characterizing accounting research - oler

7/27/2019 characterizing accounting research - oler

1/72

Characterizing Accounting Research

Derek K. Oler

Area of Accounting, Rawls College of Business

Texas Tech UniversityBox 42101

Lubbock, TX 79409-2101

Phone: [email protected]

Mitchell J. OlerDepartment of Accounting and Information Systems, Pamplin School of Business

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University3007 Pamplin Hall (0101)

Blacksburg, VA 24061

Phone: [email protected]

Christopher J. Skousen

School of Accountancy, Jon M. Huntsman School of BusinessUtah State University

3540 Old Main Hill

Logan, UT 84322Phone: 435-797-2429

[email protected]

July 24, 2009


2/72


Abstract

In response to concerns over the viability of the academic discipline of accounting we

investigate trends in accounting research by examining papers published in six topaccounting journals from 1960 to 2007. We use citations made by accounting papers as a

proxy for their antecedent ideas and examine trends in citations, topics, andmethodologies, in aggregate and by journal. Our results suggest that the growing body ofaccounting research draws increasingly from both finance and economics. Financial

accounting topics and archival methodologies are becoming more dominant over time

relative to other topics and methodologies, although these trends vary by journal.

Although most concerns we discuss are recent, we find that the situation today is theresult of trends set in motion decades ago with an explicit decision by influential

researchers to move the discipline from a normative perspective to a positive perspective.

Given its current state accounting research may be broadly characterized as research intothe effect of economic events on the process of summarizing, analyzing, verifying, and

reporting standardized financial information, and on the effects of reported information

on economic events.


3/72


1. Introduction

Accounting research has emerged as a literature that draws from and adds to a

larger body of work dealing primarily with businesses and their interactions with society

at large, often through capital markets. Several researchers have identified threats to

accounting as an academic discipline, and some question its future viability. In this paper

we offer an alternative approach to examining these threats and concerns, and an

approach to characterizing accounting research, by (1) examining its antecedent seminal

ideas, proxied by the papers cited by research published in six top accounting journals,

(2) examining the general topic covered, and (3) examining the general methodology

used. We show trends in citations, topics, and methodologies from 1960 to 2007, both in

aggregate and then broken out by journal. We conclude by proposing a conceptualization

of accounting research based on our observations.

Researchers have raised significant concerns about the viability of accounting

research as an academic discipline. Fogarty and Markarian (2007) argue that the

academic accounting profession is in decline because there are shrinking numbers of

accounting researchers at the assistant and associate professor levels. Their findings are

corroborated by Plumlee et al. (2005) and Leslie (2008). One implication of these studies

is that, ceteris paribus, fewer accounting research papers will be published over time as

the number of researchers declines.


4/72

more recent accounting research ignores new ideas from other literatures. We examine

trends in the relative proportion of ideas in accounting research being drawn from other

disciplines to determine the extent to which accounting seems to be becoming more

insular. Rayburn (2005, 2006) expresses concern over the increasing dominance of

financial accounting research topics in academic journals, and Tuttle and Dillard (2007)

show a strong trend in publications in The Accounting Review towards more financial

accounting papers and fewer papers on other topics. We investigate whether this trend

extends to other journals.

To provide context for our analysis we provide an overview of the top six journals

in accounting research,Accounting, Organizations, and Society (AOS), Contemporary

Accounting Research (CAR), Journal of Accounting and Economics (JAE), Journal of

Accounting Research (JAR), Review of Accounting Studies (RAST), andThe Accounting

Review (TAR), and also discuss some of the significant events leading up to our current

situation. We then provide data on citations from these six journals.

We select journals currently and commonly viewed as top tier publications at

research-intensive U.S. schools. Two of these journals,AOSandCAR, are not based in

the U.S., and publish a greater proportion of papers by non-U.S. academics. To enhance

comparisons between our journals, we exclude papers without at least one U.S. author.

Accounting research intersects with a number of neighboring disciplines,

primarily finance, economics, psychology, and management. Building on Zeff (1996),


5/72

classify the topics covered by accounting papers into six categories: financial

accounting, managerial accounting, auditing, tax, governance, and other topics.1

We

classify the research methodologies used into seven categories: archival, experimental,

field study, review, survey, theoretical (often referred to as analytical), and normative.2

These are broad categories, but we believe they are adequately descriptive while

remaining reasonably digestible.3 In cases where a paper addresses multiple topics, or

uses multiple methodologies, we select the primary topic and primary methodology for

our classifications. We provide an expanded description of our categories in the

Appendix.

