1 The Research-Publication Complex and the

The Research-Publication Complex and the Construct Shift in Accounting Research Wm. Dennis Huber Capella University School of Business and Technology Minneapolis, MN 55402 [email protected]

The author expresses his appreciation for the helpful comments and suggestions of Bob Jensen, Marc Depree, Zane Swanson, Mae Chapman, Toby Bishop, Doug Ziegenfuss, and the 2014 International Conference of Critical Accounting. 1

Abstract Accounting research and publishing, tenure and promotion, elite journals, journal rankings, influential articles, faculty productivity, and academics vs. practitioners have been critically studied for decades. Empirical support is absent in many of the critical studies on accounting research and publishing, however, or lack sufficient support to corroborate all the criticisms. Furthermore, these studies remain isolated for the most part, and lack a unifying theme which diminishes their contribution to understanding the fundamental nature of the accounting research-publication complex. This study reports the results of a recent survey that confirms what many already knew from experience or suspected anecdotally, and which some studies have shown empirically—that there exists a research-publication complex resulting from, and sustained by, a construct-shift in accounting research. Only academic researchers read and publish in academic accounting publications, merely reinforcing each other through mutual citation. This raises questions such as what is the purpose and ultimate goal of accounting research and publishing, and if research is intended to contribute to accounting knowledge, whose knowledge does it contribute to?

2

Keywords: accounting research, doctoral education, journals, academics, practitioners, researchpublication complex, construct shift

3

What a world! What a world! The Wicked Witch of the West, Wizard of Oz.

Introduction and Purpose On January 17, 1961 outgoing U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower delivered a speech in which he warned the nation that “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists.” That misplaced power he termed the “military-industrial complex.” Within the accounting profession there now exists a research-publication complex that has resulted in the accretion of misplaced power by accounting academics to control the creation, dissemination, and publication of accounting knowledge through a well-orchestrated construct-shift in accounting research with corresponding not potential, but actual, intellectually disastrous results. That a schism exists between academics and practitioners1 within the accounting profession was recognized in the literature more than a quarter of a century ago (Bricker & Previts, 1990, citing Cooper & Zeff, 1968; Bloom, Heymann, Fuglister, & Collins, 1994; Parker, Guthrie, & Linacre, 2011). The responsibility for the schism is attributable almost exclusively to academics, who long ago consigned to the realm of irrelevancy almost all research that has practical, social, or professional application or consequence. Bloom, et al (1994) actually trace the origins of the schism back to the early 1900s, but they acknowledge that the schism became more divisive beginning in the late 1960s, as discussed below. Accounting research and publishing, tenure and promotion, elite journals, editors of elite journals from elitist universities, journal rankings, influential articles, doctoral-level accounting education, and individual faculty productivity, have been studied and criticized for decades. But there has been no empirical research to explore the nature and extent of the division between the

1

The terms “professional” and “practitioner” are used here synonymously.

4

academy (academics) 2 and the institute (practitioners),3,4 and no studies have been conducted that could reveal how that division might be reflected in their reading, research, and publication characteristics. This purposes of this paper are (1) to determine empirically how significant is the division between the academy and the institute; (2) to quantify the differences between the reading, research, and publication characteristics of academics and practitioners; and (3) to identify the parameters of the division between academics and practitioners as expressed through their reading, research, and publication characteristics. The results of a survey of 247 academics and practitioners indicate that the division is significant. Responses provide empirical support that not only confirm the widely held belief that accounting research is controlled by academics but more importantly, that accounting research is circular (Fogarty, 2011). Like particles in a cyclotron, accounting research feeds upon itself, accelerating with each pass around the citation magnets where it is reinforced, recycled, and repackaged. It is a closed system which shows no signs of acquiescing to demands for change (Hopwoood, 2007). Journal editors, supported by university administrators, deans, and chairs have effectively reduced to a whisper, if not outright silenced,5 any meaningful dissension or threat that would disrupt the current homeostasis, with reinforcement from accrediting agencies.

2

“Academy” or “accounting academy” is used broadly here to refer to the education-research-publishing complex which consists of faculty and administrators in institutions of higher education (e.g., chairs and deans), journal editors, and journal reviewers. 3 “Institute” as used here does not refer to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants or its members. It is a generic term that refers to all non-academic practitioners regardless of their employment whether an accounting firm, their own practices, government, law enforcement, or corporations. 4 The division between academics and practitioners is not uniquely American. In Canada, for example, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) represents practitioners, and the Canadian Academic Accounting Association (CAAA) represents academics. Whether the division between academics and practitioners in other countries mirrors that in the U.S. is not a part of this study. 5 “Is the AAA Ostracicing Briloff?,” Owsen, D. (2001). Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(2), 193-194; “Who Gets to Speak and What Must They Say? A Commentary on the Briloff Affair.” Williams, P.F. (2001). Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(2), 213-219; “Briloff and the Lost Horizon,” Tinker, T. (2001). Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(2), 149-152; “Key Issues Arising from Professor A. J. Briloff's Paper,” Connell, B. O. (2001). Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(2), 167-186.

5

As discussed below, the research-publication complex is unaccommodating to diverse points of view. Although the publication policies of one “elite” journal assert that “any research methodology and any accounting-related subject” is acceptable,6 research, as discussed below, has demonstrated that implementation of this policy is effectively ignored by the researchpublication complex. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section discusses the Importance and Contribution of the study. This is followed by a Literature Review, the Hypotheses and Methodology, Results and Discussion, and finally the Conclusion. Importance and Contribution This is not the first study to call attention to defects in the accounting researchpublication complex. But it uniquely consolidates previous critical studies of accounting research and publishing, doctoral-level accounting education, tenure and promotion policies, elite journals, editors of elite journals, journal rankings, influential journals, influential articles, and individual faculty productivity. When consolidated, an unmistakable pattern emerges. To borrow a phrase from Emile Durkheim, the academics have erected a wall between the sacred academics and the profane practitioner. In spite of repeated pleas by critics, both academics and practitioners, the accounting research-publication complex continues to reinforce the sanctification of the academics and the secularization of the practitioners. The Pathways Commission (AAA, 2012), a joint undertaking of the American Accounting Association (AAA) and the (American Institute of Public Accountants (AICPA), developed several recommendations and objectives designed to address the disparity between academics and practitioners. Recommendation 1 states “Build a learned profession for the future 6

“The scope of acceptable articles should embrace any research methodology and any accounting-related subject… [The Accounting Review] is also open to all rigorous research methods” (AAA, 2013c).

6

by purposeful integration of accounting research, education, and practice for students, accounting practitioners, and educators.” Objective 1.2 states, “Focus more academic research on relevant practice issues.” The unavoidable implications of the Recommendations and Objectives, of course, are that (1) previous and current academic research does not provide a “purposeful integration of accounting research, education, and practice for students, accounting practitioners, and educators,” and (2) previous and current academic research does not sufficiently focus on relevant practice issues. The question that must be asked then, is “why?” This study attempts to provide at least some answers to that question. The Pathways Commission Recommendation and Objective would be more admirable were it not for the fact that it is not the first time that an appeal to broaden the accounting research and publication spectrum and allow access to publication of research more relevant to social, professional, and practice has been made. All, even those made by Hopwood (2007), Kaplan (2011), Demski (2008)7, Rayburn (2005), and Zeff (Granoff & Zeff, 2008), some of whom served as presidents of the AAA, have been dutifully ignored. Ratzinger-Sakel, Yoon, and Gray (2013) examined the recommendations made by the “overseers” of auditors over the previous three decades in order to “provide a baseline or population for audit researchers to consider in order to expand their audit research agenda and to better align their research to ‘the practice of the craft’ to use Hopwood’s phrase. There can be a symbiotic relationship between audit practice and academics that benefits all parties” (p. 1). Commendable to be sure, but it emphasizes the seriousness of the problem— three decades of audit research that has had little impact on audit practice; three decades

7

Demski, for example, asks “How do we rekindle scholarly inquiry in accounting? How do we break down the selfprotective trade barriers that insulate each of our tribes?”

7

of audit research that has disenfranchised the practitioner community; and three decades of recommendations by “overseers” with too little practical response from the researchpublication complex. But the problem is not limited to auditing. The decades-old problem encompasses the whole of accounting as a discipline. While auditing and financial accounting and reporting have customarily received the primary focus in the accounting research-publication complex, managerial accounting, accounting information systems, and of late, forensic accounting have been receiving greater emphasis due in part to the fallout following Enron and Arthur Andersen and the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley.8 Nevertheless, research in these sub-disciplines is likewise subject to the same publication limitations as financial accounting and auditing. While there is a time and a place for it, this study will not assert a “contribution to the literature” since that, as explained below, is the essence of the problem of the researchpublication complex. What is not needed is more literature. Rather, this study contributes to the understanding of the nature and characteristics of the division between academics and practitioners, and the social and professional implications of the division. This study builds on previous critical works as discussed in the literature review that together have exposed the failure of the research-publication complex. Missing from many critical studies, however, are attempts to distinguish who publishes where and why, who reads what and why, who finds what publications useful, and the reasons why researchers engage in research. This knowledge is essential in order to measure and substantiate the nature and extent of the characteristics of the division between academics and practitioners.

8

Although corporate tax is historically part of accounting, both academic and practitioner, corporate tax is a separate issue due the statutory nature of income tax. Tax research and publications are not included in this study.

8

The unique contribution of this study is that it combines in a more comprehensive and systematic manner earlier critical studies and provides empirical support for some previous critical studies that lacked such support, while giving additional support to empirical studies that investigated a single aspect of the research-publication complex such as publication criteria for faculty promotion. In so doing, it includes issues not previously considered as part of the critical studies of the research-publication complex such as who reads accounting publications; who finds which accounting publications useful and why; who publishes in which accounting publications and why; and how important it is to publish in order to be promoted. The importance of this study is that first, it brings together previous critical studies of the research-publication complex all in one place by incorporating them into a cohesive, integrated, whole focuses on the entire research-publication complex. Second, it provides empirical support where empirical support was previously lacking, or additional empirical support where it was present, confirming the validity of those criticisms. Third, it substantiates the exclusionary practices of the accounting research-publication complex. Finally, it establishes an empirical foundation that identifies the nature of the deficiencies in the accounting research-publication complex in its limiting access to the avenues of communication between academics and practitioners. The next section reviews the literature of research on the research-publication complex. It is representative, rather than exhaustive or comprehensive, due to the quantity of studies conducted over the last 40 years. Literature Review It is a well-known maximum in academia—“publish or perish.” But publish what? Publish where? Not all journals are considered equal. The literature review covers journals’

9

scope and research methodologies as stated in their editorial policies; citation analysis (“bibliometrics”); journal rankings, journal quality, influential articles, and elite journals; and promotion and tenure, faculty productivity, and doctoral education. It begins with an examination of the American Accounting Association’s role in the accounting researchpublication complex and the influence of the AACSB in establishing and maintaining the barriers of the accounting research-publication complex. The American Accounting Association in Pied Piper-esque fashion bills itself as “Thought Leaders in Accounting” (AAA, 2013a). Questions that naturally come to mind include, what thoughts, to where does the AAA intend to lead, to where does the AAA believe it is leading, whom does it claim they are leading, who is following and why, and most important for this study is how are they leading? Perhaps it could also be asked, are those who follow, following willingly? The answers are partially supplied by the AAA itself: “The AAA will work through its annual meetings, publications, and conferences to provide useful though [sic] leadership...” (AAA 2010, emphasis added). Similarly, its Bylaws state, “II. The Purposes and Objectives of the Association Shall Be: To further the discipline and profession of accounting through thought leadership in education, research, and service” (AAA, 2013b). This in turn raises additional questions – how useful is the “thought leadership” it provides, to whom is it useful, and for what purpose; how is its “thought leadership” articulated in education; and how is its “thought leadership” related to service? Inanga and Schneider (2005), for example, report the results of a survey of employees of large accounting firms and solo practitioners in the U.S. They found that academic research is

10

not useful to practitioners. To paraphrase Inanga and Schneider (and with due credit paid to Cool Hand Luke), “What we've got here is failure to communicate.” Interestingly, the AAA does claim to be “Thought Leaders in Accounting Education” or “Thought Leaders in Accounting Research” or “Thought Leaders in Accounting Service;” just “Thought Leaders in Accounting” as an all-embracing mantra designed and intended to lead accounting thought in the direction it has unilaterally determined. The avenue by which it leads is through its annual meetings and conferences where research is presented and critiqued with the intent for researchers to conform to the critiques in order to increase the likelihood of acceptance by a journal for publication (Schwartz, Williams, & Williams, 2005). Yet, Tinker (1995) notes that no academic papers critical of the AAA have ever been presented at a plenary session at any or its conferences. For over a century academic accounting journals have been the “accepted form of disseminating academic knowledge” (Tinker, 1995, p. 243). The means by which the AAA exhibit “though leadership,” therefore, is mainly through its various publications, in particular The Accounting Review, where researchers aspire to have their research published in order to achieve a status of having published in an elite journal which in turn enhances the likelihood of receiving a promotion. The social capital endowed upon researchers who publish in The Accounting Review and other elite journals is enormous (Chow, Haddad, Singh, & Wu, 2007). It should be noted that the AAA is not singled out here as the sole representative of the accounting academy. There are accounting academics, for example, who are not members of the AAA. Likewise there are members of the AAA who are not part of the accounting academy. Some are members of both the AAA and the AICPA. Also, other organizations hold conferences where research is presented and critiqued, and subsequently submitted to a journal for

11

publication. But the model established by the accounting research-publication complex, as embodied in the AAA and its publications, is replicated virtually worldwide. The AAA reflects the essence of the accounting academy if for no other reason than its sheer size. But in addition to size, it publishes many accounting journals, including the topranked The Accounting Review. The scope and breadth of its influence in accounting education, research, and publication must therefore be recognized as an integral part of the researchpublication complex. Furthermore, its audacious claim that it is the “Thought Leaders in Accounting” necessarily subjects it to critical scrutiny in all aspects that define both “accounting thought leadership” and the research-publication complex. Prior research both praising and condemning the AAA and the accounting research-publication complex has been directed toward the AAA and its publications. Finally, the reach of the AAA’s influence through its publications extends globally. 9 A 2008 special issue of the European Accounting Review focused on Accounting and Academia. “A vibrant debate has augmented our understanding of the conditions which make certain kinds of accounting knowledge more acceptable than others. The debate included, but was not limited to, issues such as, the institutional arrangements of accounting academic associations and doctoral training regimes and how these shape journals’ editorial boards and the selection of published articles” (Khalif & Quattrone, 2008, p. 65). Khalif and Quattrone acknowledged the role of the AAA in “the reproduction mechanisms of the accounting academia” through editorial boards, doctoral training, and the use of citation analyses of academic journals in “defining the contours of accounting knowledge” (p. 66) and implicated the AAA in determining what is relevant accounting research through “the various journals published under the AAA’s auspices” (p. 69).

