Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the origins and development of the “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ) Community”, a flourishing international interdisciplinary accounting research community. This scholarly community has emerged over some 30 years from the publication in 1988 of the inaugural issue of AAAJ under the joint editorship of James Guthrie and Lee Parker. This historical account discusses the motivation for establishing the journal and the important publishing initiatives, developments and trends across this period. The study positions the journal as a key thought leader, the catalyst for other Community activities such as the Asia-Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting conference.

The investigation involved a selective review of the contents of AAAJ, particularly the annual editorials published since inception, and other relevant literature, analysis of the main research themes and the most cited papers, and oral history interviews with the joint editors. The future prospects for the AAAJ Community are addressed.

The AAAJ Community has shaped and led developments in interdisciplinary accounting research. Recognised for innovation and with a reputation for nurturing scholars, AAAJ continues to grow in stature as one of the world’s leading accounting journals, challenging the status quo and fostering inclusive scholarship.

The study does not examine the journal’s publication patterns nor assess in detail the research studies that have been published in the journal.

The study recognises AAAJ as central to the development of an interdisciplinary accounting research community, firmly located in the sociological, critical and interpretative tradition also associated with some other leading accounting journals.

In two experiments on reactions to persistent annoyance from another person, participants employed a very orderly verbal escalation sequence that fit a cascading Guttman scale. This began with requests and moved on to demands, and then to complaints, angry statements, threats, harassment, and abuse, in that order. The more escalated the tactic, the fewer people used it. People seldom skipped a step on the way to their most escalated tactic. Two possible explanations for this pattern seemed plausible in light of the data, that it is due to either a widely snared try‐try‐again script or a declining hierarchy of thresholds. Verbal escalation was associated with a negative view of the annoyer's character, while physical escalation was associated with blame and feelings of frustration and anger. Escalation was discouraged by membership in the same group as the annoyer. Loud noise did not encourage escalation in general but promoted the use of angry statements.

This editorial reflects on 25 years of AAAJ and on the interdisciplinary accounting movement and its future direction. It emphasises the Editors' commitment to encouraging the application of a broad range of theories and research methodologies as well as their ongoing support for diversity as a defining feature of AAAJ. This includes the wider community, which includes the APIRA conference attendees, Special Issue editors and the many individuals who have all played an important part in AAAJ's 25 years. The Editors continue to urge interdisciplinary accounting researchers to undertake innovative research and be both original and creative, thereby avoiding a narrowness that is an increasing feature of North American economics based accounting research. The important role of academic researchers is highlighted in not simply observing, but also engaging in and constructing an enabling accounting. The purpose here is to reflect on the past and to look towards the future.

The paper employs a literature‐based analysis and critique. It also identifies via empirical data the field of scholarship associated with AAAJ and evidence of the patterning of recent publications.

This editorial draws together various themes in our previous AAAJ editorials and highlights milestones in the journey to our current position. It identifies various challenges that confront interdisciplinary researchers in the globalised academic community. It also points to the need for researchers to reflect on their motivation, informing theories and values to ensure that their academic endeavours are making a contribution to practice, policy and a wider societal good.

It is hoped the practical and research issues explored in this editorial will invoke more interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting and the accounting profession, and assist scholars in reflecting on their academic studies and potential challenges facing them.

This editorial reflects on the developments in AAAJ over the past 25 years and discusses various contributions. It also celebrates the top ten authors, topics, Special Issue editors, and the last ten AAAJ Best Paper awards.

The study maps workplace stakeholders’ perceptions of living wage (LW) impacts in New Zealand. Empirical findings inform an inaugural model of LW impacts and contingent factors at individual, organisation, sector/industry and national levels.

Data from a national employee survey, semi-structured interviews with business sector representatives, and staff in two LW organisation cases were subjected to thematic content analysis.

Informants emphasised anticipated LW impacts amid complex workplace and regulatory dynamics. Employers/managers stressed its cost effects. However, employees, human resource (HR) advocates and other LW proponents highlighted employee “investment” impacts that improve worker productivity and societal circumstances.

This study highlights the need for further context-sensitive LW analysis. An initial model of LW impacts provides a framework for comparative and longitudinal work in other national contexts.

The proposed model categorises perceived LW effects and can inform policy development. Findings also stress a need for cross-agency initiatives to address LW concerns, including a key role for HR.

The findings highlight perceptions of a LW impacting within and beyond the workplace. Whilst higher-quality management is seen to encourage better-informed decisions about “going living wage”, a LW's positive socio-economic impacts require multi-lateral initiatives, suggesting that those initiatives are is part of wider obligations for policy makers to encourage decent living standards.

This study provides a much-needed and inaugural focus on the intertwined workplace and wider impacts of a LW, extending extant econometric analyses. The paper also synthesizes different data sources to develop an inaugural, context-sensitive model of perceived LW effects.

Proposes to treat social law contracts by covering the two most important aspects of the contract of employment, and also the collective agreement. Covers the contract of employment in full with all the integral laws explained as required, including its characteristics, written particulars, sources or regulations, with regard to employers, are also covered. Lengthy coverage of the collective agreement is also included, showing legal as well as moral (!) requirements, also included are cases in law that are covered in depth.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the focus and changing nature of measuring academic accounting research quality. The paper addresses contemporary changes in academic publishing, metrics for determining research quality and the possible impacts on accounting scholars. These are considered in relation to the core values of interdisciplinary accounting research ‒ that is, the pursuit of novel, rigorous, significant and authentic research motivated by a passion for scholarship, curiosity and solving wicked problems. The impact of changing journal rankings and research citation metrics on the traditional and highly valued role of the accounting academic is further considered. In this setting, the paper also provides a summary of the journal’s activities for 2018, and in the future.

