Search results

Organizational scholars increasingly appreciate the role of categories as bases of order or “cognitive infrastructures” in markets. Yet they construe categories as disciplinary devices. They understand category formation, implementation, and revision as the purview of professionals. And they tie those processes to notions of institutional development that sharply distinguish settled from unsettled or disordered eras. We challenge these conceptions through a historical study of how manufacturers, associations, and cost accountants broke from the disciplinary functions of accounting categories underlying mass production to create new categorical schemes devoted to learning, innovation, and improvement. Reformers reconfigured the uses of categories in markets, mobilizing classifications to spark reflection, experimentation, and improvement among firms by perturbing taken-for-granted assumptions. They also redesigned the practices of producing, implementing, and revising categories. Manufacturers themselves produced and routinely revised classifications through collective deliberation, while accountants served as their consultants, rather than autonomous authorities who monopolized category formation and implementation. In so doing, reformers forged foundations for upgrading markets and fostering competition based on innovation and improvement in a variety of industries. Based on these findings, we extend existing research beyond categorical imperatives to highlight how categories also serve as cognitive infrastructures for learning, discovery, and innovation in markets.

Management has considerable discretion over how to present and announce earnings components that are either unusual or infrequent, but not both (hereafter referred to as special items). In this study, we study the independent and joint effects of the accounting presentation format of, and the level of announcement prominence given to income-decreasing special items on investors’ judgments about the persistence of declining earnings.

Our study uses a 3 (format) × 2 (prominence) between-subjects design. In the experiment, participants act as proxies for nonprofessional investors to assess the persistence of a hypothetical firm’s declining earnings and make investment decisions.

Our results suggest that investors’ judgments are influenced by accounting presentation format and the level of announcement prominence. With respect to format, both classification and disaggregation affect investors’ assessment of earnings persistence. In addition, the degree of prominence given to an income-decreasing special item, albeit self-serving and not audited, introduces additional influence beyond that of accounting presentation format. In particular, we find that announcement prominence has a greater effect when the special item is aggregated with other operating expenses than when the special item is presented under the two other alternatives.

Our study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that presentation format and announcement prominence both have significant impact on investors’ judgments and decisions, and that their effects are interactive. Our results also indicate that future research can possibly gain better insight if it considers the accounting attributes of the special items in addition to their economic attributes.

When decision makers encounter new assurance services that can be customized for individual clients, they must include them in their pre-existing categorization of assurance, a cognitive task known as postclassification. This paper draws upon three literatures (classification research in accounting, theory of assurance, and cognitive psychology) in order to suggest how this task might be modeled and studied empirically, using the example of SysTrust™. The role of a necessary condition for successful postclassification called the category use effect (Ross, 2000), in which decision makers are reminded of pre-existing categories when they learn to use new categories, is explained.

Accounting doctoral programs have been ranked in the past based on publishing productivity and graduate placement. This chapter provides descriptions of accounting doctoral programs on a wider range of characteristics. These results may be particularly useful to doctoral applicants as well as to doctoral program directors, accreditation bodies, and search committees looking to differentiate or benchmark programs. They also provide insight into the current shortage of accounting doctoral graduates and future areas of research.

Doctoral programs can be differentiated on more variables than just research productivity and initial placement. Doctoral programs vary widely with respect to the following characteristics: the rate at which doctorates are conferred on women and minorities, the placement of graduates according to Carnegie classification, AACSB accreditation, the highest degree awarded by employing institution (bachelors, masters, doctorate), the extent to which graduates leave the USA, work in industry, are appointed to administrative positions, and hold endowed positions.

Over the last decade, the accounting convergence process with the development and adoption of IFRS as national standards has become the focus of governments, professionals, and researchers. In 2005, the EU (including Germany) and Australia adopted IFRS. A survey by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (2010) reported that 89 countries have adopted or intend to adopt IFRS for all their domestic listed companies. Currently, more than 100 jurisdictions require or permit the use of IFRS, with countries such as Canada, Brazil, and Argentina being the most recent adopters (IFRS Foundation, 2011b). This growing number of countries implementing IFRS and their experiences and emerging challenges have further raised researchers' interest in this controversial topic (Ashbaugh & Pincus, 2001; Atwood et al., 2011; Byard et al., 2011; Christensen et al., 2007; Daske et al., 2008; Ding et al., 2007; Hail et al., 2010a, 2010b; Kvaal & Nobes, 2010; McAnally et al., 2010; Mechelli, 2009; Niskanen, Kinnunen, & Kasanen, 2000; Stolowy, Haller, & Klockhaus, 2001; Tyrrall et al., 2007). However, these studies have concentrated on the development and application of specific accounting standards and practices and/or cross-national and cross-cultural issues concerning adaptation, implementation, and evaluation of IFRS. Moreover, an increasing number of studies have been devoted to classifications of accounting models and categorization of accounting standards, principles, and values (Chanchani & Willett, 2004; D'Arcy, 2000, 2001; Doupnik & Richter, 2004; Doupnik & Salter, 1993; Gray, 1988; Kamla, Gallhofer, & Haslam, 2006; Nair & Frank, 1980; Patel, 2003, 2007; Perera & Mathews, 1990; Salter & Doupnik, 1992). However, very few studies have critically examined the historical development of accounting practices and issues related to convergence in its socioeconomic context and, importantly, we are not aware of any study that has rigorously examined the institutionalization of Anglo-American accounting practices as international practice with an emphasis on power and legitimacy in the move toward convergence of accounting standards.