9

The Accounting Review, for example, publishes research conducted by academics in many other countries.

12

The division between academics and practitioners in the U.S. became more evident around the early 1990s (see Previts & Merino, 1998, pp. 416-421). Out of 10,762 members in 1966, 30% were academic members. Total membership had fallen to 9,303 by 1990 with 75% academic members out of a total of 9,303. By 2011, out of a total membership of 8,717, 82% were academic members (Pinkus, 2012). Gray, Guthrie, and Parker (2002) observed that the decline in practitioner members of the AAA reveals the tendency of academics to fail to engage in significant relevant research. The decrease in practitioner members and the increase in academic members has been attributed in no small part to the advent of quantitative research in capital markets in 1968 and the subsequent development of Positive Accounting Theory ultimately resulting in a constructshift that emphasizes quantitative research methods. The construct-shift with its incessant emphasis on quantitative research methodologies is a consequence of an attempt to transform accounting into a science and accounting research into scientific research using scientific methods (Williams, 2009). Why accounting is not and never can be a science, and why accounting research cannot be accomplished using the scientific method, is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that the attempt to transform accounting research into a scientific discipline (Basu, 2012) have injected a barrier between accounting academics and accounting practitioners and an unwillingness of the practitioner community to invest in academe. Heck and Jensen (2007), for example, observed that The Accounting Review evolved into a journal that is “incomprehensible and, thus, of little interest to practitioners and many accounting educators [Flesher, 1991, p. 169].”

13

Some have used the term “paradigm” to describe the dominance of the current state of accounting research (Tinker, 1995; Lee & Williams, 1999; Williams, 2009; Moerman, 2010), and “paradigm shift” to describe the transformation of accounting research. Beaver (1981) and Williams (2009) describe the process as a “radical change” and a “financial reporting revolution,” while Heck and Jensen (2007) refer to it as “a monumental shift.” Whatever one calls it, it did not happen in a vacuum. A social construct determines how society sees and interprets social phenomena (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Brante, 2010). Since accounting is a social phenomenon, it is a social construct10 (Wildavsky, 1998; Lee, 2006; Boyce, Greer, Blair, & Davids, 2008). I therefore choose to use the terms “construct” and “construct shift” to refer to the shift from one dominant social construct (here, practice- and normative-based accounting research) to another dominant social construct (theory- and positive-based, empirical accounting research). As so clearly expressed by Moerman (2010), “The dominant paradigm [construct] limits the type of research questions posed, the research method and the subsequent insights gained from accounting research” (p. 1). The publications of the AAA are not the only academic publications, of course. Some are published by universities or are independent from any organization or university. For example, Accounting, Organizations and Society, another top-ranked journal, is not American and is not associated with any particular organization or university. The Journal of Accounting Research is associated with the University of Chicago. Yet, whether affiliated with an organization or university, or independent, since the editors and reviewers often serve as editors or reviewers for multiple journals (Lee, 1995; Williams, Jenkins, & Ingraham, 2006; Fogarty & Liao, 2009), the 10

Even advice on how to conduct accounting research is considered a social construct (Fogarty, 2011).

14

same mindsets (“isomorphisms”) are reinforced, replicated, and proliferated throughout the research-publishing complex (Lee, 1999; Tuttle & Dillard, 2007).11 The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB) has also contributed significantly to the self-canonization of academics and their research, and the corresponding ghettoization12 of the practitioner. The AACSB has established dual tracking for accreditation criteria—AQ and PQ (AACSB 2003). This dual tracking is reminiscent of the now discredited student tracking in highs schools where there was an “academic track for collegebound students [and] a vocational track for students headed for jobs” (Kulik, 1998). Academically Qualified (AQ) faculty are those who have an earned doctoral degree in the area in which he or she teaches which is defined as “a degree program intended to produce scholars capable of creating original scholarly contributions through advances in research or theory.” Professionally Qualified (PQ) faculty “can be key to ensuring that students have learning experiences that reflect current business practice and understand the link to research and theory” (AACSB 2003a).13 Logic leads to the inescapable conclusion that AQ faculty are less capable to reflect current business practice or understand the link to research and theory than PQ faculty, and PQ faculty are less capable than AQ faculty of creating original scholarly contributions through advances in research or theory. This is indeed part of the socialization process of doctoral accounting education. Kinney (2003) reported that 90% of 60 students attending the 2002 AAA/Deloitte & Touche/J. Michael Cook Doctoral Consortium took or planned to take Capital Market Research courses. Furthermore, 11

The actual physical publication, paper or electronic, of university or independent journals is actually done by commercial publishers such as Elsevier. The editors determine what gets published. 12 A ghetto is simply “an isolated or segregated group or area.” Ghettoization is to “put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated place, group, or situation” (Oxford Dictionaries 2013). 13 Ads for accounting faculty in the Chronicle of Higher Education or the AAA Career Center often state, “Ph.D. from AACSB accredited university required, professional certification desirable.” The AACSB itself imposes no such requirement on the universities it accredits.

15

“AACSB-accredited business schools/accounting programs are expected to demonstrate on a sustained basis that they are advancing knowledge in the fields of business and accounting, respectively. Moreover, research is important to:  Demonstrate that business schools/accounting programs contribute to advancing knowledge within and across business disciplines  Create an intellectual vibrancy among faculty that supports and contributes to an active learning environment  Demonstrates the business school/accounting program’s contributions as a full participant in a community of scholars within an institution and in a larger context” (AACSB, 2003b). The AACSB also accredits accounting programs separately from general business programs, provided that the business program is accredited.14 Admirably, although its enforcement is questioned, the institution to be accredited must demonstrate diversity in its accounting programs. It must also establish expectations for ethical behavior by administrators, faculty, and students. In addition to the requirements of AACSB accreditation for general business programs, accredited accounting programs must also satisfy the following accounting accreditation standards:  



Is based on the role the accounting discipline and profession play in society Includes the production of intellectual contributions that advance the knowledge and practice of accounting through discipline-based scholarship, contributions to practice, and learning and pedagogical research; and States whether or not each program is intended to meet applicable professional requirements (AACSB, 2003b).

The institution’s documentation must, among other things, 

Display the portfolio of intellectual contributions for individual faculty members, within the accounting unit by completing Table 31-1 which must be used to provide an overall 5-year summary of the unit’s

14

New standards went into effect July 1, 2013—Scholarly Academics (SA), Practice Academics (PA), Scholarly Practitioners (SP), It is too early to tell how, or whether, these new standards will affect the research-publication complex. It will take years to determine the success of the changes and there is certainly no guarantee that the changes will have any effect on either the research-publication complex or the current construct. Thus the revisions are not considered here.

16

intellectual contributions. Discuss how this aligns with the unit’s mission. Table 31-2 may be provided (AACSB, 2003b). The “portfolio of intellectual contributions” as set forth by the AACSB that are relevant to the present study are: 



Contributions to practice (often referred to as applied research) influence professional practices in the faculty member’s field. Articles in practice-oriented journals, creation and delivery of executive education courses, development of discipline based practice tools, and published reports on consulting all qualify as Contributions to Practice. Discipline-based scholarship (often referred to as basic research) contributions add to the theory and knowledge base of the faculty member’s field. Published research results and theoretical innovation qualify as Discipline-based Scholarship contributions (AACSB, 2009).

Noticeably absent from the contributions is how, or whether, basic research is related to applied research. Nor is there a requirement that basic research must be related to applied research, or even a recommendation that it should be. The accredited accounting unit “should have clear policies that state expectations to guide faculty in the successful production of a portfolio of intellectual contributions.” In addition, those policies must provide “Clear expectations regarding the quality of intellectual contributions and how quality is assured (e.g. specific target journals and outlets, selectivity requirements, etc).” Continuing on, the AACSB criteria state, “The portfolio of intellectual contributions is expected to include a significant proportion of peer reviewed journal articles…” (AACSB, 2009). emphases added). It is undeniable that the quality of intellectual contributions is clearly linked to specific target journals. Table 31-1 of the two categories of Intellectual Contributions itemizes a Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions and Summary of Types of Intellectual Contributions where the institution must specify the number of contributions of each faculty member (by name) to each

17

category of contribution. Table 31-2 contains a Five-Year Summary of Peer Reviewed Journals and Number of Publications in Each. Journals’ Scope and Research Methodologies In keeping with the distinction made by the AACSB between applied and basic research, a brief comparison of the mission, scope, and objectives of some accounting publications is in order to illustrate the differences between academic (basic) and professional (applied) publications. Space limitations prevent more than a few. AIS, management, and forensic publications are omitted. From The Accounting Review (AAA, elite academic): “The Accounting Review ‘should be viewed as the premier journal for publishing articles reporting the results of accounting research and explaining and illustrating related research methodology. The scope of acceptable articles should embrace any research methodology and any accounting-related subject, as long as the articles meet the standards established for publication in the journal ... No special sections should be necessary. The primary, but not exclusive, audience should be—as it is now— academicians, graduate students, and others interested in accounting research.’ The primary criterion for publication in The Accounting Review is the significance of the contribution an article makes to the literature. Topical areas of interest to the journal include accounting information systems, auditing and assurance services, financial accounting, management accounting, taxation, and all other areas of accounting, broadly defined. The journal is also open to all rigorous research methods. (AAA, 2013c, emphasis added) Although The Accounting Review’s EDITORIAL POLICY AND STYLE INFORMATION states “The journal is also open to all rigorous research methods,” that claim has been successfully refuted. Herron and Hall (2004) found faculty believed publishing in The Accounting Review is not feasible. From 2008 to 2010, for example, 1,249 articles were submitted to The Accounting Review. Ten-percent of 933 articles submitted were empirical-archival, which accounted for 65%

18

of accepted articles. Another 24 of 175 submitted articles accepted for publication were experimental (17%), and 18 accepted out of 96 submitted were analytical (13%). Only 30 survey articles were submitted, with six (4%) accepted, and 15 field and case studies were submitted, with 2 (1%) accepted (Kachelmeier, 2009, 2010; Kaplan, 2011). Merchant (2008) also supports this conclusion, although with no data to back it up: “Currently, in the United States, accounting research using economicsbased paradigms, theories, and jargon and using either analytical research methods or analysis of large samples of archival (“objective”) data rules the roost. Researchers who do not follow those mainstream rules find it very difficult to get their work published in the top-ranked U.S. journals” (p. 901). Heck and Jensen (2007) concur. They examined all articles published by The Accounting Review between 1986 and 2005. They found over 99% of articles published in The Accounting Review contained “complex mathematical equations and multivariate statistical analyses of a narrow subset of topics amenable to analysis using mathematics, management science, econometrics, and psychometrics. More traditional normative, historical, AIS, and case-method studies all but disappeared from TAR.” From the Journal of Accountancy (AICPA, professional): “Journal of Accountancy articles cover a wide variety of subjects including accounting, financial reporting, auditing, taxation, personal financial planning, technology, business valuation, professional development, ethics, liability issues, consulting, practice management, education and related domestic and international business issues. With 388,000 paid subscribers, the JofA reaches more financial decision makers than all other accounting publications combined. Approximately half of JofA readers work in private industry as financial managers and accounting specialists. Another 40% of readers work in public practice as auditors, tax specialists and financial consultants to companies and individuals. The remaining 10% are government personnel, educators or students” (Journal of Accountancy, 2013, emphasis added) From the Journal of Accounting and Economics (elite academic): 19

“The Journal of Accounting and Economics encourages the application of economic theory to the explanation of accounting phenomena. It provides a forum for the publication of the highest quality manuscripts which employ economic analyses of accounting problems. A wide range of methodologies and topics are encouraged and covered: * The role of accounting within the firm; * The information content and role of accounting numbers in capital markets; * The role of accounting in financial contracts and in monitoring agency relationships; * The determination of accounting standards; * Government regulation of corporate disclosure and/or the Accounting profession; * The theory of the accounting firm.” (Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2013) By its very nature, economic analysis typically involves the application of statistics and other high-level mathematics. This is reflected in criteria such as “information content and role of accounting numbers in capital markets.” Accounting, Organizations and Society (British, elite) is recognized as an elite academic journal, but its emphasis on quantitative research methods is less than the previous two academic journals, although not entirely absent. Twenty-percent of articles published in the British Accounting, Organizations and Society are on topics other than that which is considered mainstream by The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research (all American), and Contemporary Accounting Research (Canadian) (Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, & Young, 2006). “Accounting, Organizations & Society is a major international journal concerned with all aspects of the relationship between accounting and human behaviour, organizational structures and processes, and the changing social and political environment of the enterprise. Its unique focus covers such topics as: the social role of accounting, social accounting, social audit and accounting for scarce resources; the provision of accounting information to employees and trade unions and the development of participative information systems; processes influencing accounting innovations and the social and political aspects of accounting standard setting; behavioural studies of the users of accounting 20

information; information processing views of organizations, and the relationship between accounting and other information systems and organizational structures and processes; organizational strategies for designing accounting and information systems; human resource accounting; cognitive aspects of accounting and decision-making processes, and the behavioural aspects of budgeting, planning and investment appraisal” (AOS, 2013) Accounting Horizons (AAA, academic, non-elite) was established by the AAA in 1986. The editorial policy of Accounting Horizons includes the following: “Accounting Horizons seeks to bridge academic and professional audiences with articles that focus on accounting, broadly defined, and that provide insights pertinent to the accounting profession. The contents of Accounting Horizons, therefore, should interest researchers, educators, practitioners, regulators, and students of accounting. Accordingly, papers submitted for publication must address subjects that appeal to these readers and must be written in a style that communicates effectively across these diverse groups…Because of the broad focus of this journal, the scope of acceptable manuscripts is also broad. Papers may deal with any aspect of accounting, including—but not limited to—the following topics:  Accounting ethics  Assurance services  Financial reporting  Impact of accounting on organizations and individual behavior  Information systems  Managerial accounting  Regulation of the profession and related legal developments  Risk management  Taxation …One of the main objectives of Accounting Horizons is to establish a dialogue—a bridge of ideas—between accounting academics and the business community” (AAA, 2013d) By establishing Accounting Horizons in 1987 the AAA recognized more than a quarter of a century ago, after years of criticisms, that academic and professional audiences needed to be bridged. But the attempt to broaden accounting research was short lived and insincere at best. Although Accounting Horizons initially fulfilled its mission, Zeff (2010) noted that beginning in 1992 there was significant deviation from its original mission.

