Search results

The purpose of this study is to provide a harmonisation framework for the diverse accounting practices by extractive industries.

The study takes a three-stage approach. The first involves a comprehensive literature review of the historical evolution of accounting regulations by extractive industries. The second involves constructing an accounting practice index for extractive industries. The third involves constructing a harmonisation framework.

The accounting practice index provides empirical evidence of the wide diversity of accounting practices by extractive industries. Analysis of the literature review addresses the several attempts by accounting and regulatory bodies to standardise the diverse practices of accounting by extractive industries and reasons for the lack of successful standardisations. The authors extract lessons from these previous attempts and propose a harmonisation framework.

The proposed harmonisation framework can be used to align together the diverse accounting practices by extractive industries and enhance comparability and consistency of accounting figures and statements produced by these industries. Harmonising the diverse accounting practices is crucial for investment decision-making.

The harmonisation framework is the first of its kind that could enhance the comparability of accounts of extractive industries’ firms and be used to harmonise diverse accounting practices by other industries.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the determinants of the choice of the accounting method for recognising actuarial gains and losses of defined benefit plans.

In the paper, a logit model is estimated in order to relate the dependent variable (actuarial gains and losses method) with some explanatory variables (size, industry, leverage, profitability, size of pension funds and the existence of actuarial gains or losses).

The results of this study indicate that size, industry, profitability and the existence of actuarial gains or actuarial losses are important determinants in the choice of the accounting method for actuarial gains and losses.

The study only addresses the choice between the equity recognition method and the corridor method due to the small number of companies that adopted the profit or loss method (only eight observations).

This paper examines the recognition of actuarial gains and losses which can have an economically significant impact on companies' financial position and financial performance. This paper contributes to the accounting choice literature by exploiting the determinants of the choice of the accounting method for recognising actuarial gains and losses under IAS 19.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the determinants of accounting policy choices under International Accounting Standards (IASs) of listed firms in South Asia.

We selected three IASs-based accounting policy choices from 369 listed companies in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh for the financial year 2007-2008.

Our results show that firm size, investment opportunity set, leverage and ownership by the general public are significant determinants of accounting policy choice in South Asian countries. However, we do not find a significant relationship between firms’ accounting policy choices and profitability, assets-in-place and taxes.

Our results suggest that as some flexibility exists in IASB’s accounting standards, this may allow managers to use income-increasing/decreasing methods. There is scope for regulators and standards setters to reduce the alternative methods which are likely improve firms’ reporting quality.

Our study contributes to the understanding as to what determines managers’ choice of a particular accounting method allowed in IAS.

The study aims to investigate the impact of indirectly evoked incentives, in the form of supervisor’s preferences, on the decision about accounting policy regarding depreciation method selection and to examine subsequent post-decision distortion by evaluating the depreciation method.

The authors conducted two experiments with control and treatment groups, manipulating the supervisor’s indirectly evoked preferences. In Study 2, the authors also measured the evaluation of both depreciation methods to investigate post-decisional distortion regarding the assessment of the depreciation method chosen in a decision task. Study 1 was conducted among 85 accounting students, while Study 2 consisted of 200 accountants.

Both studies revealed the significant impact of supervisor’s indirectly evoked preferences on accounting policy decisions. Participants who were aware of supervisors’ preferences were more likely to choose the depreciation method that was consistent with those preferences. The authors also found that those participants attached a higher value to the depreciation method, providing evidence that adherence to the supervisor’s preferences results in a distorted assessment of the depreciation methods.

First, this study shows that indirectly evoked supervisors’ preferences may lead to a departure from substantive criteria resulting in low-quality accounting outcomes. Second, the assessment of the depreciation method is inseparable from the situational context, as the evaluation of the depreciation method is interdependent upon the preferences of the choice of a depreciation method and the fulfillment of those preferences.

One of the most important considerations in any research project is a compelling research question, the addressing of which will produce socially and/or economically relevant and beneficial insights based on high‐quality evidence. The purpose of this paper is to explain that each possible research question requires use of the particular research methods that will produce the high‐quality evidence relevant to that question, with the nature of the evidence and the methods required varying from research question to research question.

This discussion paper explores and explains the role and function of interpretive accounting research advocates its adoption.

As the research method needs to be suited to the research question, any restriction imposed on the credible research methods that are considered acceptable severely limits the ability of the accounting academy to serve the needs of society and the economy by addressing the broadest possible range of research questions. From this perspective it is vital for academics to recognize that both positivist/quantitative and interpretive/qualitative methods produce high‐quality credible research evidence.

