be the FASB’s Objectives?” is a good example.
In addition, the entire JAR conference in 1974 was devoted to Financial Accounting Objectives,
13
For a more extensive discussion about the research literature in recent decades, see Dyckman and Zeff (2015).
14
I am grateful to Robert S. Kaplan for this insight.
In the 1970s, accounting researchers began clustering in the AAA’s newly formed Sections,
tailored to topical areas (e.g., taxation, auditing, financial accounting, management accounting,
government and nonprofit) or research methodologies (e.g., behavioral accounting, history), and today
the AAA counts 17 such Sections, of which 10 publish their own journals. Accounting academics, like
those in other disciplines, have thus formed their own specialized niches.
In May 1981, the Clarkson Gordon Foundation (established by the partners of a leading
Canadian audit firm, Clarkson Gordon) sponsored a unique research symposium entitled “Research to
Support Standard Setting in Financial Accounting: A Canadian Perspective.” At the symposium, which
brought academics and practitioners together for three days at Dalhousie University, seven major
papers were presented, embodying a variety of methodologies, including empirical and analytical (Basu
and Milburn, 1982). This was not the Clarkson Gordon Foundation’s only venture into academe. In 1976,
financial support from the Foundation and Deloitte Haskins & Sells (via P. Howard Lyons), coupled with
sage advice from Clarkson Gordon partners J. R. M. (Jack) Wilson and Ross M. Skinner, helped academic
15
See also the proceedings of Chicago’s 1975 annual research conference on Statistical Methodology in Auditing,
published in volume 13 of JAR.
16
The resulting article was Dyckman and Smith (1979).
10
In 1984, the CAAA launched its first journal, Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR). The
following year, Haim Falk, the founding editor, began holding an annual CAR conference, which was so
structured that a submission to the conference became a submission also to CAR. It was said that “the
publication of discussants’ comments [at the conferences] provided the editor with more opportunities
to include Canadian academics in CAR” (Richardson, 2001: 55).17
The Research Opportunities in Auditing (ROA) Program, sponsored by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell &
Co. (later KPMG Peat Marwick), was an excellent example of how funding and data provided by a major
audit firm can succeed in directing academic research towards an area of practical enquiry in need of
research. Ashton and Cianci (1998: 120, 136), who studied the 18-year history of the program, wrote,
“The ROA Program supported auditing research projects with data from actual audits, partner and staff
time, and financial resources from 1976 to 1993….It has influenced researchers to focus on auditing
issues, and has enhanced the reputation of auditing as a subject of intellectual and scientific merit.
Moreover, it has influenced auditing education in substantial ways.”
In 1979, Rochester launched the Journal of Accounting and Economics, which became a prime
forum for work stimulated by the economics-focused research paradigm. Its stated purpose was “to
publish only the highest quality manuscripts which seek to explain accounting phenomena using
economics including economic theories of the firm, public choice, government regulation, agency
theory, and financial economics” (Watts and Zimmerman, 1979: 1). It was the first US accounting
research journal to be published by a commercial house, North-Holland Publishing Company.
17
For a retrospective on CAR, see Gordon and Boland (2015).
11
Joel S. Demski (2007: 155) argues, “[t]he vast bulk of our published work is insular, largely
derivative, and lacking in the variety that is essential for innovation.” Gregory B. Waymire (2012: 817)
writes that “accounting research is stagnant and rarely introduces new ideas and ways of looking at the
issues we study.” Anthony G. Hopwood (2007: 1370) writes,
increasingly accounting research is being seen as too cautious and conservative, too rigid and
traditional, and insufficiently attuned to grapple with the new and to embrace novel insights
and bodies of knowledge. Rather than being excited about the emerging gaps in our knowledge,
it is as if the academic accounting community prefers to focus on the leads that arise from
within the existing research traditions. The dynamic for change and transformation that
emerged in the early Chicago days is seemingly no longer with us.
Robert Kaplan (2011: 369) has been critical of accounting researchers for not attempting to
develop innovative solutions to the problems faced by professionals. He writes, “If academics in
professional school limit their research agenda to issues that can be adequately addressed by a narrow
set of generally accepted research methods, then they must wait for phenomena to happen to generate
sufficient archival data for them to analyze statistically. Thus, much of accounting (and management)
research for the past 40 years has been reactive. It has studied, evaluated, and explained existing
practice, but has not contributed to advancing that practice (the accounting-based-valuation model, and
improvements in auditing and tax being notable exceptions).”