21

Finally, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (AAA, non-elite academic) was established in 1981. Its purpose is to “contribute to improving the practice and theory of auditing. The term ‘auditing’ is to be interpreted broadly and encompasses internal and external auditing as well as other attestation activities (phenomena). An essential objective is to promote communication between research and practice, which will influence present and future developments in auditing education as well as auditing research and practice” (AAA, 2013e). Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory was also thwarted in fulfilling its purpose by the research-publication complex. Young (2009) examined the breadth of issues addressed and research methods employed by the published articles. As noted by Young, the instructions to authors submitting an article to Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory indicate that “the author’s summary should be nonmathematical, easily readable, and should emphasize the significant findings and implications for practice and theory. The intent is to enable both practitioners and academics to determine the relevance of the article to their own interests” (AAA, 2013e, p. 3). Yet, Young found that, contrary to the instructions to the author, out of 313 articles published between 1992 and 2007, 85.6% involved statistical causal analysis and modeling. Although the purpose of Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory is to contribute to improving the practice and theory of auditing it is classified here as Academic, although non-elite, for that reason. It is also important to note here that in early 2012, the president of the Auditing section of the AAA, at the request of members of the Auditing section, undertook a survey of the members of the section on whether to remove the word Practice from the title Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. Members of the Auditing section expressed concern “that the word ‘Practice’ in Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory is hurting them on promotion and tenure committees and with business

22

school deans who surmise that AJPT is not a research journal if it is a ‘practitioner’ journal” (Kachelmeier, 2012). The result of the vote was to retain the current title. However, that those who published in Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory at least perceived a threat to their promotions if they dared publish in a “Practice,” rather than an “Academic,” journal underscores the power and control of the university arm of the research-publication complex to coerce adoption of, and compliance with, the current accounting research construct and the risk faced by those who venture to publish in unsanctioned journals with unsanctioned research methods. This is further supported by Fogarty (2011) – “The [AAA] appears to play a prominent role in the ongoing efforts to exert control over the literature” (p. 34). Citation Analysis, Journal Rankings, Journal Quality, Influential Articles and Elite Journals Citation analysis is, as the term implies, analyzing citations which consists of nothing more than counting the number of times an article (or author) has been cited in other publications. It is a simple enough concept, and there are even free tools available on the Internet to assist in the counting process (e.g., see list of free citation analysis tools at McKee Library, 2013). This simple concept, however, has far reaching social, professional, and career implications. The more times an article (and its author(s)) is cited by other authors in other publications, the more important it is considered to be, not because it is useful to society, the profession, or practice but simply because it has been cited. The more it has been cited, the higher the ranking of the journal, the higher the quality of the journal, and the greater the influence the article is considered to have, not because it is important to, or influences society, the profession, or practice but because it in turn motivates additional research resulting in additional citations, and so on ad infinitum. This cyclotronic-like process translates into an

23

“impact factor” touted by journal publishers to demonstrate the significance of the journal which then increases subscription rates and encourages researchers to submit their research to the journals. A key factor that must be recited for acceptance of research for publication is that it “contributes to the literature” (e.g., see The Accounting Review above). Ironically (and there are several ironies that exist in the accounting research-publication complex) the very use of citation analysis proves its failing—that the accounting research-publication complex is a closed system, complete with control systems to monitor and adjust the flow of information in order to limit the magnitude of variations from the established boundaries. The principal control system is citation analysis and the corresponding Impact Factor. Citation analysis (“Bibliometrics”) McRae (1974) used citation analysis to examine “the flow of messages between the accounting system and other knowledge systems, and then the flow of messages within the accounting knowledge system, paying particular attention to the information flow between the academic and applied accounting networks” (p. 80). McRae divides the accounting knowledge system into Academic and Applied systems, which is further divided into Business and Professional. Seventeen journals were examined over a two-year period January 1968 through December 1969. McRae classified three as Academic journals – The Accounting Review, Abacus, and Journal of Accounting Research. (Journal of Accounting and Economics was not included.) The remaining 14 were Business or Professional. Even more than forty years ago, before positive accounting and capital market research took hold as the dominant construct, the percent of academic contributors for The Accounting Review and Journal of Accounting Research was 100% each, and Abacus 80%. while Journal of Accountancy had only 30% academic contributors. The percentage of citations from Academic to Academic was 74%, with

24

26% from Academic to Business and Professional. Twenty-four percent of citations were from Business and Professional to Academic, and 76% from Business and Professional to from Business and Professional. Although it had been used a decade earlier by McRae, citation analysis in the accounting research-publication complex was popularized by Brown and Gardner (1985a) who “used citation analysis to assess the overall impact of major research journals on contemporary accounting research (CAR), and to identify those specific articles exerting the greatest impact on CAR. The general presumption of citation analysis is that the number of citations an article receives is an objective measure of its impact or influence” (p.85, emphasis added).15 The major research journals included in the Brown and Gardner study were the Journal of Accounting Research; The Accounting Review; Accounting, Organizations and Society; and the Journal of Accounting and Economics. (The latter was not included in McRae’s study.) These four were to be part of what was later categorized, along with Contemporary Accounting Research, as “elite” journals, discussed below. Most journals now disclose their impact factors which are “a benchmark of a journal's reputation and reflect how frequently peer-reviewed journals are cited by other researchers in a particular year. The Impact Factor helps to evaluate a journal’s relative importance, especially when compared with others in the same field” (Impact Factors, 2013). For example, as of June 2013 the 5-Year Impact Factor of the Journal of Accounting and Economics was 4.306 on a scale of 0-5. While Brown and Gardner acknowledge numerous limitations of using citation analysis, both in general and in their study in particular, they nevertheless continue their application of 15

The acronym CAR used by Brown and Gardner to refer to “contemporary accounting research,” should not be confused with the journal Contemporary Accounting Research published by the Canadian Academic Accounting Association.

25

citation analysis to assess the overall impact of major research journals, as well as individual researchers and their published articles, on contemporary accounting research with the obvious belief that the usefulness of citation analysis in evaluating the impact of journals and individual researchers outweighs its limitations. They implicitly accept the general presumption that the number of citations an article receives is an objective measure of its impact or influence. Smith and Dombrowski (1998) examined 138 auditing articles published between 198789 in Accounting Horizons; Advances in Accounting; Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory; Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance; Journal of Accounting and Public Policy; Journal of Accounting Research; and The Accounting Review. Using citation analysis, they found that “auditing papers published by authors who have served on the publishing journal’s editorial board are cited significantly more often than articles by authors who either had no connection to the publishing editor or whose connection was that of concurrent matriculation or teaching at the same institution as the publishing editor” (P. 504). Vincent and Ross (2000) urge caution when using citation analysis as a factor in evaluating faculty, but at the same time urge faculty to try to publish first in “journals with the highest impact” and second in “good, refereed journals” if they are unable to publish in “journals with the highest impact.” There is “some prestige,” they recognize, accorded to someone “who manages to have his papers accepted in high impact journals.” Journal rankings, journal quality, influential articles and elite journals Brown (1996) used citation analysis to “to identify influential accounting articles, researchers, Ph.D. granting institutions and faculties by five leading accounting journals” (p. 723). The link between influential accounting articles, researchers, Ph.D. granting institutions,

26

accounting faculties, and elite accounting journals is well established. Brown’s study verifies and endorses the reigning construct in the research-publication complex. Brown accumulated data from 17 journals from 1976 to 1992 consisting of one-hundred twenty-three individual researchers. Brown counted the number of articles published during that period of time and the number of times the article (author) was cited, classifying the articles into seven research “paradigms”: Capital markets paradigm; Forecasting paradigm, Positive theory paradigm, Accounting history paradigm, Accounting theory paradigm, Behavior paradigm, and Agency paradigm. To summarize and paraphrase Brown (citations omitted), the Capital markets paradigm “revolutionized” accounting research in 1968. The Forecasting paradigm introduced in 1977 complex statistical methodology into accounting research. Prior to the Positive theory paradigm (also referred to as Positive Accounting Theory) much accounting research on what accountants and managers should do or how they should behave (normative theory). In 1978 Positive theory introduced the concept of how accountants and managers actually do behave. Beginning in 1980, the Accounting theory paradigm introduced into accounting research the way accounting functioned in practice and examined how accounting research is implicated in both organizational and social practice. Accounting history paradigm, introduced in 1986, studied, from a critical perspective, how accounting evolves as a technical matter, outside the realm of the social and political. Two others, Behavior and Agency, were not explicitly, although results were reported separately however. As observed by Brown, the Capital markets paradigm drove a growth industry in empirical-based accounting research. The Capital markets paradigm, Forecasting paradigm, and Positive theory paradigm were the most influential research published from 1976-1992. What’s

27

more, the Journal of Accounting and Economics, the Journal of Accounting Research, Accounting, Organizations and Society, and The Accounting Review were the top journals. Lee and Williams (1999) strongly criticized the Brown’s paper for what essentially was its lack of objectivity. They recognized the unintentional contribution it made in revealing the blatant “portrayal of a closed system” of “academic policing” by a “self-perpetuating elite group of U.S. researchers” (pp. 888-889). Brown and Huefner (1994) used opinion survey to determine the familiarity with the perceived quality of 44 accounting journals. Researchers “seek to place their work in visible, highly regarded outlets to build their academic reputations,” which is supported and encouraged by university administrators (p. 245). They surveyed associate and full professors at the “top 40” business schools for their opinions of perceived journal quality across four faculty specialties— auditing, financial accounting, managerial accounting, and taxation. With 181 usable responses, they identified as “elite” journals The Accounting Review; Accounting, Organizations and Society; Journal of Accounting Research; Contemporary Accounting Research; and Journal of Accounting and Economics.16 Herron and Hall (2004) found that faculty perceived the publishing in The Accounting Review is not feasible. They suggest that evaluators of faculty publication productivity are likely to consult journal rankings and it is therefore important for faculty to understand which journals are most highly ranked as well as the feasibility of publishing in highly ranked journals. Chow, et al (2007) used citation analysis for nine journals (five elite plus four others) over an eight year period to explore the extent to which the ranking of the journal in which an article is published can be used as a proxy for an article’s value or contribution. They then 16

The number of journals defined as “elite” has varied from time to time, and from researcher to researcher. Most studies have limited “elite” journals to these five.

28

expanded their analysis to 20 journals. They found articles published in the elite journals are cited significantly more frequently than articles published in other journals. Reinstein and Calderon (2006) add their voice not only to the study of the use of journal quality in evaluating accounting faculty research productivity for tenure, promotion and merit raises, but also to the composition of the editorial boards of elite journals. They candidly admit that the use of using journal rankings in accounting programs is associated with “a myriad of political and game playing issues” (p. 458). After reviewing the methods of ranking journals— counting, citation analysis, and surveys—they use an email survey to discover how accounting departments use journal ranking for promotion, tenure, and merit pay decision-making purposes. Their survey was non-random. The survey was emailed to all 295 members of the AAA’s Accounting Leadership Group. They received 145 usable responses which they believed provided “comprehensive information on the journal rankings that accounting departments use” (p. 465). Not surprisingly, the top journals out of 99 journals listed in the survey were the five elite journals previously discussed here. They were surprised to find that 70% of the respondents indicated they do not use formal journal rankings to evaluate faculty research. However, due to the AACSB requirements the authors questioned the veracity of those responses, believing many of them were merely expedient and self-serving. Those who did use formal journal rankings used them for promotion (95%), tenure (95%) and merit raises (100%). Publication in top ranked journals also resulted in various forms of support (release time, extra pay, etc.). They also found that academic accounting research is taking on characteristics of the elite which discounts applied scholarship, and that the elite programs require their faculty to publish in elite journals.

