Search results

This paper reviews Pacific Accounting Review, 1988–96. Against the background of an historical overview of the journal's development, the paper includes analyses of publications and citations in the journal. The paper looks forward to the future progress of Pacific Accounting Review.

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 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 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.

This paper ranks university faculties, accounting doctoral programs, individual behavioral accounting researchers, and the most influential articles based on Google Scholar citations to publications in Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (AABR). All articles published in AABR in its first 15 volumes are included and four citation metrics are used. The paper identifies the articles, authors, faculties, and doctoral programs that made the greatest contribution to the development of AABR. Such an analysis provides a useful basis for understanding the direction the journal has taken and how it has contributed to the literature (Meyer & Rigsby, 2001). The h-index and m-index for AABR indicates it compares favorably among its peers. Potential doctoral students with an interest in behavioral accounting research, “new” accounting faculty with an interest in behavioral accounting research, current behavioral accounting research faculty, department chairs, deans, and other administrators will find these results informative.

This paper analyzes citations from the first 20 volumes of Advances in Management Accounting using Google Scholar in April and May, 2013.

This study assesses the success of the first 20 volumes of Advances in Management Accounting using citation analysis. Four citation metrics are used. The four citation metrics are: (1) total citations since year of publication until April and May, 2013, (2) citations per author since year of publication until April and May, 2013, (3) citations per year since year of publication until April and May, 2013, and (4) citations per author per year since year of publication until April and May, 2013.

The top 20 authors for each citation metric, the top 20 faculties for each citation metric, and the top 20 doctoral programs for each citation metric are determined. Furthermore, the top 20 articles are determined using two citation metrics and the H-index for Advances in Management Accounting is computed.

Potential doctoral students, current doctoral students, “new” Ph.D.s with an interest in management accounting, current management accounting faculty, department chairs, deans, other administrators, journal editors, and journal publishers will find these results informative.

The study critically evaluates the theory of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) implementation in an attempt to provide directions for future research. Using the extensive structured review of literature using the Scopus database tool, the study reviewed 79 articles, and in particular the topic-related 57 articles were analysed. Nine journals contribute to 51% of articles (29 of 57 articles). In particular, the three journals published 15 articles: Critical Perspectives on Accounting (7), Accounting, Organizations and Society (4), and Journal of Applied Accounting Research (4). In total, 83% (47 of 57) of the articles were published 2009–2018. A total of 1,168 citations were found from 45 articles since 12 articles were without citations. The highest cited authors were Ball (2006) – 410 citations, Kothari, Ramanna, and Skinner (2010) – 135 citations, and Napier (1989) – 85 citations. In particular, five theories have been used widely: institutional theory (13), accounting theory (6), agency theory (3), positive accounting theory (3), and process theory (2). Future studies’ focus could be on theory implications in IFRS adoption/implementation studies in a country or a group of countries’ experience. Future studies could also focus on various theories rather depending on a single theory (i.e. institutional theory).