Any preconceptions within a nation's accounting academy over the unacceptability of either positivist or interpretive research will damage the health and relevance of that academy in the longer term.

The paper argues that both positivist and interpretivist research are needed, drawing on notions of subjectivity, objectivity and inter‐subjectivity in the context of the social construction of both accounting information and research data, and in the context of the socially constructing nature of research evidence.

The paper revisits the intellectual roots of grounded theory and aims to analyze the consistency of the method used in grounded theory research in accounting. About 23 papers are identified and analysed.

The paper is an analytical review of the research literature. It uses four fundamental canons of grounded theory to analyze accounting research.

Some accounting researchers who have used the label “grounded theory” for their research have misunderstood or not applied the core canons of grounded theory established by Glaser and Strauss and developed with diversity in other disciplines. Most claim to follow the specific approach of Strauss and Corbin, but the published research shows limited explication of method.

Since Parker and Roffey in 1997, there has been no analysis and re‐evaluation of the burgeoning academic accounting literature using grounded theory. While celebrating the growth of this research, the paper does raise concerns about the lack of consistency of grounded theory research in accounting with the central canons of grounded theory, and it provides some directions for future grounded theory research by encouraging accounting researchers who wish to use grounded theory to engage more strongly in understanding the method and providing transparent explanations of their data collection and analysis methods.

This study aims to advance mixed methods as a research methodology in accounting through three research objectives: develop a typology of mixed methods research (MMR) features from current literature, analyse accounting papers published in two leading South African journals against these features, and offer recommendations for best practice going forward.

This paper follows five elements for a MMR review study: identify the methodological aim and choice of discipline; identify the relevant accounting MMR literature and collect the data; develop a codebook and analysis procedures to assess the reviewed papers against; report on the MMR findings; and discuss the findings and make recommendations.

The use of MMR as a methodological approach is increasing; however, in many instances published papers revealed limited methodological detail. Furthermore, most accounting MMR studies use a convergent MMR design, with data collected qualitatively using interviews/focus groups and quantitatively using questionnaires. Finally, accounting education studies is the topic within accounting research that mostly use MMR.

The study is limited to a five-year period and the prevalence of applicable MMR articles during that period in two journals.

This paper presents advantages of using MMR in accounting studies and offer recommendations for best practice to answer the complex accounting research questions of today.

This study is the first systematic examination of how mixed methods is used in accountancy research as reflected in South African journals.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the choice of accounting treatment of transition obligation under SFAS 106 affects the value of firms, and also whether the quality of earnings is improved after the implementation of SFAS 106.

Different regression models were employed on a sample of 50 immediate recognition firms and 50 matched prospective recognition firms. Chow test is also used to investigate the quality of earnings before and after the implementation of SFAS 106.

In spite of the significant difference in impact on earnings from the choice of treatment of transition obligation, the accounting choice has no significant impact on the total value relevance of earnings and book value. When immediate recognition method is applied, investors ignore the one‐time charge of transition obligation, and rely more on book value in the valuation of a firm. However, when prospective recognition method is applied, both earnings and book value are value‐relevant in the adoption year and also in the subsequent year. In addition, the paper finds that the implementation of SFAS 106 improves the value relevance of earnings.

Results are limited by the accuracy of the models used to measure value relevance of earnings and book value of equity.

Results may have implications for managers' choice of accounting treatment, and the evidence seems to support accrual basis over cash basis on earnings measurement.

The paper uses the value relevance approach to analyze the impact of SFAS 106 on the quality of earnings and book value of equity.

This paper examines the controversy surrounding the use of the Inverted‐Sum‐Of‐Years‐Digits (ISOYD) method of goodwill amortisation and events leading to its banning by the Australian accounting regulatory bodies. Companies using the method claimed that a prohibition would reduce their share price and international competitiveness. On the other hand, efficient capital market proponents argued that the amortisation method was irrelevant to the economic position of a firm in the absence of any cash flow effects. This paper discusses these conflicting views and investigates possible motives for the choice of goodwill amortisation method through a cross‐company analysis of key characteristics. In addition, sharemarket reaction to key events leading to the change of policy was examined using conventional event‐study methodology. The cross‐company analysis revealed significant differences in the goodwill characteristics between ISOYD companies and non‐ISOYD companies which may have motivated their choice. The result of the event‐study found that no significant abnormal return could be unequivocally attributed to any of the key events or announcements.