29

A synthesis of perceived quality of the top 25 accounting journals over 25 years by Barniv and Fetyko (2007) found the five elite journals were again ranked as the top five, but there were differences in rankings for the remaining 20 depending on the specialty of the journal (financial, auditing, managerial, tax, behavioral, and other). Journal rankings by respondents from doctoral granting universities differed significantly from rankings by respondents from other accredited universities. The authors recommended that their findings be used to assess faculty research productivity. Gray, Guthrie, and Parker (2002) and Tinker and Puxty (1995), however, suggest that “quality” as applied to accounting journal rankings is unidimensional. Chow, et al, (2007) agree that using journal rankings is a poor proxy determining the value of the

contribution an article makes for evaluating faculty performance. Even if journal rankings based on citation analysis were a valid measurement of journal quality, DiGabriele (2014) found evidence from a sample of 13 issues published in The Accounting Review between 2009 and 2011 that manuscripts “are plagued with acknowledgements that are perceived as affiliation conflict, and editorial conflict,” adding to the studies of Lee (1995), Williams, Jenkins, and Ingraham (2006) and Fogarty and Liao (2009) that editors and reviewers often serve as editors or reviewers for multiple journals. Such affiliation and editorial conflicts further substantially reduce, if not outright eliminate, confidence in the objectivity of journal rankings. Promotion and tenure, faculty productivity, and doctoral education Faculty productivity for promotion and tenure consideration is evaluated in large part by their publications in both quantity and quality (Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, & Young, 2006;

30

Reinstein & Calderon, 2006; Kerr, Simkin, & Mason, 2009).17 Gray, Guthrie, and Parker (2002) refer to this as the commodification of academia. Kerr, Simkin, and Mason (2009) developed a benchmark for quantity for measuring faculty productivity based on a survey of 205 accounting faculty—four for assistant professors since completing their doctorate, 11.6 for associate professors, and 20 for full professors, with one blind, peer-reviewed article per year—in auditing, accounting information systems, financial accounting, managerial accounting, tax and other. Reinstein, Hasselback, Riley, and Sinason (2011) warned of the pitfalls of using citation analysis to evaluate faculty research and productivity. Where citation-count guidelines are used, they observed, “accounting faculty may be at a significant disadvantage due to the relatively low number of accounting journals included in the citation indexes, and the availability of fewer slots per accounting faculty member. Further, those faculty members choosing to research in specialty areas e.g., AIS, governmental, tax may have even fewer outlets included in these indexes, which could discourage research in these areas” (p. 127). Yet, in spite of the warnings against using citation analysis, citation analysis and the corresponding impact factors continue to be used. Journal quality is frequently used to supplement citation analysis. But journal quality is determined by its impact factor, which in turn is a function of citation analysis, which is a function of its impact factor ad infinitum which produces a cyclotronic-like effect within the research-publication complex. The impact factor can more appropriately be described as a “mutual citation factor” Hasselback, Reinstein, and Schwan (2003) selected 40 journals out of 100 based on studies of journal rankings for the 35-year period from 1967 to 2001 in order to identify the most

17

Employment ads in the Chronicle of Higher Education for accounting faculty frequently have requirements that state something like, “publications in high-quality research journals consistent with rank.”

31

prolific authors. They note that the three most used methods for assessing faculty productivity are counting, citation analysis, and survey of journal quality. Tuttle and Dillard (2007) describe the effects of institutional isomorphism in U.S. accounting research that pervade the academy beyond publishing as eclipsing theoretical relevance and practical applicability. They found evidence that the isomorphism of accounting research appears in accounting dissertations, not just publications. Ideological indoctrination into the prevailing construct begins in the education of doctoral students. A survey by Kinney (2003) of doctoral students at the 2002 AAA/ Deloitte & Touche/J. Michael Cook Doctoral Consortium in Tahoe City found 90% (54) either had taken, or planned to take, capital market research methods courses. He concluded “This means that on average, our students concentrate on a set of tools to apply to solving problems, and may tend to see ‘accounting problems’ as only those problems that can be solved by a particular specialized method. Furthermore, they may not systematically study the broad concepts that underlie real-world accounting across contexts and over time. These factors may limit the vision and import of their research and teaching” (p. 43). Schwartz, Williams, and Williams (2005) report the results of a survey of doctoral

students concerning their familiarity with accounting journals. Familiarity of doctoral students with elite journals was high, but familiarity with non-elite journals was low, particularly with students enrolled in what are considered “elite” doctoral programs. Their lack of familiarity of non-elite journals reduces the diversity of accounting research. The authors implicate the AAA and its publication as significantly contributing to the narrow focus of accounting research. A study by Williams, Jenkins, and Ingraham (2006) also found the academy was dominated “by graduates of an elite set of schools who have demonstrated agility in employing the methods of economics and monetarist finance” (p. 814).

32

The number of accounting faculty declined by 13.3% between 1988 and 2004, and by 19.11% between 1993 and 2004 (Leslie, 2008). Plumlee, Kachelmeier, Madeo, Pratt, and Krull (2006) estimated that the average supply of new accounting Ph.D.s is less than half of the demand. Others have also found a shortage in the supply of accounting Ph.D.s. to fill faculty positions (e.g., Boyle, Hermanson & Mensah, 2011). The Research-Publication Complex and Ironies of Accounting Doctoral Education In another irony, accounting firms, in particular the Big 4, make annual contributions to the AAA. For the year ended 2012, the Big 4 contributed $215,750 to the Section Fund, and $658,762 to the General Fund for a total of almost $875,000 (AAA, 2013f). Yet, the AAA, through its publications, has positioned itself at the core of the problem of the researchpublication complex. Granted that the total contributions may be miniscule compared to the total revenues of the Big 4, it does nevertheless serve to illustrate the underlying issues. A third and related irony is seen in the joint undertakings of the AAA and the AICPA. For example, the AAA and the AICPA co-sponsored the Pathways Commission which urged more research related to practice. Yet, as Tinker (1995) notes, “The millions of dollars donated to conferences, research projects, and chairs in positive accounting research has installed an antinormative bias in the [accounting doctoral] education system” (p. 10), and that position has not changed significantly over the last two decades. Notably, a collaboration between the AICPA and AAA in 1995 resulted in a monograph which depicted the relationship between research, practice and education. ((AICPA/AAA, 1995; Gendron, & Bédard, 2001). The obstacle in the implementation of the relationship is the consequence of the academy’s tenacity in refusing to acknowledge rich and diverse research

33

methodologies, and erecting barriers to access to the publications that contribute to other forms of accounting knowledge. Fourth, separate from but related to the second and third, the AICPA and accounting firms (again the Big 4 in particular) award scholarships to doctoral students, including scholarships for minority students.18 This is not to criticize those efforts. They are indeed applauded. The irony of the matter is that the AICPA and the accounting firms award scholarships to doctoral students who will, overall, go on to produce research that not only has little relevance to the practice of accounting, and that over time fewer and fewer people are following, but for which they are richly rewarded by the intellectual, social, and real capital that such research bestows.19 To summarize, it is clear that the AACSB, in conjunction with the AAA, journal publication policies as reflected in their scope and research methodologies, journal and article rankings, promotion criteria, and doctoral education coalesce to form a kind of Gordian knot that will take a concerted effort to unravel its interdependencies. The next section discusses the Hypotheses and Methodology of the study. Hypotheses and Methodology Given the criticisms leveled against the accounting research-publication complex the hypotheses can serve as a means either to confirm or negate the validity of those criticisms.

18

For those interested in more information about the AICPA and accounting firm scholarships, see the websites of those organizations. 19 Bloom, et al (1994), also note that large accounting firms, in particular the then Big 6, contribute heavily to academic research, and suggest that in return, academic researchers produce no research critical of either the public accounting industry in general, or the accounting firms in particular.

34

Hypotheses Practitioners included employees of a government or government agency (any level), law enforcement (any level), a corporation or not-for-profit corporation, working for an accounting firm, maintaining a private practice, or other. Academics included both faculty (any level) and administrators (chairs and deans). The first hypothesis addresses whether the respondents find certain journals more useful than others and if so, why they find the journals useful. For practitioners, journals are defined as useful if they provided solutions to questions or accounting problems faced by clients, or provided better service to clients. Academics would find journals useful in learning about the latest theories in accounting research, or obtaining ideas or acquiring data to use in current or future research. Thus, it is expected that academics would find academic journals to be more useful and practitioners would find practitioner journals more useful. Together they are expected to demonstrate that the types of research published by academic journals do not address either the needs or interests of practitioners, and vice versa. The first research hypothesis, therefore, is H1a:

There is a significant difference between the types of journals academics find useful and the types of journals practitioners find useful.

This proposition may initially seem as a given when the mission and scope of the various journals are considered. It has yet to be verified, however. AACSB requires AQ faculty to make intellectual contributions. There is no comparable single agency or institution (e.g., the AICPA) that requires or expects practitioners to engage in research or to make intellectual contributions for promotions. However, there may be jobspecific requirements concerning research or intellectual contributions for promotions.

35

Given accreditation standards it is expected that there are differences between academics and practitioners in the requirements and importance to conduct research. It is expected that Academics are required to engage in research and publication for promotion; practitioners are not required to engage in research and publication for promotion. The second hypothesis is: H2a:

There is a significant difference academics and practitioners in the requirement to engage in research and to publish for promotion.

While this proposition, too, may seem to be a given, the proposition that academics are required to engage in research and publication for promotion, while practitioners are not required to engage in research and publication for promotion, has also not been confirmed with evidence. Confirming the proposition with evidence serves to remove doubt as to its validity. The third hypothesis concerns whether there are differences in importance for publishing in elite journals, non-elite academic journals, and practitioner journals. Based on previous studies, it is expected that it is considered more important for academics to publish in elite journals than to publish in non-elite journals, or practitioner journals. As a corollary, it is more important for academics to publish in non-elite journals than to publish in practitioner journals. At the same time, it is expected that it is not important for practitioners to publish in either elite, or non-elite journals. The third hypothesis therefore is: H3a:

There is a significant difference between academics and practitioners in the types of journals in which it is considered important to publish.

A survey was developed to gather data to test the hypotheses. ANOVA was applied to test the results to determine if there are significant differences between academics and practitioners with respect to (1) which journals they find useful, (2) whether research and publication are required or important for promotion, and (3) the types of journals in which it is important to publish. 36

Together, the hypotheses and data will contribute to determining how significant is the division between the academy and the institute; quantifying the differences between the reading, research, and publication characteristics of academics and practitioners; and identifying the parameters of the division between academics and practitioners as expressed through their reading, research, and publication characteristics. Methodology A non-random survey was conducted of academics and practitioners from April 16 to April 30, 2013. Practitioners included employees of a government or government agency (any level), law enforcement (any level), a corporation or not-for-profit corporation, working for an accounting firm, maintaining a private practice, or other. Academics included both faculty (any level) and administrators (directors, chairs and deans). The purpose of the survey was to “identify the reading, research, and publication characteristics of those in the accounting profession in colleges and universities, public accounting firms, government or government agencies, law enforcement, corporations, not-for-profit corporations, and private practice.” To narrow appropriate responses, those who responded they were academics were directed to academic related questions, and those who identified themselves as practitioners were directed to practitioner related questions. Due to space limitations, the survey it is not included here. Furthermore, the amount of data collected is also too voluminous to include in total here. Both are available from the author on request. One-thousand two-hundred seventy-four invitations were sent to private email addresses of the author which consisted of both academics and practitioners. In addition, 1,000 invitations were sent from a randomly chosen list of approximately 4,300 email address obtained from attendees at professional academic accounting conferences. Finally, invitations to participate

37

were posted on the various accounting related groups on LinkedIn. Many respondents are members of more than one group (e.g., many members of the AAA are also members of AICPA), and may have been on more than one email list. Thus, the total number of respondents was not known ahead of time. Each respondent was allowed to participate only one time since controls prevented duplicate responses if they were on more than one email list, or more than one LinkedIn group. Respondents were asked to rank the journals they read, found most useful, and considered important to publish in for promotion. The list of journals is given in Appendix A. They were asked if research and publication was “Required,” “Important,” or “Not Important,” for promotion and, if academics, whether the business and accounting programs were AACSB accredited. If publication was required or important, they were asked to rank which journals, in order of importance, they were expected to publish in. They were also asked to indicate the reasons why they engage in research: to contribute to providing solutions to accounting problems faced by businesses, or providing better service to clients; or to contribute to the advancement of accounting related knowledge, research methods, or theory. (Since the hypotheses concern research and publication for promotion, those who had their own practice were excluded.) Journals were selected based on a number of factors. All “Elite” journals were included. Elite journals have previously been identified as The Accounting Review; Journal of Accounting Research; Accounting, Organizations and Society; Journal of Accounting and Economics; and Contemporary Accounting Research. Journals were classified as non-elite academic unless they met the criteria to be classified as professional. Even if they use a peer-review process in article acceptance, they were classified

38

as professional if they are published either by a corporation that issues certifications or a corporation that requires a certification to be a member. The number of non-elite academic journals included was 21, and the number of professional journals was eight. Research published in elite journals has consistently been dominated by financial accounting and auditing research, although they occasionally include managerial accounting, accounting information systems, or forensic accounting. The survey did not classify Financial Accounting journals and Auditing journals separately. Other classifications included Accounting Information Systems, Managerial Accounting, and Forensic Accounting. Other than elite journals, the journals chosen to include was a judgment call. Some journals were selected as a result of the limited number of journals in the discipline. Five are dedicated to AIS, four to managerial accounting, and five to forensic accounting and fraud examination. Other studies have classified journals along other disciplines. Herron and Hall (2004), for example, studied faculty perceptions of journal quality and publishing feasibility of 152 journals in seven categories: accounting information systems, auditing, cost/managerial accounting, ethics, financial accounting, governmental/nonprofit accounting, history, international, and taxation. As noted by Brown and Huefner (1994), selecting a set of journals for this type of study necessarily involves some degree of arbitrariness. There are, of course, dozens more academic as well as professional journals than what are included in the study. Most state CPA societies have their own journals, for example, but only the Journal of Accountancy is included due to its national and international reputation and scope. The CPA Journal, Internal Auditor, and Strategic Management, all national in scope, are included in the study as practitioner journals. (Respondents were provided a space for comments where they could identify other journals they found useful or published in. A list of some

39

“Other” journals is provided in Appendix A).20 It is unlikely that including additional journals would change the results or conclusions. Tax research and publications were intentionally omitted from the study due to the complexity and multitude of specialty journals (e.g., there are many tax law journals and tax law reviews that deal with legal, as opposed to accounting, tax issues). Also omitted were government accounting and research due to the legal requirements of various levels of governments and jurisdictions, GASB notwithstanding. By extension, not-for-profit research and journals was also excluded. Accounting education journals were omitted, and most international journals were omitted such as Journal of International Accounting and Journal of International Auditing. Some rankings used a 4-point scale as did Brown and Huefner (1994), and Swanson and Gross (1998). Respondents were asked to rate the frequency with which they are engaged in accounting (non-tax) related research and publishing: “Very Active” (4 or more articles published in previous 5 years); “Moderately Active” (2-3 articles published in previous 5 years); “Rarely Active” (1 article published in previous 5 years); or “Inactive” (no articles published in previous 5 years). Respondents were asked to rank how useful they found the journals on a threepoint scale as “Rarely or Never Useful,” “Occasionally Useful,” or “Highly Useful.” The respondents were asked to identify on a three-point scale whether research was “Required,” “Important but not Required,” or “Neither Required nor Important.” If research was

20

It should come as no surprise that the author received some emails complaining that the list of journals was too long, and some emails complaining that some journals should have been included. The survey included a space for Comments where respondents could add additional journals. One respondent stated in the Comments section, “surprised and saddened that you did not include Current Issues in Auditing (AAA journal) in your survey. What sort of bias is this?” Another stated, “your research is way too US-centric other countries exist you know!!!!” [NB. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, and Contemporary Accounting Research are non-U.S. journals, and represent two of the five elite journals.] Protests over excluding tax journals were also received.

