Search results

From the sociolinguistic perspective, the purpose of this paper is to examine whether the honorific and actual-name appellations that Chinese auditors use to address clients in audit reports connote differential financial misstatement risk. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that auditors’ use of honorifics signals their inferior social status relative to their clients, thereby leading to compromised auditor independence, lower audit quality, and higher financial misstatement risk.

The authors use a sample of manually coded appellation data from audit reports of Chinese public firms between 2003 and 2012 to conduct the research.

The authors find significantly greater financial misstatements, both in terms of likelihoods and magnitudes, for companies addressed by honorifics than for those addressed by actual names. Moreover, compared to auditors’ consistent honorific usage, discretionary honorific usage has a stronger positive association with misstatements. The authors further show that the positive association between honorific usage and client misstatement risk weakens when the audit firm is a Top 10 accounting firms in China, is an industry specialist, is formed as a partnership, or resides in a more concentrated audit market.

This study contributes to the sociolinguistics literature in accounting and provides evidence supporting the reform proposed by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board to enhance the usefulness of audit reporting.

This paper argues that laissez faire capitalism is the last best hope for mankind. That if the human race is to survive and prosper, put an end to starvation, hopelessness and unemployment, then we must embrace private property rights, the rule of law and free enterprise. No longer should “profits” be a dirty word.

Provides an introduction to the Special Issue by discussing the nature of marketing science in a postmodern world. Argues that science needs marketing more than marketing needs science. (Look folks, I didn’t want to include a review of my own book, but the regular journal editor insisted ‐ honest! ‐ and, anyway, Thompson was desperate for the publication. I’m just too soft, that’s my problem. Please excuse my unacademic behaviour. Pretty please.)

In a seeming attempt to legitimate or otherwise dignify social economics (Économie sociale, etc.), “named” economists (Adam Smith, Karl Marx et al.) have been dubbed social economists and/or regarded as having made significant but unrecognised contributions thereto. Conspicuously absent from that roster of celebrities are Léon Walras, économiste social par excellence, et al., who have distinguished themselves in the mainstream but also have done social economy(ics) explicitly, i.e. by that designation. Included in that illustrious et al. list are François Quesnay, J.B. Say, Friedrich von Wieser and Knut Wicksell (inter alios). Their due recognition, as per the present essay, cannot help but measurably further legitimise/dignify social economics.

This study aims to compare machine learning models, datasets and splitting training-testing using data mining methods to detect financial statement fraud.

This study uses a quantitative approach from secondary data on the financial reports of companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in the last ten years, from 2010 to 2019. Research variables use financial and non-financial variables. Indicators of financial statement fraud are determined based on notes or sanctions from regulators and financial statement restatements with special supervision.

The findings show that the Extremely Randomized Trees (ERT) model performs better than other machine learning models. The best original-sampling dataset compared to other dataset treatments. Training testing splitting 80:10 is the best compared to other training-testing splitting treatments. So the ERT model with an original-sampling dataset and 80:10 training-testing splitting are the most appropriate for detecting future financial statement fraud.

This study can be used by regulators, investors, stakeholders and financial crime experts to add insight into better methods of detecting financial statement fraud.

This study proposes a machine learning model that has not been discussed in previous studies and performs comparisons to obtain the best financial statement fraud detection results. Practitioners and academics can use findings for further research development.

This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing methodological discussions surrounding the adoption of ethnographic approaches in accounting by undertaking a comparative analysis of ethnography in anthropology and ethnography in qualitative accounting research. By doing so, it abductively speculates on the factors influencing the distinct characteristics of ethnography in accounting and explores their implications.

This paper uses a comparative approach, organizing the comparison using Van Maanen’s (2011a, 2011b) framework of field-, head- and text-work phases in ethnography. Furthermore, it draws on the author’s experience as a qualitative researcher who has conducted ethnographic research for more than a decade across the disciplines of anthropology and accounting, as well as for non-academic organizations, to provide illustrative examples for the comparison.

This paper finds that ethnography in accounting, when compared to its counterpart in anthropology, demonstrates a stronger inclination towards scientific aspirations. This is evidenced by its prevalence of realist tales, a high emphasis on “methodological rigour”, a focus on high-level theorization and other similar characteristics. Furthermore, the scientific aspiration and hegemony of the positivist paradigm in accounting research, when leading to a change of the evaluation criteria of non-positivist research, generate an impoverishment of interpretive and ethnographic research in accounting.

This paper provides critical insights from a comparative perspective, highlighting the marginalized position of ethnography in accounting research. By understanding the mechanisms of marginalization, the paper commits to reflexivity and advocates for meaningful changes within the field.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether or not marketing academics practise what they preach. Are they marketing‐oriented in their main business of knowledge creation and dissemination?

The epistemological marketing literature and performance at producing true marketing knowledge are critically reviewed. Practitioner marketing knowledge is investigated through the literature, personal contacts and a simple direct research study.

The paper finds that only one kind of knowledge, so‐called “marketing science”, is now regarded as valid. Unfortunately, this kind of knowledge can only be built through extensive and independent testing. After 50 years of following this approach, the output is very small, very expensive and largely of no interest to practitioners because marketing knowledge means something quite different to them. Marketing academics have become myopic as to what marketing knowledge is, and they have become production‐oriented, with the objective of producing as much of it as possible.

There is a need to stop trying to tell practitioners what to do and to shift one's research emphasis to conceptual humanism, postmodern science, direct and action research, tools for practitioners, marketing facts, and educating the whole student.

The paper has made an attempt to change the course of marketing academic literature.