Our results show that the nature of accounting research has changed significantly

over the past 48 years. The most radical shift has been from the dominance of normative

research in the 60s to positive research from the mid-70s onward. We argue that this

shift continues to guide the trajectory of accounting research today. The total number of

papers published by the top accounting journals has increased dramatically from 1960 to

2007, mostly because of new journals being inaugurated and later commonly accepted as

A journals. We also break out paper counts by individual journal, and find that

research production overall has not decreased. Accounting papers currently draw just

1 Prior research in auditing and management accounting may also be considered governance research;

however, we define governance research here as research relating to the overall corporate management, as

opposed to a firms system of internal controls. While some governance papers occurred prior to the

Gompers et al. paper (2003), we note that most governance research builds on their work. Our selection ofgovernance is also an example of a newer hot topic that is essentially borrowed from economics


6/72

under 50 percent of their antecedent ideas from other prior accounting work (Table 1),

and this ratio has remained consistent since the mid 1990s. Borrowing from finance and

economics has been slowly but steadily increasing. Financial accounting research has

remained the dominant topic of research, and is becoming increasingly so (see Tables 2

and 5). Tuttle and Dillard (2007) show that this trend occurs in TAR; we show that the

trend extends to other top journals except forAOSandCAR.

Papers in our six accounting journals show a different mix of citations, topics, and

methodologies. For example,RASTpapers cite other accounting papers 50 percent of the

time on average from 1996 (inception) to 2007, and cite psychology papers only 0.2

percent of the time, compared withAOSpapers which cite accounting papers 30 percent

of the time and cite psychology papers 9.4 percent of the time (Table 4 Panel A).

Differences in citations reflect significant differences in topic and methodology: from

inception to 2007, 22 percent ofCARs papers focus on audit issues, compared to 3.8

percent ofRASTs (Table 5 Panel B). Papers dealing with financial accounting make up

an increasing proportion of the total papers published in almost all journals from their

inception through to today except forAOSandCAR (see Table 5 Panels C and D). In

terms of methodology, archival research is becoming more dominant in all journals

(Table 6).

Our results have several implications. First, although the number of accounting

A journals and the number of total accounting publications has increased significantly


7/72

researchers at doctoral-granting schools, and (2) a significant increase in the amount of

time spent on research (Leslie, 2008). But faculty cannot indefinitely increase their time

devoted to research. The large unmet demand for auditing and taxation PhDs noted by

Plumlee et al. (2005) corroborates our finding that the proportionate amount of auditing

and taxation papers has decreased in the 2000s relative to prior decades (Table 5 Panel

A). The recent AICPA Accounting Doctoral Scholars Program (announced in July 2008)

should help to counteract this trend by encouraging and funding CPAs who wish to

obtain PhDs in auditing and tax.

Over time citations from finance and economics have increased, suggesting that

accounting research is drawing closer to these related disciplines. This is consistent with

the shift in accounting research from primarily normative research in the 1960s to

positive research that uses methods from finance, economics, and other established

academic disciplines (Granof and Zeff, 2008). Citations from psychology, statistics, and

management are relatively low in the 2000s when compared to prior years. The

increasing dominance of financial accounting research is also consistent with the

observations of Tuttle and Dillard (2007) and Plumlee et al. (2005).

It is important to note that the selection of papers published in any journal is

jointly determined by the authors (who determine the topic, methodology, and where to

submit their paper), reviewers, and editors (who determine which papers to accept and

publish based on the papers that are submitted). Thus, our research should not be


8/72

journals such as theJournal of the American Tax Association orAuditing: A Journal of

Practice and Theory. However, these are not generally accepted as A hits in top U.S.

schools. Researching academics, especially those currently untenured, recognize that a

publication in one of our selected journals is very helpful, and often essential, to attaining

tenure. Our choice of six top accounting journals implicitly assumes that the choices

made by submitting authors, reviewers, and editors of these journals reflect a

representative sample of accounting research.4

Based on our observations, we construct a possible characterization of accounting

research: accounting research is research into the effect of economic events on the

process of summarizing, analyzing, verifying, and reporting standardized financial

information, and on the effects of reported information on economic events. This

characterization is necessarily broad, reflecting the diversity of papers published over the

past 40 years. We also emphasize that this characterization is a reflection of what has

been published as accounting research, and not necessarily what accounting research

should be. Some researchers will find this characterization too broad, while others may

take comfort in the fact that accounting research seems resistant to being encapsulated

into discrete areas that could become tapped out after years of investigation.