40

“Required” or “Important but not Required” they were asked in which publications it is considered “Highly Important,” “Important,” or “Not Important” to publish for promotion, Results were analyzed using ANOVA (Herron & Hall, 2004). A summary of the results is discussed in the next section, along with a discussion of their implications and importance. Results and Discussion Of the 2,274 invitations sent by email, 252 began the survey, with 247 usable responses, and 208 completing all questions. Excluded from the final results were those who answered their occupation was not related to accounting, and those who answered that they did not read accounting related journals (with the assumption that those who did not read accounting related journals did not engage in accounting related research). Descriptive Statistics Demographic results were as follows. Out of 242 responses, 67.8% (164) were male while 32.2% (78) were female. Age brackets were 21-30 – 5.4% (13), 31-40 – 15.3% (37), 41-50 – 31.0% (75), 51-60 28. – 9% (70), 61-70 – 16.9% (41), and 71 or older – 2.5% (6). Out of 240 responses, 1.7% (4) had no degree, 11.7% (28) had a bachelors degree in accounting, 2.1% (5) a bachelors in other business and 2.5% (6) a bachelors in non-business; 9.6% (23) had a masters degree in accounting, 1.3% (3) had a masters degree in other business, 2.5% (6) had a masters in non-business, 7.5% (18) had an MBA. The largest group, nearly half, had a doctorate (Ph.D/DBA) in accounting – 49.6% (119), 4.2% (10) had doctorate in other business, 2.1% (5) in non-business, with 5.4% (13) “Other,” including JD and LLM degrees. Four point six percent (11) of 239 responses had a degree in forensic accounting. Out of 238 responses, 58.4% (139) responses were CPAs in a U.S. state or territory.

41

Out of 242 responses, 178 (73.6%) worked for a U.S. organization and 64 (26.4%) worked for a non-U.S. organization. With respect to accounting related position or employment, 1.3% (3) out of 239 had no accounting related position or employment and were therefore excluded from the remaining results; 13.2% (31) worked for an accounting firm, 4.3% (10) worked for a government or government agency (non-law enforcement, Federal, State or Local), 1.3% (3) worked in law enforcement (Federal, State or Local), 3.4% (8) worked for a corporation, 3.4% (8) worked not-for-profit corporation, 6.0% (14) had their own practice, 52.1% (122) were full-time faculty members (non-administrative) at an institution of higher education, 6% (14) were administrators at an institution of higher education (Chair or Head of Department, Dean, VP) that includes faculty in accounting related employment or work roles. Nine percent (21) were “Other,” including retired and graduate students, Out of 31 who worked for an accounting firm, 19.4% (6) were Junior or equivalent, 12.9% (4) were Senior or equivalent, 9.7% (3) were Manager or equivalent, and 54.8% (17)\, well over half, were Partner or equivalent. One (3.2%) indicated “Other” (“Director”). Out of 122 academics who responded (both faculty and administrators), 2.5% (3) were Instructor or lecturer, 20.5% (25) Assistant Professor or equivalent, 35.2% (43) Associate Professor or equivalent, and 40.2% (49), the largest group, were Full Professor or equivalent. There were 1.6% (2) “Other” (Research Associate and Clinical Professor). The degrees offered by the institutions of higher education for both faculty and administrators were: Associates, 8.1% (11); Bachelors 83.8% (114); Masters/MAcc/MBA 85.3% (116); Doctorate, (Ph.D./DBA) 47.8% (65); and “Other” (MSA), 1.5% (2). (There may be overlap due to more than one of the 136 respondents working for the same institution.) Almost

42

three-fourths, 74.3% (101), were AACSB accredited, and 46.3% (63) accounting programs were AACSB accredited. The highest two subjects primarily taught by academics were financial accounting – 56.7% (72) and management or cost accounting – 28.3% (36). The third highest was auditing with 18.1% (23). Organizational memberships included American Accounting Association – 58.8% (133), American Institute of Certified Public Accountants – 43.8% (99), Association of Certified Fraud Examiners – 22.6% (51), Institute of Internal Auditors – 10.6% (24), Institute of Management Accountants – 16.8% (38), and ISACA – 6.6% (15). Others included CICA, AFA, FEI, AAH, and IAFCI. Many held memberships in multiple organizations. Forty-nine point two percent (88) read professional journals for the purpose of “Keeping up to date about the latest ideas, methods, tools, or technology to apply to accounting problems faced by my clients, to provide solutions to accounting questions asked by my clients, or to provide better service to my clients.” This group is referred to as Practitioners. Four point seven percent (7) of practitioners indicated the primary purpose of their research is to “Contribute to the advancement of accounting related knowledge, research methods, or theory,” while 15.5% (23) indicated the primary purpose of their research is to “Contribute to providing solutions to accounting problems faced by businesses, or providing better service to clients.” Fifty-seven point one percent (117) read professional journals for the purpose of “Keeping up to date about the latest theories in accounting research, or obtaining ideas or acquiring data to use in my current or future research.” This group is referred to as Academics. Twenty point three percent of academics indicated the primary purpose of their research is “Contribute to providing solutions to accounting problems faced by businesses, or providing

43

better service to clients.” Almost three times as many – 59.5% (88) indicated the primary purpose of their research is to “Contribute to the advancement of accounting related knowledge, research methods, or theory.” Ninety-one point two percent (114) academics stated research and publication was “Required” in order to receive a promotion, compared to only 6.5% (4) practitioners. Zero percent academics stated research and publication was not “Required” in order to receive a promotion, while 67.7% (42) practitioners stated research and publication was not “Required” in order to receive a promotion. Only 8.8% (11) academics indicated it was “Important, but not required” to conduct research and publish in order to receive a promotion, but 25.8% (16) “Important, but not required” to conduct research and publish in order to receive a promotion. Due to space limitations only the descriptive statistics for Financial Accounting and Auditing are discussed here. The results for Accounting Information Systems, Managerial Accounting, and Forensic Accounting are given in Table 1. Financial accounting and auditing First, 65.2% (average 45) of Practitioners find Elite journals “Rarely or Never Useful” while less than half that number, 29.4% (27) Academics find Elite journals “Rarely or Never Useful.” (See definitions of “Useful” above.) Moving to the next category, 25.5% (18) Practitioners find Elite journals “Occasionally Useful” and 35.9% (34) Academics find Elite journals “Occasionally Useful.” Finally, 9.3% (6) Practitioners find Elite journals “Highly Useful,” while almost four times as many, 34.7% (33), Academics who find Elite journals “Highly Useful.” The results for non-Elite Academic Financial Accounting and Auditing journals are somewhat similar: 68.8% (48) Practitioners find them “Rarely or Never Useful,” while 38.2%

44

(35) Academics find them “Rarely or Never Useful;” 24.7% (18) Practitioners find them “Occasionally Useful,” and 37.5% (35) Academics find them “Occasionally Useful;” but only 9.3% (8) Practitioners find them “Highly Useful,” with more than three times as many Academics, 29.4% (25), who find them “Highly Useful.” The results for Professional journals are as follows: 33.2% (23) Practitioners find them “Rarely or Never Useful,” with 38.0% (35) Academics finding them “Rarely or Never Useful;” 42.3% (31) Practitioners find them “Occasionally Useful,” and 43.6% (40) Academics find them “Occasionally Useful;” and 24.4% (18) Practitioners find them “Highly Useful,” while 18.5% (17) Academics find them “Highly Useful.” It is “Important” to only 5.9% (2) Practitioners to publish in Elite journals, but it is “Important” to 94.1% (28) of Academics. Interestingly, while is it “Important” to 1.7% (1) of Practitioners to publish in non-Elite journals, it is important to 98.3% (45) Academics to publish in non-Elite journals, a little less than for Elite journals. It is “Important” to 12.1% (4) Practitioners to publish in Professional journals, but it is “Important” to 87.9% (29) academics to publish in Professional journals. Finally, it is “Highly important” to only 0.9% (1) Practitioners to publish in Elite journals, but 99.1% (50) Academics. For non-Elite journals, it is “Highly important” to 4.1% (1) Practitioners to publish in non-Elite journals, and 95.9% (20) Academics to publish in non-Elite journals. It is “Highly important” for 25.8% (4) Practitioners to publish in Professional journals and to 74.2% (9) Academics to publish in Professional journals. On average, 50% (26) academics and 50% (26) practitioners stated it was “Not Important” to publish in elite journals for promotion. Moving from elite to non-elite journals, both the percentage, 58.5%, and the number (39) of academics increased who stated it is “Not

45

Important” to publish in non-elite journals, while the percentage of practitioners who stated it is “Not Important” to publish in non-elite academic journals, 41.5%, decreased, but not the number (26). Finally, both the percentage and the number of academics who stated it is “Not Important” to publish in practitioner journals increased to 76.1% and (66) respectively, while both the percentage and the number of practitioners who stated it is “Not Important” to publish in practitioner journals decreased to 23.9% and (21). Five point nine percent (2) practitioners said it is “Important” to publish in elite journals, but 94.1% (28) academics said it is “Important” to publish in elite journals. One point seven percent practitioners said it is “Important” to publish in non-elite journals, compared to 98.3% (45) who said it is “Important” to publish in non-elite journals. The percentage of practitioners who said it is “Important” to publish in practitioner journals increased to 12.1% (4), while the percentage of academics who said it is “Important” to publish in practitioner journals decreased to 87.9% (29). Turning to “Highly Important,” almost 100% of academics—99.1% (50)—stated it was “Highly Important” to publish in elite journals, compared to .9% (1) practitioner who indicated it was “Highly Important” to publish in elite journals. For non-elite journals, the percentage of academics who said it is “Highly Important” to publish in non- elite journals was 95.9% (20), and the percentage of practitioners who said it is “Highly Important” to publish in non-elite journals was 4.1% (1). Finally, the percentage of academics who said it is “Highly Important” to publish in non-elite journals was 95.9% (20), and the percentage of practitioners who said it is “Highly Important” to publish in practitioner journals was 25.8% (4) with both the percentage and the number of academics who said it is “Highly Important” to publish in practitioner journals falling to 74.2% (9).

46

The next section discusses the ANOVA results. Again, due to space limitations only the results for Financial Accounting and Auditing are discussed here. The results for Accounting Information Systems, Managerial Accounting, and Forensic Accounting are given in Table 2. ANOVA Results The ANOVA results are presented in Tables 2a and 2b. The results overwhelmingly confirm what was widely known experientially or suspected anecdotally, and provide additional support to the criticisms of the accounting research-publication complex. Separate tests were made for each category of journal—Elite, non-Elite Accounting and Auditing, Accounting Information Systems, Management Accounting, and Forensic Accounting for both Academics, and Practitioners. H1a is, “There is a significant difference between the types of journals academics find useful and the types of journals practitioners find useful.” H1 is rejected. There is a significant difference between which journals academics find useful and which journals practitioners find useful for Elite and non-Elite. More Practitioners than Academics find Elite journals “Rarely or Never Useful” at the p < .000 level. More Academics than Practitioners find Elite journals “Occasionally Useful” at the p < .003 level, and more Academics than Practitioners find Elite journals “Highly Useful” at the p < .000 level. Similarly, more Practitioners than Academics find non-Elite journals “Rarely or never useful” at the p < .000 level; more Academics than Practitioners find non-Elite journals “Occasionally useful” at the p < .002 level, and more Academics than Practitioners find nonElite journals “Highly useful” at the p < .000 level. Finally, there is no significant difference between Practitioners and Academics with respect to Professional journals for any degree of usefulness.

47

H2a is, “There is a significant difference academics and practitioners in the requirement to engage in research and to publish for promotion.” H2 is rejected. The results are it is “Required” to conduct research and publish in order to receive a promotion by only 6.5% (4) Practitioners, “Important, but not required” by 25.8% (16) Practitioners, and “Not required or important” by 67.7% (42) Practitioners. It is “Required” to conduct research and publish in order to receive a promotion by 91.2% (114) Academics, and “Important, but not required” by the remaining 8.8% (11). No Academic responded it is “Not Required or Important.” Given the rather obvious differences between the two, ANOVA tests were not necessary and therefore not performed for Hypothesis 2. H3a is, “There is a significant difference between academics and practitioners in the types of journals in which it is considered important to publish.” H3 is rejected at the p < .001 level. There is a significant difference in the importance of the type of journals considered important to publish in. It is “Highly important” for Academics to publish in Elite journals than for Practitioners to publish in Elite journals at the p < .000 level. It is also “Highly important” for Academics to publish in non-Elite journals than for Practitioners to publish in non-Elite journals at the p < .000 level. It is also “Highly important” for Academics to publish in Professional journals than for Practitioners to publish in Professional journals at the p < .000 level. However, given the low number for both Practitioners (4) and Academics (9), it is not entirely surprising. The Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations follow. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations This purposes of this paper were (1) to determine empirically how significant is the division between the academy and the institute; (2) to quantify the differences between the reading, research, and publication characteristics of academics and practitioners; and (3) to

48

identify the parameters of the division between academics and practitioners as expressed through their reading, research, and publication characteristics. Those purposes have been accomplished. The results of this study validate the existence of a research-publication complex resulting from a construct-shift in accounting research. One conclusion that materializes from these results is simple and inescapable. Publishing in elite journals is required for promotion and tenure. Few practitioners read elite journals or find them useful. Therefore publishing something that is read by few practitioners or that practitioners find useful is required for promotion. Similar arguments can be made for non-elite academic journals. The AAA claims to be “Thought Leaders in Accounting” through its conferences and publications. Yet, few practitioners are following because they do not find the research published in academic journals, particularly elite journals, useful. One would be hard pressed to find examples in medicine or engineering, e.g., where academic research was not somehow linked to useful, practical applications. Furthermore, over time fewer academics are following the “Thought Leaders.” The number of members in the AAA has declined significantly which means fewer and fewer academics are “following the Leader.” Can the AAA still be considered a “Leader?” Further still, the number of doctoral students has been declining suggesting a strongly negative correlation between the increase in emphasis in doctoral education on quantitative methods, capital market theory, and positive accounting, and the decline in the number of accounting doctoral students. Such is the heritage of the research-publication complex. Such is the bequest of the reality constructed by the accounting research-publication complex. Such is the legacy of the “Thought Leaders in Accounting.” Accounting academics, graduate students, and administrators