The Accounting Review, the AAA’s flagship journal, was formerly a vehicle for all modes of
research on all kinds of topics, and it was read not only by accounting educators but also by accounting
practitioners. Yet, with the increasing narrowness in its contents, practitioners and many academics
began complaining that the Review no longer served their needs, and that the statistical methodology in
its articles made the journal virtually unreadable by any but the cognoscenti (Zeff and Dyckman, 2018:
116).18
In reaction to the membership complaints about the uselessness and unreadability of the
contents of The Accounting Review, AAA members began looking for ways to create or preserve journal
18
For a trenchant criticism of the evolution of accounting academe and of The Accounting Review, see Heck and
Jensen (2007).
12
In 1986, the AAA executive committee and council voted to launch a third Association-wide
journal, Accounting Horizons, in order to bridge academe and practice. Its aim was to publish a wide
range of articles, which the Review used to publish, of broad interest and accessibility to educators and
practitioners (Zeff and Dyckman, 2018: 116-118). The journal began publishing in 1987 under Editor
Robert K. Mautz, who had just retired following a career as both an academic and a partner in a Big 8
audit firm.
By the early 2000s, it became evident to the leaders of the AAA’s Auditing Section that practice
was not well served by the time required to publish auditing research in AJPT, as well as by the
opaqueness of the journal’s content. The journal had become mostly a medium for analytical, archival,
and experimental research. Thereupon, in 2007 the Section founded an electronic journal, Current Issues
in Auditing, which is co-edited by a practitioner and an academic. One of its sections is entitled
Practitioner Summary, where academics undertake to explain the purport and meaning of published
empirical or analytical research to a practitioner audience.
So-called bridging journals have been established in other countries, for similar reasons as in the
United States – the need for a useful and readable journal to a wide audience. In 1991, CPA Australia (a
practitioner body) and the University of Sydney founded the Australian Accounting Review. In 2002, the
CAAA launched Canadian Accounting Perspectives, which dropped Canadian five years later. And in
2004, the European Accounting Association inaugurated Accounting in Europe. But these were not the
kinds of journals for which academics at the leading US business schools were rewarded for their
publications.
Notwithstanding the efforts to preserve the “classical,” or qualitative, modes of research in such
journals as CAR and AJPT, the supply of papers reflecting these “lost” approaches to research has largely
13
To be sure, qualitative modes of research are still alive and well in accounting history journals,
such as the Accounting Historians Journal, Accounting History, and the Accounting History Review
(formerly Accounting, Business & Financial History).
Hypothesis-testing, regression model-based research has come to dominate most of the highly
rated North American journals and has increasingly dominated research agendas by accounting
academics overseas, as it is vaunted as the epitome of “social science research.”
An important change in the packaging of research was that, with the rise of searchable journal
databases and the importance placed in publishing only in certain “top” journals, books are no longer
viewed as appropriate vehicles for research. In North America, only a few senior and established
academics have published books containing their research in the past few decades, and there is the
considerable risk that few, if any, of the books would be noticed by other researchers.
In stark contrast to the 1960s, when there were fewer than a half-dozen accounting research
journals, today there are more than one hundred such journals published in English around the world.
Teaching loads for newly hired assistant professors of accounting have changed profoundly
since the 1960s. At many leading business schools today, the teaching assignment for the first year or
two, at universities on the semester system, is three courses with a single preparation, and, in
subsequent years, three courses with one or no more than two preparations. A few business schools
allow the first-year load to be only two courses with a single preparation. Yet the salaries for assistant
19
For a study that found an openness to diverse research methods was signaled by CAR’s editorial team, see
Endenich and Trapp (2018). See also the comments on this latter paper in the same special issue on “Research
Diversity and Hierarchies in Accounting Journals” in Critical Perspectives on Accounting.
20
Schwartz, Williams and Williams (2005: 342) conducted a survey of students enrolled in 39 US accounting
doctoral programs, including 11 “elite” programs, concerning their familiarity with a broad range of accounting
journals. They found that “[t]he lack of familiarity with journals representing alternative paradigms and topics like
critical theory, tax, systems, or history, particularly by students at elite schools, is disconcerting. It indicates that
there is a significant amount of homogeneity among doctoral programs in the US.”