Our findings are useful to researchers in deciding where to submit their work.

Students and administrators of PhD programs in accounting may wish to use our results

in making decisions on resource allocations, especially towards encouraging and


9/72

expanding audit and tax research. Finally, accounting PhD students may benefit from our

long-term overview of accounting research and how it has changed over time.

In the next section we expand on our motivation and review the prior literature.

In section 3 we review our data and methodology. In section 4 we present our results and

propose a current characterization of accounting research, and in section 5 we conclude.

2. Motivation and Literature Review

What is accounting research? Some papers are intuitively accounting (e.g.,

Required disclosures in financial reports, Schipper, 2007), but others less clearly so

(e.g., Tax benefits as a source of merger premiums in acquisitions of private

corporations, Erickson and Wang, 2007; Industry product market competition and

managerial incentives, Karuna, 2007; Measuring customer relationship value: The role

of switching cost, Dikolli et al., 2007). One heuristic used by many researchers in

deciding if their paper is accounting, and therefore where to submit their work, is to

count citations: if the majority of citations are from accounting journals, then it is an

accounting paper. This heuristic clearly works for the Schipper paper above (42 out of 44

citations from academic journals are from other accounting journals), but less so for

Erickson and Wang (only 9 out of 21 citations are from accounting journals). Beavers

seminal work in 1968 cites only 3 accounting papers out of 17 total citations: according

to the citations-count heuristic, The Information Content of Earnings Announcements


10/72

A simple approach to describing and conceptualizing accounting research is to

look at papers published in top accounting journals. We look at six top journals (AOS,

CAR, JAE, JAR, RAST, andTAR) for U.S. schools because these journals represent highly

sought after achievements that are required for tenure at top institutions and can virtually

guarantee tenure at lower-tier institutions.

Accounting journals do not explicitly define the term accounting research.

TARs editorial policy is to publish articles reporting results of accounting research

from any accounting-related subject. JARs first issue states that the journal will be

devoted to reporting the results of research activities in all areas of accounting, (Shultz

and Caine, 1963). The inaugural issue ofRASTdescribes its mission as to provide an

outlet for significant academic research in accounting where research must contribute

to the discipline of accounting. Similarly, the inaugural issue ofAOSdiscusses the need

for research into understanding the way in which all forms of accounting information

are actually used (Hopwood, 1976, page 2), suggesting that accounting research could

consider individuals response to accounting information. The lack of an explicit

definition of accounting research does not suggest sloppy thinking or laziness; rather, it

suggests that accounting research is hard to define. Hopwood (2007) argues that

accounting research has changed over time; for example, preJAR (1963) and pre-Ball

and Brown (1968), accounting research was largely normative (i.e., focusing on how

economic events should be accounted for), but afterwards positive research became more


11/72

economic events).5

Thus, looking at the effect of net income on stock prices seems to

have become accounting research, where previously it was not. With Ball and Brown,

and the contemporaneous shift towards positive research (discussed by Reiter and

Williams, 2002, among others) and the explosion of archival research (see Kothari,

2001), accounting researchers seem to have partially annexed a literature that was

previously in the realm of finance.6

As the saying goes, it is difficult to know where you are going unless you know

where you have been, and where you are now. Accordingly, our paper seeks to provide a

context within which to evaluate threats to (and concerns over) the profession, as well as

an overview of accounting research, by bootstrapping from prior work. We assume that

papers published in top accounting journals are a faithful representation of the accounting

literature, and that the prior work they cite is an effective proxy for their antecedents.7

That is, the papers cited by accounting research in top journals can give us insight into

where seminal ideas in accounting are coming from, and can help us characterize what

accounting research is. Insights from investigating citations and trends in citations from

published accounting research can also help us evaluate threats to the profession

identified by various researchers.