International harmonization of accounting standards and the move toward convergence have revived an increasing interest in the influence of culture in accounting and auditing. The growing number of countries adopting IFRS and the increasing acceptance of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) has further raised researchers’ attention. For example, more than 100 countries require or permit the use of IFRS, with more countries, such as Canada, India, and Korea, planning to adopt IFRS by 2011 (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, 2007; IASB, 2007a, 2007b). This move toward convergence is driven largely on assumptions and assertions based on enhancing international comparability of accounting and auditing information.

Over the last decade, international accounting harmonization and convergence with the increasing adoption of IFRS as national accounting standards have become dominant topics in international accounting research (Ashbaugh & Pincus, 2001; Chand & Patel, 2008; Christensen et al., 2007; Daske & Gebhardt, 2006; Daske et al., 2008; Ding et al., 2007; Hellmann et al., 2010; Lantto & Sahlström, 2008; Larson & Kenny, 2011; Peng & van der Laan Smith, 2010; Rezaee et al., 2010; Tyrrall et al., 2007). Given that the primary goal of international convergence is enhancing comparability of financial statements across countries, the influence of accountants’ professional judgment in the interpretation and application of accounting standards has increasingly been recognized as an important and controversial topic. Indeed, a growing number of studies have analyzed the influence of culture on standard setting (Bloom & Naciri, 1989; Ding et al., 2005; Schultz & Lopez, 2001), auditor independence (Agacer & Doupnik, 1991; Hwang et al., 2008; Patel & Psaros, 2000), and accountants’ values and judgments (Doupnik & Riccio, 2006; Doupnik & Richter, 2003, 2004; Patel, 2003). Although prior research has provided evidence that culture influences accountants’ exercise of professional judgments, these studies have largely focused on demonstrating differences between accountants from very distinct cultures or accounting systems. For example, Chand (2008) as well as Doupnik and Richter (2004) examined differences in the judgment of professional accountants with regard to the interpretation and application of uncertainty expressions by comparing Australian and Fijian and German and American accountants, respectively. Moreover, recent research on professional accountants’ judgments (Chand, 2008; Doupnik & Riccio, 2006; Doupnik & Richter, 2003) has largely focused on providing evidence that accountants from different accounting clusters significantly differ in their exercise of professional judgment. Indeed, researchers have often based their country selections on theoretical models of accounting clusters such as Gray's (1988) framework of accounting values or Nobes’ (1983) international accounting classification, predominantly to show differences between the Anglo-American accounting model and the Continental European accounting model.

This chapter examines the development of accounting thought and practices in China with the purpose of illustrating its relevance to current accounting policies and practices. The review indicates that changes in accounting in China did not usually occur completely and easily. Over the past three decades, while Chinese accounting has gradually moved toward the Anglo-American model, convergence has presented unique features in China. For example, the review suggests that the accounting reforms in China have been heavily government-driven and that uniform accounting systems still remain. Chinese regulators maintain a cautious attitude toward the application of fair value and professional judgment, which are essentially the center of the Anglo-American accounting system. Furthermore, Chinese accounting regulators have a different view of business combinations from the IASB and have developed alternative accounting methods for those transactions. China’s departure from IFRS reflects its politico-economic context and essentially challenges the IASB’s goal of achieving international accounting convergence. China’s approach to internationally acceptable practices is likely to have implications for the effectiveness of the imported ideas.

The authors measure the impact of culture on Sharia; Social and Financial Disclosure (SSFD) of Islamic Banks (IBs) around the world.

Content analysis is used to measure levels of disclosure for a sample of 136 IBs of 25 countries for years 2013 and 2014. Different cultural measures are used. These include secrecy/transparency as suggested by Gray (1988) and Hofstede (1980, 1983, 2001, 2010)’s culture dimensions which include: Power Distance; Individualism; Masculinity; Uncertainty Avoidance; Long-Term Ordination and Indulgence. Ordinary least square (OLS) regression is used to test the research hypotheses.

After controlling bank-specific, corporate governance and country characteristics, the authors found that Hofstede’s culture dimensions have a significant impact on SSFD. They also found that Gray's transparency dimension positively influence levels of sharia, social and aggregated disclosure. Therefore, they conclude that culture influences levels of disclosure in IBs.

This study has policy implications for managers and regulators of Islamic banking industry.

This study is the first to use both Gray and Hofstede models in the context of IBs around the world. It also the first to explore the impact of culture on three different disclosure levels for IBs.