Search results

The purposes of this paper are to highlight those topics of forensic accounting that have received little or no attention in the forensic accounting research that has been published in forensic accounting research journals; discover what research methods have been most commonly used; and identify research methods that have been infrequently used.

This is a descriptive research study that explores the topics and methods used in forensic accounting research published in forensic accounting journals.

Fraud and quantitative methods make up the largest percentage of topics and research methods published in forensic accounting journals.

Limited to forensic accounting journals. Results suggest forensic accounting researchers are using mimetic topics and methods of accounting research. The absence of diversity in forensic accounting research topics and methods has the potential to compromise the overall contribution of forensic accounting research.

This paper identifies gaps in topics and research methods in forensic accounting research to encourage research in diverse topics using diverse methods that will be valuable to forensic accountants.

This original research is the first to survey and classify research published in forensic accounting journals according to topic and method.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the propensity of some researchers within the accounting research community (and elsewhere) to ignore potentially rich insights available from other paradigms, and the implications this has for the advancement of knowledge both from an educational and a social perspective.

The analysis is based on a review of a paper published in the Australian Journal of Management by Benson et al. (2015) together with a synthesis of other work which cautions against dismissing conflicting “world views”.

The analysis suggests that the propensity of some accounting researchers to dismiss, or ignore, research undertaken by researchers outside of their paradigm is still apparently “alive and well” within today’s accounting research community. The implications associated with ignoring or dismissing rich interdisciplinary insights are highlighted.

The implications of the research are that many rich insights are apparently being ignored by a segment of the accounting research community and this has implications for the advancement of knowledge, education and society. The limitations of this commentary are that the views are based on personal opinion which by its very nature is biased and based on the political views of the author.

The practical implications are that in highlighting a propensity to ignore potentially valuable research from alternative paradigms the commentary encourages researchers to consider other world views, as well as the political foundations inherent in their own work. This can have positive implications for the advancement of knowledge, and of society.

By highlighting the propensity of some researchers to potentially dismiss entire areas of research as not being “notable” it is hoped that there will be a revision of this tendency and this will have possible implications for the advancement of knowledge.

The commentary highlights how certain elements of the accounting research community continue to appear to have a propensity to forget/ignore that potentially useful insights are available from people who undertake research beyond the confines of their research paradigm.

The purpose of this paper is to present and analyze the opinions of a number of editors of accounting journals on the value they attach to the practical relevance of management accounting research and the potential role of qualitative methods in conducting this type of research.

This paper collects together commentaries from these journal editors about the theme indicated above, together with an overview and reflections by the editors of this special issue.

The journal editors do not regard a lack of practical relevance in management accounting research as a key concern. Most of them see practice‐relevance and theoretical advancement as complementary, while the latter is given by far the most weight as the core of academic work. Furthermore, most journal editors have no clear preference for either qualitative or quantitative research in relation to the practical relevance issue. Neither do they seem to have strong opinions about the specific benefits of qualitative methods in practice‐relevant studies. In their commentaries, the editors of this special issue advocate a stronger connection between the needs of practitioners and the content of the research, more interventionist research in which practitioners and researchers work together, and a greater focus on communication between academics and practitioners about the practical implications of management accounting research. The special issue editors specifically emphasize the importance of this communication in relation to safeguarding the “support” of various groups in society for academic research.

The paper contributes to the ongoing debate about the practical relevance of management accounting research, and particularly to the role of qualitative methods in practice‐relevant studies.

By collecting and analyzing the opinions of editors of several prominent accounting journals on the practice‐relevance of the research in this field, a contribution is made to the ongoing debate about this issue.

The purpose of this paper is to address and critique the current state and trajectory of the interdisciplinary accounting movement.

An interdisciplinary literature sourced analysis and critique of the movement's positioning and trajectory.

It observes the creeping currency of the financial economics-based accounting research tradition, with its attendant limitations in scope and policy/practice relevance of its subject matter and findings. The paper reveals the persistent growth and development of an interdisciplinary accounting community despite the pressures of careerist research score-based goal displacement produced by government and university performance measurement systems.

The interdisciplinary movement is seen as offering issues focused and innovation-driven research that aims to engage with the complexities of the organisational and institutional actors’ worlds. This remit remains essential to the challenge of the accounting academy's pursuit of issues of societal significance.