12/72

Threats to the Academic Accounting Profession

Fogarty and Markarian (2007) recount changes in accounting faculty numbers

from 1982 to 2002 and conclude that a decline in the number of assistant and associate

accounting professors over that period indicates that the future of the academic discipline

is in doubt. Leslie (2008) shows a similar decline. Plumlee et al. (2005) reports expected

shortages of accounting researchers for 2005-2008, especially in audit and tax (and

reports no indication that this trend will reverse in the near future). If the number of

active researchers decreases and acceptance rates at journals remain the same, then we

should expect to see a corresponding drop in accounting papers published. Buchheit et

al. (2002), Swanson (2004) and Swanson et al. (2007) report that accounting has the

lowest proportion of faculty who publish in a top journal.8

These results seem consistent

with Plumlee et al. (2005), Fogarty and Markarian (2007), and Leslie (2008) in that if it is

more difficult for accounting researchers to obtain publications needed for tenure then

fewer potential accounting PhD students may consider the field as a viable career (see

also Moizer, 2009, for a discussion and critique of the current review process at

accounting journals).

Another concern, perhaps best articulated by Hopwood (2007), is that accounting

research has grown more insular and less innovative over time. Similar concerns are

raised by Williams (1985). If correct, this should manifest itself in a reduction of

citations from other literatures over time in accounting research.


13/72

overly dominant to the detriment of other topics or methodologies then the entire

profession may suffer as researchers focus on a shrinking set of acceptable papers.

Granof and Zeff (2008) note that developments in the 1960s, including a desire by

accounting researchers to obtain more academic respectability from their peers in other

fields, have lead to the unintended consequence of interesting accounting questions now

being ignored because they cannot be addressed through currently accepted quantitative

and theoretical analysis. Their work is corroborated by Tuttle and Dillard (2007), who

show that the field of academic accounting research is becoming more homogenized as it

matures. Specifically, they show that the proportion of non-financial accounting papers

published in TAR has decreased significantly from 1976 to 2006, and they show

corroborating trends in papers winning the American Accounting Association

Competitive Manuscript Award, downloads of working papers from the Social Sciences

Research Network website (SSRN), and accounting dissertations awarded. We

investigate whether their findings extend to five other top accounting journals.

Historical Review of Journals and the Development of Accounting Research

To provide a context for our analysis of citations we provide a review of the

histories of our selected journals and provide an overview on the development of

accounting research in the U.S.


14/72

(AAUIA) and under William Paton, Senior Editor (the association changed its name to

the American Accounting Association, AAA, in 1936). Unlike the other journals listed,

TAR did not publish an editorial note on the goal and purpose of the journal. Instead,

article II of the AAUIAs constitution states that the objectives of the association includes

the encouragement of practical research in accounting (Filbey, 1926). No particular bias

in methodology or topic is suggested in the constitution, only that the research it

publishes focuses on accounting and accounting topics.

TAR is considered the premiere journal of the AAA, which also publishes several

other general and sectional journals. The journals current editorial policy is to publish

all types of research methodologies and topics that can be broadly defined as accounting.

From 1960, TAR has published a broad cross section of topics and methodologies with

the largest concentration in financial topics and archival methodologies. The editorship

ofTAR is currently on a 3 year rotation schedule, with Steven Kachelmeier (an

experimentalist at the University of Texas at Austin) as senior editor. Given its mandate

under the AAA to serve the needs of its constituents, the 13 associate editors are drawn

from widely diverse areas in research topics and methodologies as well as from

universities across the United States.

As noted in our review of theJAR below, TAR appeared to lag behindJAR in the

trend towards more positive research and less normative research. However, TAR has

also adopted a very strong preference to positive research as well (see Fleming, Graci,


15/72

Journal of Accounting Research

Unlike TAR,JAR is far more focused in its editorship, topics, and methodologies.

JAR started in 1963 under George Shultz (University of Chicago) and Sir Sydney Caine

(London School of Economics) with Sydney Davidson and David Green as founding

editors. The journals inception coincided with recent developments and advances in

research, including a reliable database for security prices, the Center for Research in

Security Prices (CRSP) founded in 1960, also at the University of Chicago. Reiter and

Williams (2002) note that the University of Chicago andJAR aggressively promoted

positive research against the dominance of normative research at the time.