49

believe “high quality” publications are “high quality” because they have been indoctrinated to believe they are high quality largely as a result of the mutual citation factor; mesmerized, as it were, to believe the earth is flat; i.e., that the reality as of accounting research as currently constructed excludes other constructed realities (Fogarty, 2011). The limitation of the study is that the survey was not random, but the limitation was mitigated by several factors. First, the number of respondents was large, and compares favorably with other non-random sample studies, such as that by Reinstein and Calderon (2006) who received 145 useable responses. Second, the cross-section of respondents was very diverse. Third, there was a relatively large number of full professors and partners who responded. While the results answer some questions, they raise additional questions. The first question raised is, what purpose does it serve for research to “contribute to the literature,” if nobody (i.e., “too few”) reads the literature it contributes to? Indeed, will practitioners read this, and if so, will they find it useful? What is the purpose and ultimate goal of accounting research? If the purpose and goal is to advance knowledge, whose knowledge is being advanced, and for what purpose? How useful is accounting research if it is useful only to other researchers? There appears to be little benefit either to the profession or to society. This study does not conclude with the traditional call for future research, further investigation, or additional studies. While this study does not purport to be the final, definitive study, the studies that have been conducted to date have sufficiently identified the problems and have recommended solutions. It is unlikely additional research of the same will change the status quo. topics and types of research has been published and by whom, and to monitor trends. Granof and Zeff (2008) compare the current accounting research construct with a pendulum and urge that the pendulum should “swing back.” I disagree. That would necessarily

50

imply that accounting research is “either/or.” Going forward to the past is no more desirable than the continuation of the current construct. Furthermore, if it were a pendulum and it were to swing forward to the past, it would at some future time swing back again to the present which is an undesirable outcome. Accounting research is not, and should not be, a pendulum. Nor is accounting research and publication an historical dialectic as suggested by Tinker (1995) since that would again necessarily imply that past and present constructs are opposites which, while different, they are neither opposite nor mutually exclusive. While there can be an historical synthesis, it is not necessary. It is unnecessary to “let a thousand flowers bloom,” but there is certainly abundant space within the field (à la Bourdieu) for alternative constructs to coexist equally within accounting research (Williams, 2009). As Chapman (2012) succinctly states, “Calls for research diversity are founded on the intuitively obvious point that accounting is a complex phenomenon. We should not be surprised, therefore, that a wide variety of research approaches exist, each drawing on long traditions of debate and development as to their principles, interests, and methodology. We have no basis for judging there to be “one best way” (p. 829). That all but the orthodox canon of research methodologies, as required by the current construct, are denied expression in publications perceived as having the greatest impact (whether valid or not) testifies to the enforcement of maintaining the class status imposed by the researchpublication complex. The social capital endowed by publishing in elite journals is well-guarded by the editorial gatekeepers. Some may call the editorial gatekeepers blessed (Fogarty & Liao, 2009). To others, they are nothing more than a hierarchy of social classes (Parker, Guthrie, & Linacre, 2011; McCarthy, 2012). One of the most troubling aspects concerning the criticisms of the accounting researchpublication complex is that those who are “on the inside” do not deny the criticism. They offer neither evidence, nor arguments, that counter the criticisms. Nor do they claim the current 51

construct is superior in any way to any other or previous construct. They simply do not respond. The issue is not debated. The criticisms are ignored. Kaplan (2011) identifies six interconnected elements of the research-publication complex that “have converged into a stable equilibrium of accounting scholarship characterized by a narrow set of research methods” (p. 381): doctoral training; publication standards applied by journal editors and reviewers; faculty promotion criteria; textbook writing and educational curriculum; school and program accreditation criteria; and university promotion standards. A seventh element Kaplan failed to recognize is the organizations, whether universities or corporations, that publish the academic journals. Kaplan goes on to state that reform requires simultaneous changes in all (six) elements, but his advice is as sad as it is realistic. “It will require great energy to break out of this equilibrium to allow and reward research methods that document, classify, and create new knowledge for emerging problems and opportunities in practice. That is not your job as a new Assistant Professor; it is a task that falls on tenured Full Professors in your profession to take on” (p. 381). It is sad for the same reason it is realistic. An assistant professor will not receive tenure and promotion unless he or she conforms to the construct, and unless he or she publishes research that few will read. Finally, the next steps would to publish an annual report in order to track the progress and sincerity of implementing the Pathways Commission recommendations. as well as the revised AACSB Standards. Perhaps it could be named something like The Annual Pathways Implementation Report. The purpose and content would be to track on an annual basis such things as journal submission statistics (both academic and professional); published journal articles that would consist of an analysis of the types of articles published (topics, research

52

methodology, etc.); changes in doctoral curriculum, such as the introduction of alternative research methodologies including historical and qualitative methods; dissertations completed and their methodologies; university affiliations of published authors; names of deans; and faculty promotions of published authors. Since it is often years between the time articles are submitted and the time they are published a baseline needs to be established, perhaps 2013. It is time to hold them accountable. Therefore, a final observation is in order. “I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you’re afraid… afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell how it’s going to begin. I'm going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them ... a world without rules or controls, borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.” Neo, The Matrix.

53

References American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) in co-operation with the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association (AAA). (1995). Auditing Practice, Research, and Education: A Productive Collaboration. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2013). Retrieved from http://aaahq.org/about/financials/FYE_May2012_AuditedFinancialStatements.pdf American Accounting Association (AAA). (2010), 2010-2012 Strategic Plan. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association. Retrieved from http://aaahq.org/about/20102012StrategicDocument.pdf 2010 American Accounting Association (AAA). (2012). The Pathways Commission Report. Charting a National Strategy for the Next Generation of Accountants. American Accounting Association and the America Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Retrieved from http://commons.aaahq.org/posts/a3470e7ffa. American Accounting Association (AAA). (2013a). Retrieved from http://aaahq.org/. American Accounting Association (AAA). (2013b). Bylaws. Retrieved from http://aaahq.org/about/bylaws.htm#XII American Accounting Association (AAA). (2013c). The Accounting Review. Retrieved from http://www.allentrack.net/AAA/Editorial_Policies/ACCR.pdf. . American Accounting Association (AAA). (2013d). Accounting Horizons. Retrieved from http://www.allentrack.net/AAA/Editorial_Policies/ACCH.pdf. American Accounting Association (AAA). (2013e). Auditing – A Journal of Practice and Theory. Retrieved from http://www.allentrack.net/AAA/Editorial_Policies/AJPT.pdf. American Accounting Association (AAA). (2013f). Financial statements and key performance Indicators. Retrieved from http://aaahq.org/about/financials/TOC.htm Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2003a). Standard 10. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/standards/participants/standard10.asp Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2003b). Accounting Accreditation Standards. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/accounting/standards/. Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2009). AQ/PQ Status: Establishing Criteria for Attainment and Maintenance of Faculty Qualifications An Interpretation of AACSB Accreditation Standards. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/whitepapers/AQ_PQ_Status.pdf 54

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2009). AQ/PQ Status: Establishing Criteria for Attainment and Maintenance of Faculty Qualifications An Interpretation of AACSB Accreditation Standards. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/whitepapers/AQ_PQ_Status.pdf. Accounting, Organizations and Society. (AOS). (2013). Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/accounting-organizations-and-society/ Accounting Education using Computers and Multimedia. (AECM). (2013). Retrieved from http://listserv.aaahq.org/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A0=aecm Baker, C.R., & Bettner, M.S. (1997). Interpretive and critical research in accounting: A commentary on its absence from mainstream accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 8(4), 293–310 Basu, S. (2012). How can accounting researchers become more innovative? Accounting Horizons, 26(4), 851–870. Barniv, R. & Fetyko, D. (2007). Perceived quality of accounting journals. Journal of business issues, 1, 1-20. Berger, P. & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Bloom, R., Heymann, H. G., Fuglister, J., & Collins, M. (1994). The Schism in Accounting. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Bonner, S.E., Hesford, J. W., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, S. M. (2006). The most influential journals in academic accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 663–685. Boyce, G., Greer, S., Blair, B., & Davids, C. (2008). Integrating Sociological Concepts into the Study of Accounting: Yielding the Benefits of Team Teaching. Asian Social Science, 4(3), 48-58. Boyle, D., Hermanson, D. & Mensah, M. (2011). Addressing the accounting and auditing faculty shortage: Practitioners’ perceptions of academia. Current Issues in Auditing, 5(1): A70A85. Bricker, R. (1989). An empirical investigation of the structure of accounting research. Journal of Accounting Research, 27(2), 246–262. Bricker, R. J., & Previts, G. J. (1990). The sociology of accountancy: A study of academic and practice community schisms. Accounting Horizons, 4 (1): 1–14., Brown, L. D., & Gardner, J. C. (1985a). Using citation analysis to assess the impact of journals and articles on contemporary accounting research (CAR). Journal of Accounting Research, 23(1), 84-109.

55

Brown, L. D., & Gardner, J. C. (1985b). Applying citation analysis to evaluate the research contributions of accounting faculty and doctoral programs. The Accounting Review, 60(2), 262-277. Brown, L. D. (1996). Influential accounting articles, individuals, Ph.D. granting institutions and faculties: A citation analysis. Accounting Organizations and Society, 21, 723–754. Brown, L. D., & Huefner, R. J. (1994). The familiarity with and perceived quality of accounting journals: Views of senior accounting faculty in leading U.S. MBA programs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(1), 223–250. Chapman, C. S. (2012) Framing the issue of research quality in a context of research diversity. Accounting Horizons, 26(4), 821-831. Chow, C. W., Haddad, K., Singh, G., & Wu, A. (2007). On using journal rank to proxy for an article's contribution or value. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 411-427. Connell, B. O. (2001). Key issues arising from Professor A. J. Briloff's paper. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 167-186 Demski, J. S. (2001). President’s message: Some thoughts on accounting scholarship. Accounting Education News, Fall, Retrieved from http://aaahq.org/pubs/AEN/2001/Fall2001.pdf. Demski, J. S. (2008). Where is the passion? Accounting Horizons, 22(4), 437. DiGabriele, J. (2014). Perceived conflicts in peer reviewed accounting research. Journal of Accounting, Ethics and Public Policy, 15(2), 459-482. Fogarty, T. J. (1995). A ranking to end all rankings: A meta-analysis and critique of studies ranking academic accounting departments. Accounting Perspectives, 1, 1–22. Fogarty, T. J. (1996a). Sponsored academic positions by large public accounting firms: An investigation of quid pro quo. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 6, 133–162. Fogarty, T. J., & Ruhl, J. (1996b). The stratification of academic accounting in the U.S.: The role of doctoral funding awards. Critical Perspectives in Accounting, 7, 509–528. Fogarty, T.J, & Liao, C.H. (2009). Blessed are the gatekeepers: A longitudinal study of the editorial boards of The Accounting Review. Issues in Accounting Education, 24(3), 299– 318. Fogarty, T. J. (2011). The social construction of research advice: The American Accounting Association plays Miss Lonelyhearts. Accounting and the Public Interest, 11, 32–51. Garcha, B. S., Harwood, G. B., & Hermanson, R. H. (1983). A study of the readership of The Accounting Review. Journal of Accounting Education, 1(2), 21–39.

56

Gendron, Y., & Bédard, J. (2001). Academic auditing research: An exploratory investigation into its usefulness. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 339–368. Granof, M. H., & Zeff, S. A. (2008). Research on accounting should learn from the past. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(28), A34. Gray, R., Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (2002). Rites of passage and the self-immolation of academic accounting labor. Accounting Forum, 26(1), 1–30. Hasselback, J. R., & Reinstein, A. (1995a). Assessing accounting doctoral programs by their graduates' research productivity. Philip M.J. Reckers (Ed.), Advances in Accounting, 13, pp. 61-86. Hasselback, J. R,. & Reinstein, A. (1995b). A proposal for measuring scholarly productivity of accounting faculty. Issues in Accounting Education, Fall, 269-306. Hasselback, J. R., Reinstein, A., & Schwan, E.S. (2000). Benchmarks for evaluating the research productivity of accounting faculty. Journal of Accounting Education, 2(2), 79-97. Hasselback, J. R., Reinstein, A., & Schwan, E.S. (2003). Prolific authors of accounting literature. In Philip M.J. Reckers (Ed.), Advances in Accounting, 20, 95-125. Heck, J. L., & Jensen, R. E. (2007). An analysis of the evolution of research contributions by The Accounting Review, 1926-2005. Accounting Historians Journal, 34(2), 109-141. Herron, T., & Hall, T. (2004). Faculty perceptions of journals: Quality and publishing feasibility. Journal of Accounting Education, 22(3), 175-210. Hines, R. D. (1989). Financial accounting knowledge, conceptual framework projects, and the social construction of the accounting profession. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 2(2), 72–92. Hopwood, A. G. (2007). Whither Accounting Research? The Accounting Review, 82(5), 13651374. Hull, R. P., & Wright, G. B. (1990). Faculty perceptions of journal quality: An update. Accounting Horizons, 4(1), 77–87. Impact Factors. (2013.) Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/authors/journal+authors/helpdesk?SGWID=0-1723213-12800704-0). Inanga, E.L. & Schneider, W.B. (2005). The failure of accounting research to improve accounting practice: a problem of theory and lack of communication. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(3), 227-248 Journal of Accountancy. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/ContactUs/AuthorGuidelines.htm) 57