14
The main challenge facing newly minted PhDs is to build a superlative research record, because,
at the end of five or six years, they must surmount the very high tenure bar or leave for another
university. Striving to reach tenure is an unforgiving process.
PART II
In this section, I subject the following seven issues arising from today’s research environment in
accounting to closer inspection and critical analysis.
Paucity of Replications
There has been an almost total absence of replications of empirical/archival, or of experimental, studies
in accounting. Yet replication is a hallmark of scientific research. R. Murray Lindsay (1995: 35) has
written, “Replication provides the crucial test of the reliability and validity of facts, hypotheses and
theories. It leads, when successful, to generalizable and predictable results.” Much hypothesis-testing,
regression model-based research has revealed interesting phenomena in the real world, but seldom is
the research followed up by replications to determine if these initial findings were aberrations or truly
generalizable.
15
In 1994, CAR Editor Michael Gibbins introduced a special section entitled “Improvements and
Updates,” which was intended to encourage replications and extensions. Yet the response by
researchers was tepid. Gibbins’ successor as editor, Steven E. Salterio (2014: 1134), in a thoughtful
article on the subject of replications in social science research, observed that CAR’s call for replication
research “was met with a resounding ‘thud’ by the academic community.” The section lasted but two
years (Gordon and Boland, 2015: 474).
Philip Brown (2013: 856) labels the actions of editors and reviewers who discourage replications
as a signal of their “disciplinary immaturity.” The field of psychology has taken important steps to bring
replications to the fore of its literature (Dyckman and Zeff, 2014: 699, ftn. 11), and we in the broad tent
of accounting research should follow their lead.
The prevalent use of JIFs to infer the quality and impact of a faculty member’s publications
leads to a high incidence of both Type 1 and Type 2 errors. The Type 1 errors, the false positives,
are the large numbers of low impact papers published in journals with high JIFs. In these cases,
promotions committees incorrectly reject the null hypothesis that the author’s paper is
unimportant. The high incidence of such false positives, while disconcerting is actually less
consequential than the Type 2 (false negative) errors, when promotions committees incorrectly
treat research as unimportant and low quality if it has not been published in top-tier journals or,
worse, in books, conference proceedings, and other publication outlets ignored by the JIF
metric. Many non-top-tier publications can actually have impact factors far above the median of
articles published in top-tier journals.
21
Journal rankings are yet another problematic issue. For a critique of the concept and practice of journal rankings,
see Humphrey and Gendron (2015).
16
22
Philip Brown (2013, 856) has written, “[as a reviewer] I am particularly unimpressed when there is an all-too-
transparent and excessive citation of works by editors and potential reviewers, as if the judgments of these folks
could possibly be influenced by that behavior.”
17
Database Domination
Empirical/archival researchers exhibit excessive preoccupation with accessing rich databases and do not
give enough attention to addressing interesting research questions. William J. Vatter, a leading
accounting scholar, made the same point more than 50 years ago. In his summing-up paper at the close
of JAR’s initial Conference on Empirical Research in Accounting in May 1966, he said as follows (Vatter,
1966: 232; emphasis in original):
One of the real limitations of empirical research is that we tend to work on problems we are
able to study because data are available; we thereby tend to overlook problems that we ought
to study, if data for such problems are not easy to obtain. It is significant that the larger and
more comprehensive efforts reported here [i.e., at the conference] have dealt with published or
otherwise readily available data. Gathering direct and original facts is a tedious and difficult task,
and it is not surprising that such work is avoided….We need to look at the real world to find data
related to its problems.
Settling on the use of an accessible database before devising the research questions is like putting the
cart before the horse.
23
Shapiro and Kirkman (2018) refer to this practice as “‘HARKing’ (hypothesizing after results are known).” In
statistics, it is known as “snooping.”
18
19
20
24
For possible explanations of the differences between IFRS and ASPEs, see Thornton (2015).
21
REFERENCES
American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). 1966. The American Association of
Collegiate Schools of Business 1916-1966. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). 1967. Constitution, Bylaws, Standards
for Accreditation 1967-1968. St. Louis, MO: AACSB.
American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). 1969. Constitution, Bylaws,
Accreditation Standards and Interpretations 1969-1970. St. Louis, MO: AACSB.
Ashton, R. H., and A. M. Cianci. 1998. Contributions of the “Research Opportunities in Auditing”
22
23
24
25
26
27