Drawing on contemporary data sets, the paper illustrates the increasingly diverse and confusing array of “evidence” brought to bear on the question of the relative quality of accounting research. Commercial products used to rate and rank journals, and judge the academic impact of individual scholars and their papers not only offer insight and visibility, but also have the potential to misinform scholars and their assessors.

In the move from simple journal ranking lists to big data and citations, and increasingly to concerns with impact and engagement, the authors identify several challenges facing academics and administrators alike. The individual academic and his or her contribution to scholarship are increasingly marginalised in the name of discipline, faculty and institutional performance. A growing university performance management culture within, for example, the UK and Australasia, has reached a stage in the past decade where publication and citation metrics are driving allocations of travel grants, research grants, promotions and appointments. With an expanded range of available metrics and products to judge their worth, or have it judged for them, scholars need to be increasingly informed of the nuanced or not-so-nuanced uses to which these measurement systems will be put. Narrow, restricted and opaque peer-based sources such as journal ranking lists are now being challenged by more transparent citation-based sources.

The issues addressed in this commentary offer a critical understanding of contemporary metrics and measurement in determining the quality of interdisciplinary accounting research. Scholars are urged to reflect upon the challenges they face in a rapidly moving context. Individuals are increasingly under pressure to seek out preferred publication outlets, developing and curating a personal citation profile. Yet such extrinsic outcomes may come at the cost of the core values that motivate the interdisciplinary scholar and research.

This paper provides a forward-looking focus on the critical role of academics in interdisciplinary accounting research.

In an article entitled “Collective Bargaining — a theoretical analysis” A. Flanders defined collective bargaining as an “…institution for the joint regulation of labour management and labour markets.” The collective agreement, the result of the collective bargain, is normally an uninforceable contract and is a very different legal notion from that of the contract of employment. The function of the collective agreement is to regulate relations between the collective parties, that is between the employer's association or an individual employer, and a union or unions. Such relations are known as relations of a collective nature. They could include procedure agreements between the collective parties in relation to no‐strikes or other industrial action before the disputes procedure has been exhausted; matters to do with the structure of negotiations between the parties; the constitution of the bodies set up for collective bargaining purposes; procedures on re‐ negotiation of the collective agreement; and so on. The collective agreement has however another function, the individual function, which regulates relations between employer and employee. Terms and conditions of employment are usually regulated by the collective agreement. Thus pay scales, hours of work, holidays, wages during illness, overtime work, any matters relating to training, re‐training, apprenticeship, are some from among the numerous subjects to be found in conditions of employment. Procedures which relate to the individual employee, such as grievance and disciplinary procedures, may equally feature as part of the terms and conditions of employment which emanate from the collective agreement. Indeed statute requires that the employer gives his employee particulars of this latter's major terms and conditions of employment.

The purpose of this paper is to establish the influence of shopping motivations on Chinese fashion retail engagement relative to demographics, monthly spend on fashion items and high street/electronic commerce (e-commerce) preference. This is to determine how international fashion retailers should design more effective retails channels, expanding upon established theory in Hedonic and utilitarian motivations. While earlier research suggests shopping motivations associate with demographics while influencing retail channel preference and consumer spending, much of this exploration is Western focused, with all variables being influential. However, the degree to which these apply to China, and the unique fingerprint of influential motivations remains unknown. This paper answers these questions to allow international retailers to develop more efficient marketing strategies and design more effective retail channels.

In all, 403 Chinese consumers generalisable to the broader population were surveyed on their hedonic and utilitarian motivations to shop for fashion apparel in high street and e-commerce environments. Statistical analysis was commenced through direct logistic regression and MANOVA.

Demographics have limited association with shopping motivations, with gender and age only producing small effect sizes, while occupation, income and education has no significance. High street store preference is influenced by adventure and social shopping and e-commerce preference only by idea shopping. Spending over ¥1k per month on fashion apparel is influenced by gratification and idea shopping, and regular spending habits inspired by value shopping.

This empirical paper characterises the fingerprint of shopping motivations’ influence as singular to China while proving their limitation and need for a wider plethora of influential factors to be recognised.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on 30 years of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ), and contemplates the future. It makes a case for diversity, including a broad range of theories and research methodologies, as a defining feature of AAAJ. As we have done since 1988 in AAAJ’s first editorial, we continue to urge interdisciplinary accounting researchers to undertake innovative research and be both original and creative, avoiding the narrow focus and detachment from society that is characteristic of globally pervasive North American economics-based accounting research.

The paper employs an analysis and critique of trends in interdisciplinary research, drawing upon the previous 29 editorials/commentaries published in AAAJ. It also elucidates the field of scholarship associated with AAAJ in 2016 as evidence of the patterning of recent research and publishing trends.

This paper identifies challenges confronting interdisciplinary researchers in the globalised academic community. These include our obsession with theoretical engorgement and our adversarial rather than cooperative approach to knowledge development. Furthermore, the authors argue that researchers must reflect on their motivation, informing theories and values if they intend to contribute to practice, policy and a wider societal good. Accounting researchers have a responsibility to go beyond observation, engaging in and constructing a more equal and fair society.

This commentary reflects on developments in AAAJ and its community over three decades. The authors also address the wider AAAJ community, including the Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting (APIRA) conference attendees, AAAJ special issue editors, the editorial board, ad hoc reviewers, authors and supporters across AAAJ’s 30 years.