Journal of Accounting and Economics. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-accounting-and-economics/) Kachelmeier, S. (2009). Annual report and editorial commentary for The Accounting Review. The Accounting Review, 84(6), 2047-2075. Kachelmeier, S. (2012). Accounting Education using Computers and Multimedia. Retrieved from http://listserv.aaahq.org/cgibin/wa.exe?A2=ind1204e&L=aecm&F=P&S=&P=30077 Kaplan, R. (2011). Accounting scholarship that advances professional knowledge and practice. The Accounting Review, 86(2), 367–383. Kerr, S., Simkin, M. G., & Mason, R. (2009). Publication profile of accounting faculty. American Journal of Business Education, 2(8), 103-114. Khalif, R., & Quattrone, P. (2008). The governance of accounting academia: Issues for a debate. European Accounting Review, 17(1), 65–86. Kinney, W. R., Jr. (2003). New accounting scholars-Does it matter what we teach them? Issues in Accounting Education, 18(1), 37-47. Kulik, J. A. (1998). Curricular tracks and high school vocational education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/VoEd/Chapter3/Part2.html Lee, T. (1995). Shaping the U.S. academic accounting research profession: The American Accounting Association and the social construction of a professional elite. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6, 241–261. Lee, T. (1997). The editorial gatekeeper of the accounting academy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10(1), 11–30. Lee, T. (1999). Anatomy of a professional elite: The Executive Committee of the American Accounting Association 1916–1996. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10, 247–264. Lee, T., & Williams, P. (1999). Accounting from the inside: Legitimating the accounting academic elite. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10: 867–895. Lee, T. (2009). The ontology and epistemology of social reality in accounting according to Mattessich. Accounting and the Public Interest, 9, 65-72 Leslie, D. W. (2008). Accounting faculty in U.S. colleges and universities: Status and trends, 1993-2004. A report of the American Accounting Association. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association. McCarthy, W. E. (2012). Accounting craftspeople versus accounting seers: Exploring the relevance and innovation gaps in academic accounting research. Accounting Horizons, 26(4), 833-843. 58

McRae, T. W. (1974). A citational analysis of the accounting information Network. Journal of Accounting Research, 12(1), 80-92. McKee Library. (2013). Retrieved from http://southern.libguides.com/content.php?pid=224813. Moerman, L. (2010). Accounting research and the sociology of knowledge. Paper presented to Sixth Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 12-13, 2010. Owsen, D. (2001). Is the AAA ostracicing Briloff? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(2), 193-194. Oxford Dictionaries. (2013). Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ghetto. Parker, L.D., Guthrie, J., & Linacre, S. (2011). The relationship between academic accounting research and professional practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(1), 5-14. Pinkus, K. (2012, March). Address to American Accounting Association – Forensic and Investigative Accounting Section, Chicago, Illinois. Plumlee, R.D., Kachelmeier, S.J., Madeo, S. A., Pratt, J.H., & Krull, G. (2006). Assessing the Shortage of Accounting Faculty. Issues in Accounting Education, 21(2), 113–125. Previts, G. J., & Merino, B. D. (1998). A history of accounting in America: The cultural significance of accounting. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH. Ratzinger-Sakel, N.V.S., Yoon, S.W., & Gray, G.L. (2013, August). Three decades of major audit overseer reports: Implications for the audit profession and audit research. American Accounting Association Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA. Rayburn, J. D. (2005). President’s message. Accounting Education News, 3 (4), 1–5. Retrieved from http://aaahq.org/pubs/AEN/2005/SpringSummer2005.pdf. Reinstein, A., & Hasselback, J. R. (1997). A literature review of articles assessing the productivity of accounting faculty members. Journal of Accounting Education, 15(3), 425–455. Reinstein, A., & Calderon, T. G. (2006). Examining accounting departments’ rankings of the quality of accounting journals. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17: 457–490. Reinstein, A., & Hasselback, J. R., Riley, M. E., & Sinason, D. H. (2011). Pitfalls of using citation analysis for making academic accounting promotion, tenure, teaching load, and merit pay decisions. Issues in Accounting Education, 26(1), 99–131. Reiter, S., & Williams, P. F. (2002). The structure and progressivity of accounting research and the production of knowledge. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27: 575–607. 59

Schwartz, B., William, S., & Williams, P. F. (2005). U.S. doctoral students’ familiarity with accounting journals: Insights into the structure of the U.S. academy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(3): 327–348. Smith, K. J., & Dombrowski, R. F. (1998). An examination of the relationship between author– editor connections and subsequent citations of auditing research articles. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(3/4), 497-506. Smith, K., & Labrand, D. (1995). The role of editors’ professional connection in determining which paper gets published: Evidence from accounting research journals. Accounting Perspectives, 1, 21–30. Swanson, Z. L., & Gross, N. J. (1998). A comparison of academics’, practitioners’, and users’ perspectives toward the research of accounting practice. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9(4), 467-485. Tinker, T. (2001). Briloff and the lost horizon. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(2), 149152. Tinker, T., & Puxty, T. (1995). Policing Accounting Knowledge: The Market for Excuses Affair. Princeton, NJ: Marcus Weiner Publishers. Tuttle, B., & Dillard, J. (2007). Beyond competition: Institutional isomorphism in U.S. accounting research. Accounting Horizons, 21(4), 387-409. Vincent, A. & Ross, D. (2000). On evaluation of faculty research impact of citation analysis. Journal of Applied Business Research, 16(2), 1-13. Wildavsky, A. (1998). Culture and social theory. S. Chai & B. Swedlow, (Eds.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers Williams, P. F. (2001). Who gets to speak and what must they say? A commentary on the Briloff affair. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1292), 213–219. Williams, P. F., Jenkins, J. G., & Ingraham, L. (2006). The winnowing away of behavioral accounting research in the US: The process for anointing academic elites. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 783-818. Williams, P. F. (2009). Reshaping accounting research: Living in the world in which we live. Accounting Forum, 12(x), 213–219. Young, J. J. (2006). Making up users. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(6), 579–600. Young, J. J. (2009). The absence of dissent. Accounting and the Public Interest, 9(1), 1–9. Zeff, S. A. (1966). The American Accounting Association, Its First 50 Years—1916–1966. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.

60

Zeff, S. A. (2010). Comment on Kaplan. Retrieved from http://www.cs.trinity.edu/rjensen/temp/ZeffCommentOnAccountingHorizons.ppt.

61

Table 1. a. Articles published in the following publications are _________________________ P

A

P

A

P

A

Financial Accounting and Auditing Journal

Type

Rarely or never useful

Occasionally useful

Highly useful

Accounting, Organizations and Society

E

61.40%

(43)

32.30%

(30)

27.10%

(19)

40.90%

(38)

11.40%

(8)

26.90%

(25)

Contemporary Accounting Research

E

68.10%

(47)

20.00%

(19)

27.50%

(19)

40.00%

(38)

4.30%

(3)

40.00%

(38)

Journal of Accounting and Economics

E

66.70%

(46)

38.50%

(35)

26.10%

(18)

33.00%

(30)

7.20%

(5)

28.60%

(26)

Journal of Accounting Research

E

68.70%

(46)

36.60%

(34)

20.90%

(14)

29.00%

(27)

10.40%

(7)

34.40%

(32)

The Accounting Review

E

60.90%

(42)

19.80%

(19)

26.10%

(18)

36.50%

(35)

13.00%

(9)

43.80%

(42)

Average

65.20%

29.40%

25.50%

35.90%

9.30%

34.70%

Accounting and the Public Interest

A

67.60%

(46)

50.00%

(44)

26.50%

(18)

33.00%

(29)

5.90%

(4)

17.00%

(15)

Accounting Horizons

A

56.00%

(42)

15.00%

(16)

32.0%

(24)

49.50%

(53)

32.00%

(24)

49.50%

(53)

Auditing – A Journal of Practice and Theory

A

65.70%

(46)

28.70%

(27)

24.30%

(17)

34.00%

(32)

10.00%

(7)

37.20%

(35)

Behavioral Research in Accounting

A

69.60%

(48)

31.90%

(30)

21.70%

(15)

40.40%

(38)

8.70%

(6)

27.70%

(26)

Critical Perspectives in Accounting

A

70.60%

(48)

50.50%

(46)

26.50%

(18)

33.00%

(30)

2.90%

(2)

16.50%

(15)

Journal of Accounting Literature

A

75.40%

(52)

42.70%

(38)

24.60%

(17)

44.90%

(40)

0.00%

-

12.40%

(11)

A

76.50%

(52)

48.40%

(44)

17.60%

(12)

27.50%

(25)

5.90%

(4)

24.20%

(22)

Review of Accounting Studies Average

68.80%

Internal Auditor

P

63.20%

Journal of Accountancy

P

The CPA Journal.

P Average

38.20%

24.70%

37.50%

9.34%

26.36%

(43)

53.30%

(48)

23.50%

(16)

36.70%

(33)

13.20%

(9)

10.00%

(9)

11.50%

(9)

25.80%

(24)

59.00%

(46)

53.80%

(50)

29.50%

(23)

20.40%

(19)

25.00%

(18)

34.80%

(32)

44.40%

(32)

40.20%

(37)

30.60%

(22)

25.00%

(23)

33.20%

38.00%

42.30%

43.60%

24.40%

18.50%

Accounting Information Systems Information Systems Journal

A

83.30%

(50)

62.30%

(43)

13.30%

(8)

27.50%

(19)

3.30%

(2)

10.10%

(7)

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems

A

86.70%

(52)

62.90%

(44)

10.00%

(6)

22.90%

(16)

3.30%

(2)

14.30%

(10)

Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems

A

83.10%

(49)

72.70%

(48)

11.90%

(7)

24.20%

(16)

5.10%

(3)

3.00%

(2)

Journal of Information Systems

A

80.00%

(48)

61.80%

(42)

15.00%

(9)

22.10%

(15)

5.00%

(3)

16.20%

(11)

Average ISACA Journal

83.30% P

75.40%

64.90% (46)

62

73.90%

12.60% (51)

19.70%

24.20% (12)

17.40%

4.20% (12)

4.90%

10.90% (3)

8.70%

(6)

Management Accounting Management Accounting Research

A

75.80%

(47)

50.70%

(37)

16.10%

(10)

27.40%

(20)

8.10%

(5)

21.90%

(16)

Management Accounting

A

72.60%

(45)

58.60%

(41)

16.10%

(10)

31.40%

(22)

11.30%

(7)

10.00%

(7)

A

82.30%

(51)

70.30%

(52)

12.90%

(8)

23.00%

(17)

4.80%

(3)

6.80%

(5)

The International Journal of Management Accounting Average

76.90%

59.90%

15.00%

27.30%

8.10%

12.90%

Strategic Finance

P

58.30%

(35)

62.90%

(44)

23.30%

(14)

30.00%

(21)

18.30%

(11)

7.10%

(5)

Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting

A

69.50%

(41)

49.30%

(35)

28.80%

(17)

33.80%

(24)

1.70%

(1)

16.90%

(12)

Journal of Forensic Studies in Accounting and Business

A

72.90%

(43)

65.20%

(45)

22.00%

(13)

24.60%

(17)

5.10%

(3)

10.10%

(7)

Average

71.20%

57.30%

25.40%

29.20%

3.40%

13.50%

P = Practitioners A = Academic E = Elite

b. It is _____________________ to conduct research and publish in order to receive a promotion. Required Practitioners Academics

Important, but not required

Not required or important

Totals

6.5%

(4)

25.8%

(16)

67.7%

(42)

91.2%

(114)

8.8%

(11)

0.0%

-

Totals

63

33.2%

(62)

66.8%

(125)

100.0%

(187)

c. It is _________ to publish to publish in the following journals. Type

Practitioners % #

Academics % #

Not Important Financial Accounting and Auditing Accounting, Organizations and Society Contemporary Accounting Research Journal of Accounting and Economics Journal of Accounting Research The Accounting Review

E E E E E Average

Accounting and the Public Interest Accounting Horizons Auditing – A Journal of Practice and Theory Behavioral Research in Accounting Critical Perspectives in Accounting Journal of Accounting Literature Review of Accounting Studies

A A A A A A A Average

Internal Auditor Journal of Accountancy The CPA Journal.

P P P Average Accounting Information Systems

Information Systems Journal International Journal of Accounting Information Systems Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems Journal of Information Systems Average ISACA Journal Management Accounting

A A A A

Management Accounting Management Accounting Research The International Journal of Management Accounting

A A A

P

Average Strategic Finance

P Forensic Accounting and Fraud Auditing

Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting Journal of Forensic Studies in Accounting and Business Average Forensic Examiner Fraud Magazine The Value Examiner Average

A A P P P

50.0% 52.0% 46.3% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 30.0% 48.2% 50.9% 41.9% 34.2% 40.3% 45.0% 41.5% 23.9% 23.2% 24.7% 23.9%

(27) (26) (25) (26) (26) (26) (27) (26) (27) (26) (27) (25) (27) (26) (22) (19) (21) (21)

50.0% 48.0% 53.7% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 70.0% 51.9% 49.1% 58.1% 65.8% 59.7% 55.0% 58.5% 76.1% 76.8% 75.3% 76.1%

(27) (24) (29) (26) (26) (26) (63) (28) (26) (36) (52) (37) (33) (39) (70) (63) (64) (66)

33.7% 32.9% 32.1% 35.5% 33.6% 28.4%

(28) (28) (27) (27) (28) (27)

66.3% 67.1% 67.9% 64.5% 66.4% 71.6%

(55) (57) (57) (49) (55) (68)

33.3% 45.0% 32.1% 36.8% 29.7%

(27) (27) (27) (27) (27)

66.7% 55.0% 67.9% 63.2% 70.3%

(54) (33) (57) (48) (64)

28.1% 26.1% 27.1% 24.7% 21.7% 23.3% 23.3%

(23) (24) (24) (24) (20) (24) (23)

72.0% 73.9% 72.9% 75.3% 78.3% 76.7% 76.7%

(49) (68) (59) (73) (72) (79) (75)

0.0% 3.1% 10.0% 6.9% 9.5% 5.9% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 5.3% 2.6% 1.7%

(1) (3) (2) (2) (2) (1) (1) (3) (1) (1)

100.0% 96.9% 90.0% 93.1% 90.5% 94.1% 100.0% 98.2% 100.0% 98.0% 100.0% 94.7% 97.4% 98.3%

(35) (31) (27) (27) (19) (28) (32) (54) (51) (48) (36) (54) (37) (45)

Important Financial Accounting and Auditing Accounting, Organizations and Society Contemporary Accounting Research Journal of Accounting and Economics Journal of Accounting Research The Accounting Review

E E E E E Average

Accounting and the Public Interest Accounting Horizons Auditing – A Journal of Practice and Theory Behavioral Research in Accounting Critical Perspectives in Accounting Journal of Accounting Literature Review of Accounting Studies

A A A A A A A Average

64

Internal Auditor Journal of Accountancy The CPA Journal.