Behavioral research in accounting deals with the behavior of accountants. As such, it uses accounting subjects. Accounting subjects are very difficult to come by because of the nature of the accounting environment. First, professional accountants operate in a pressured environment in which they have little or no time to participate in behavioral research. Second, professional accountants operate in an environment of high service charges and have little or no interest in participating in behavioral experiments free or for a token remuneration. Third, professional accountants are usually inaccessible because behavioral researchers have few or no opportunities for contacts within a CPA firm. Finally, professional accountants operate in the real world in which they perceive behavioral research as too abstract to have practical value for them to participate in. Given the difficulties in getting accounting subjects, behavioral researchers often lament that the pool of available accounting subjects is very small. As such, they cannot rely on conventional research strategies that assume, among other things, normal distribution and homogeneity of variances. In this paper, we suggest a broad range of research strategies including sampling, design, measurement, and analysis to deal specifically with a very small pool of available accounting subjects. We cite some prior behavioral accounting studies and refer to some statistic textbooks deemed best for the application of these research strategies. Our suggestions should benefit anyone doing behavioral research in accounting.

This editorial seeks to argue for intellectual pluralism and adventurous enquiry in an era of status badging of publication venues and institutions and to review AAAJ's role, strategies and international recognition in this context.

The paper is an editorial review and argument.

The paper acknowledges pressures towards a North American inspired unitary neo‐classical economic view of the accounting world and related badging of higher education institutions and research publications globally. It identifies the community of accounting scholars including AAAJ with wider and more pluralist philosophies and research agendas.

The paper offers scope and associated recognition for researchers prepared to take up and address a wide array of theoretical perspectives and research issues of global significance.

The paper provides important empirical data and research network information to scholars in the interdisciplinary accounting field of research.

The purpose of this Special Issue of Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management is to focus on qualitative research in accounting from a North American perspective. The goal is to highlight the possibility of greater contributions to qualitative research in accounting from researchers based in North America and to highlight some significant contributions produced by authors in North American universities in the qualitative domain.

The paper is conceptual in nature.

This sample of North American qualitative research in accounting provides an example of some of the different types of qualitative work being done. In most respects the articles are similar to qualitative research being done in other parts of the world. Perhaps the key difference is that the research has been undertaken for the most part by senior researchers who have been able to take some risks with a research paradigm that may not be widely accepted at their universities or they may be fortunate to be located at universities which value such research.

The paper broadens the view of qualitative research to North America where it appears that qualitative research has been relatively undervalued in recent years.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the new journal and articles in the first issue.

The paper attempts to introduce the journal by answering the two “W” questions – what is Islamic accounting and why Islamic accounting research is important. In doing so, it indirectly highlights the need for a specialist journal like Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research (JIABR) and the potential research areas.

Islamic accounting research is still at the infancy stage compared to Islamic banking and finance. One of the reasons is due to lack of exposure of research conducted in the area at international level, ending up with only a few issues getting attention. Similarly, the lack of a platform where researchers interested in the area could showcase the diverse range of research as well as network and get support on their research hindered the progress of research in this area. Hence, JIABR could be the leading journal in the area of Islamic accounting and business research if all papers related to it are channeled in this specialist journal. In this way, researchers in the areas of accounting and business would be more aware of the development and contemporary issues to take the research forward.

This paper is useful to new readers of the journal around the world who are interested but have limited knowledge in the area, and also those who wish to submit to the journal, in that it highlights some potential areas for research.

This study aims to further the development of an informed understanding of current Chinese accounting education and research as an aid to focusing the efforts of accounting scholars from both within China and abroad. Survey responses were obtained from 21 overseas Chinese accounting professors with recent involvement in China. These involved (and presumably interested) academics shared their assessment that the strengths of Chinese accounting education are the quality and motivation of its students, and the practical and local/domestic orientation of its curriculum. They considered the practice and local/domestic orientation of current Chinese accounting research to be its particular strength. The respondents also identified numerous areas in need of improvement. Foremost among these are the training and qualifications of the faculty, the procedural (as opposed to conceptual) nature of the curriculum and research, and the lack of infrastructure and support. These findings can be useful in prompting a re‐examination of programmes and processes by Chinese accounting educators. They also can be used by accounting academics from outside of China as a starting point for exploring how they may best contribute to the development of Chinese accounting education and research, and in the development and separation of duties in joint projects with their Chinese colleagues.

This paper's purpose is to provide a commentary on “Qualitative management accounting research: rationale, pitfalls and potential,” a paper by Juhani Vaivio.

The approach is to draw on alternative research paradigms to expand the definition and discussion of qualitative research in management accounting.

The paper endorses many of the prescriptions in Vaivio but expands the definition and discussion of qualitative research in management accounting to recognize the blurred boundaries with field research more generally, and to be more inclusive of qualitative field research from a positivist/functionalist perspective. Similarly, the need for qualitative research to challenge textbook, economics and consulting representations of management accounting is acknowledged, but the range of catalysts is expanded to highlight the potential for qualitative research building on both qualitative and quantitative extant research. This paper also seeks to broaden the discussion of legitimate study design characteristics and data collection methods, and to stress the importance of matching research design with research question.

The paper stresses the value of pluralism and inclusiveness in both methodological and method choices.