P P P Average Accounting Information Systems

Information Systems Journal International Journal of Accounting Information Systems Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems Journal of Information Systems Average ISACA Journal Management Accounting

A A A A

Management Accounting Management Accounting Research The International Journal of Management Accounting

A A A

P

Average Strategic Finance

P Forensic Accounting and Fraud Auditing

Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting Journal of Forensic Studies in Accounting and Business Average Forensic Examiner Fraud Magazine The Value Examiner Average

A A P P P

12.9% 13.9% 9.4% 12.1%

(4) (5) (3) (4)

87.1% 86.1% 90.6% 87.9%

(27) (31) (29) (29)

0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 2.5% 1.3% 0.0%

(1) (1) (1) -

100.0% 100.0% 97.2% 97.5% 98.7% 100.0%

(39) (36) (35) (39) (37) (30)

2.3% 0.0% 2.9% 1.7% 0.0%

(1) (1) (1) -

97.7% 100.0% 97.1% 98.3% 100.0%

(42) (46) (34) (41) (32)

9.8% 9.4% 9.6% 6.7% 18.8% 12.5% 12.6%

(4) (3) (4) (2) (6) (3) (4)

90.3% 90.6% 90.4% 93.3% 81.3% 87.5% 87.4%

(37) (29) (33) (28) (26) (21) (25)

2.3% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 10.0% 4.4% 3.6% 4.8% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 22.2% 28.6% 26.7% 25.8%

(1) (1) (0) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (4) (5) (4)

97.7% 98.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.1% 90.0% 95.7% 96.4% 95.2% 94.1% 100.0% 100.0% 95.9% 77.8% 71.4% 73.3% 74.2%

(42) (49) (48) (51) (59) (50) (9) (22) (27) (20) (16) (13) (34) (20) (7) (10) (11) (9)

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3%

(1)

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7%

(10) (11) (12) (16) (12) (6)

0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 1.3% 11.1%

(1) (1) (1)

100.0% 96.2% 100.0% 98.7% 88.9%

(8) (25) (13) (15) (8)

Highly Important Financial Accounting and Auditing Accounting, Organizations and Society Contemporary Accounting Research Journal of Accounting and Economics Journal of Accounting Research The Accounting Review

E E E E E Average

Accounting and the Public Interest Accounting Horizons Auditing – A Journal of Practice and Theory Behavioral Research in Accounting Critical Perspectives in Accounting Journal of Accounting Literature Review of Accounting Studies

A A A A A A A Average

Internal Auditor Journal of Accountancy The CPA Journal.

P P P Average Accounting Information Systems

Information Systems Journal International Journal of Accounting Information Systems Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems Journal of Information Systems Average ISACA Journal Management Accounting

A A A A

Management Accounting Management Accounting Research The International Journal of Management Accounting

A A A

P

Average Strategic Finance

P

65

Forensic Accounting and Fraud Auditing Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting Journal of Forensic Studies in Accounting and Business Average Forensic Examiner Fraud Magazine The Value Examiner Average

66

A A P P P

11.1% 12.5% 11.8% 40.0% 25.0% 20.0% 28.3%

(1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (1) (2)

88.9% 87.5% 88.2% 60.0% 75.0% 80.0% 71.7%

(8) (7) (8) (3) (6) (4) (4)

Table 2. ANOVA a. Articles published in the following publications are __________________ Elite Journals Rarely or never useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.31898

1

0.31897960

Within Groups

0.03794

8

0.00474255

Total

0.35692

9

F 67.25909

P-value 3.65039E-05

F crit 5.317655

Occasionally useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.026729

1

0.02672890

Within Groups

0.012662

8

0.00158275

Total

0.039391

9

F 16.88763

P-value 0.003393178

F crit 5.317655

Highly useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.162308

1

0.1623076

Within Groups

0.025774

8

0.0032218

Total

0.188082

9

F 50.37793

P-value 0.000102221

F crit 5.317655

Non-elite Academic Journals Rarely or never useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.327726

1

0.32772600

Within Groups

0.136461

12

0.01137174

Total

0.464187

13

F 28.81934

P-value 0.000168506

F crit 4.747225

Occasionally Useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.056706

1

0.05670579

Within Groups

0.047925

12

0.00399376

Total

0.104631

13

F 14.19859

P-value 0.002681048

F crit 4.747225

Highly useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.115389

1

0.11538864

Within Groups

0.071041

12

0.00592005

Total

0.186429

F 19.49117

P-value 0.000843115

F crit 4.747225

13

Professional Journals Rarely or never useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.003361

1

0.00336067

Within Groups

0.183129

4

0.04578233

Total

0.186490

5

67

F 0.073405

P-value 0.799848161

F crit 7.708647

Occasionally useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.000241

1

0.00024067

Within Groups

0.079995

4

0.01999867

Total

0.080235

5

F 0.012034

P-value 0.917930468

F crit 7.708647

Highly Useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.005340

1

0.00534017

Within Groups

0.030799

4

0.00769983

0.036140

5

Total

F 0.693543

P-value 0.451796772

F crit 7.708647

Accounting Information Systems Academic Rarely or never useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.067345

1

0.06734450

Within Groups

0.010370

6

0.00172825

Total

0.077714

7

F 38.96687

P-value 0.000782806

F crit 5.987378

Occasionally useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.027028

1

0.02702813

Within Groups

0.003048

6

0.00050796

Total

0.030076

7

F 53.20933

P-value 0.000338353

F crit 5.987378

Highly useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.009045

1

0.00904513

Within Groups

0.010577

6

0.00176279

0.019622

7

Total

F 5.131137

P-value 0.064088645

F crit 5.987378

Accounting Information Systems Professional Undefined Management Accounting Academic Rarely or never useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.067345

1

0.06734450

Within Groups

0.010370

6

0.00172825

Total

0.077714

7

F 38.96687

P-value 0.000782806

F crit 5.987378

Occasionally useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.027028

1

0.02702813

Within Groups

0.003048

6

0.00050796

Total

0.030076

7

F 53.20933

P-value 0.000338353

F crit 5.987378

Highly useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.009045

1

0.00904513

Within Groups

0.010577

6

0.00176279

Total

0.019622

7

68

F 5.131137

P-value 0.064088645

F crit 5.987378

Management Accounting Professional Undefined Forensic Accounting Academic Rarely or never useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.019460

1

0.01946025

Within Groups

0.013219

2

0.00660925

Total

0.032679

3

F 2.944396

P-value 0.228312457

F crit 18.51282

Occasionally useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.001444

1

0.001444

Within Groups

0.006544

2

0.003272

Total

0.007988

3

F 0.44132

P-value 0.574828086

F crit 18.51282

Highly useful Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total

SS

df

MS

0.010201

1

0.010201

0.00289

2

0.001445

0.013091

3

F 7.059516

P-value 0.117255618

F crit 18.51282

Forensic Accounting Professional Rarely or never useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.033600

1

0.03360017

Within Groups

0.059467

4

0.01486683

Total

0.093068

5

F 2.260076

P-value 0.20717719

F crit 7.708647

Occasionally useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.006337

1

0.00633750

Within Groups

0.012581

4

0.00314533

Total

0.018919

5

F 2.01489

P-value 0.228773949

F crit 7.708647

Highly useful Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.010753

1

0.01075267

Within Groups

0.026147

4

0.00653667

Total

0.036899

5

69

F 1.644977

P-value 0.268923478

F crit 7.708647

b. It is _________________to publish in the following journals Not important Elite Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F

Between Groups

48.4

1

48.4

Within Groups

15.2

8

1.9

Total

63.6

9

25.47368

P-value

F crit

0.000993

5.317655

Academic Accounting and Auditing Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

1011.500

1

1011.50000

Within Groups

1086.857

12

90.57143

Total

2098.357

13

F 11.16798

P-value

F crit

0.005868

4.747225

Professional Accounting and Auditing Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total

SS

df

MS

3504.16700

1

3504.167000

33.33333

4

8.333333

3537.50000

5

F

P-value 420.5

3.34E-05

F crit 7.708647

Academic Accounting Information Systems Source of Variation

SS

Between Groups Within Groups Total

df

MS

1536

1

1536.00000

43.33333

4

10.83333

1579.33300

5

F

P-value 141.7846

0.000285

F crit 7.708647

Professional Accounting Information Systems – undefined Academic Management Accounting Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total

SS

df

MS

F

1014

1

1014.0

342

4

85.5

1356

5

P-value 11.85965

0.026203

F crit 7.708647

Professional Management Accounting – undefined Academic Forensic Accounting Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total

SS

df

MS

F

1849

1

1849.0

41

2

20.5

1890

3

P-value 90.19512

70

0.010906

F crit 18.51282

Professional Forensic Accounting Source of Variation Between Groups

SS

df

MS

F

4537.5

1

4537.500000

Within Groups

33.33333

4

8.333333

Total

4570.833

5

P-value 544.5

F crit

2E-05

7.708647

Important Elite MS

F

P-value

F crit

Between Groups

Source of Variation

1.944016281

SS

df 1

1.94401628

1058.67469

8.6775E-10

5.31765507

Within Groups

0.014690188

8

0.00183627

Total

1.958706469

9

Accounting and Auditing Academic Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

3.268848001

1

3.268848

Within Groups

0.004474229

12

0.00037285

Total

3.273322229

13

F

P-value

F crit

8767.13726

1.4721E-18

4.74722535

Accounting and Auditing Professional MS

F

P-value

F crit

Between Groups

Source of Variation

0.863817927

1

0.86381793

1532.66095

2.5432E-06

7.70864742

Within Groups

0.002254427

4

0.00056361

0.866072353

5

Total

SS

df

Accounting Information Systems Academic Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

8114.62984

1.2608E-10

5.98737761

Between Groups

1.89579392

1

1.89579392

Within Groups

0.00140176

6

0.00023363

1.89719568

7

Total

Professional Accounting Information Systems – Undefined Forensic Accounting Academic Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total

MS

F

0.65399569

SS

df 1

0.65399569

90581.1205

1.444E-05

2

7.22E-06

0.65401013

3

P-value 1.104E-05

F crit 18.5128205

Forensic Accounting Practitioner Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

228.918812

0.00011124

7.70864742

Between Groups

0.837536482

1

0.83753648

Within Groups

0.014634647

4

0.00365866

Total

0.852171128

5

71

Highly Important Elite Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

17048.2104

1.3236E-14

5.31765507

P-value

F crit

Between Groups

2.414248225

1

2.41424823

Within Groups

0.001132904

8

0.00014161

Total

2.415381129

9

Non-Elite Accounting and Auditing Academic Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F 4192.63708

Between Groups

2.640282453

1

2.64028245

Within Groups

0.006297427

10

0.00062974

2.64657988

11

Total

1.879E-14

4.96460274

Accounting and Auditing Professional Source of Variation Between Groups

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

329.94953

5.4017E-05

7.70864742

0.35080344

1

0.35080344

Within Groups

0.004252813

4

0.0010632

Total

0.355056253

5

Accounting Information Systems Academic - undefined Management Accounting Academic Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

2882.08096

7.2067E-07

7.70864742

Between Groups

1.423988167

1

1.42398817

Within Groups

0.001976333

4

0.00049408

1.4259645

5

Total

Management Accounting Academic – undefined Forensic Accounting Academic Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

6040.50732

0.00016551

18.5128205

P-value

F crit

0.00698737

7.70864742

Between Groups

0.58354321

1

0.58354321

Within Groups

0.00019321

2

9.6605E-05

Total

0.58373642

3

Forensic Accounting Academic Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

Between Groups

0.281666667

1

0.28166667

Within Groups

0.043333333

4

0.01083333

0.325

5

Total

72

F 26

Appendix A: Alphabetical Journal Listing by Discipline Financial Accounting and Auditing Accounting and the Public Interest (A) (E) Accounting Horizons (A) Accounting, Organizations and Society (A) (E) Auditing – A Journal of Practice and Theory (A) Behavioral Research in Accounting (A) Contemporary Accounting Research (A) (E) Critical Perspectives in Accounting (A) Internal Auditor (P) Journal of Accountancy (P) Journal of Accounting and Economics (A) (E) Journal of Accounting Literature (A) Journal of Accounting Research (A) (E) Review of Accounting Studies (A) The Accounting Review (A) (E) The CPA Journal (P) Accounting Information Systems  Information Systems Journal (A)  International Journal of Accounting Information Systems (A)  ISACA Journal (P)  Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems (A)  Journal of Information Systems (A) Management Accounting  Management Accounting (P)  Management Accounting Research (A)  The International Journal of Management Accounting (A)  Strategic Finance (P) Forensic Accounting  Forensic Examiner (P)**  Fraud Magazine (P)**  Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting (A)  Journal of Forensic Studies in Accounting and Business (A)  The Value Examiner (P)** Other journals respondents published in (either in Comments or by email):  One respondent noted that “You left off your list pubs like IJAIM [International Journal of Accounting & Information Management]” but respondent did not indicate whether he or she published in it. It is assumed respondent published in IJAIM.  Journal of Accounting and Public Policy  “I basically only publish in high-quality European and Australian Accounting and Finace [sic] Journals. US journals are typically too self-obsessed with their own views and vested interests, unfortunately.”  “Surprised and saddened that you did not include Current Issues in Auditing (AAA journal) in your survey. What sort of bias is this?” It is assumed respondent published in Current Issues in Auditing.               

(A) = Academic journal (E) = Elite journal (P) = professional journal * Some journals, e.g., The Accounting Review, occasionally publish article on Management Accounting, Accounting Information Systems, or Fraud. ** Some, particularly the publisher, consider the journal to be academic because they are peer reviewed. They are classified as Professional if they are published either by a corporation that issues certifications or a corporation that requires a certification to be a member.

73