JAR originally had an international mandate. Shultz and Caine (1963) reasoned:

[t]houghtful accountants in all parts of the world face much the same problems, and

share much the same interests; and their ideas ought to migrate freely. However, the

proportion ofJAR publications from non-U.S. authors has remained low since the 1980s

(with a slight increase from the mid-2000s). At the time of this papers writing in 2009,

4 of the 36 members ofJARs editorial board are from schools outside the U.S.

The journal does not state a specific ideology in regards to method or topic, and

instead is devoted to reporting all the results of all research activities in all areas of

accounting (Shultz and Caine, 1963). However, in practice,JAR has been highly

devoted to positive research. Nicholas Dopuch, a former editor and current consulting

editor ofJAR, stated that he believed normative research was dead (and as editor ofJAR


16/72

Accounting, Organizations and Society

Based at the Sad School of Business at Oxford University, AOSwas first printed

in 1976 with Anthony Hopwood as chief editor. The journal has a much broader

approach to research than our other journals. In his editorial from the first edition,

Hopwood notes a fragmentation of our perception of the world around us (1976),

and suggests a need for research to integrate across disciplines. As such, todayAOShas a

diverse editorial board, still headed by Anthony Hopwood, spanning researchers with

expertise in different methodologies, topics, and even geography. Of our six journals,

AOSshows the greatest breadth in topics and methodologies. Consistent with its

commitment,AOSpublishes a greater portion of papers relating to behavioral topics and

it is the only journal where financial archival research does not dominate.

Journal of Accounting and Economics

Established in 1979 at the Simon Graduate School of Business at the University

of Rochester,JAEs original mandate was to publish manuscripts that explain accounting

phenomena using economic theories. The journal specifically sought after papers that

crossed between theory and empirics, rejecting theoretical papers that are without testable

implications and empirical papers without any theoretical background (Watts and

Zimmerman, 1979).

In the beginning the original editorial board consisted primarily of archivalists


17/72

United States and 32 associate editors across the United States and Canada, all of whom

are widely considered either archivalists or theorists. True to its original mandate,JAE

publishes primarily papers with archival and theoretical type methodologies.

Contemporary Accounting Research

CARs first issue was published in the fall of 1984 under the Canadian Academic

Accounting Association with Haim Falk as editor. Its mandate is to focus on the

particular needs of the Canadian accounting community and an objective to stimulate

accounting research in Canada. The journal did not specify any bias in preferred research

method or topic, and today still adheres to its original mandate to publish research that is

of interest to the Canadian accounting community (see http://www.caaa.ca/CAR/).

The current editorial board is composed of 82 researchers from several different

countries, although predominately United States and Canada, that use a wide range of

methodologies and topics.9 CAR today tends to be more diverse in research type and

methodology, but like most of our journals, publishes relatively more archival financial

type papers than any other type.

Review of Accounting Studies

RASTbegan publishing in 1996 with a scope to provide an outlet for

significant academic research in accounting including theoretical and experimental work


18/72

the editors seek to attract all forms of research

(http://accounting.wharton.upenn.edu/rast/). However, the journals original editors were

four theorists, two archivalists, one experimentalist, with the remaining three members

focusing on both theoretical and archival research. The large number of editorial

theorists is correlated with the high concentration of published theoretical work (over 50

percent) in the first four years of publication. Today, the editorial board is predominately

composed of theorists and archivalists, with the dominate topic and methodology now

being financial, archival research. RASTsrapid rise to prominence as a top accounting

journal emphasizes the current dominant position of positive and archival research

relative to other forms of research.

Important Events in Accounting Research

Several events underlie the trends we show in our subsequent analysis. The

greatest shift in research over time has been the almost complete abandonment of

normative research by our six top journals. This shift, while welcomed and facilitated by

some, has also drawn criticism (e.g., Williams, 2003; Ravenscroft and Williams, 2009).

We construct a timeline of important events in accounting research that, while necessarily

incomplete, clearly shows a number of events that assisted positive research in achieving

its dominant position. Specifically, the creation and dissemination of archival databases

(CRSP and Compustat, launched in 1960 and 1964 respectively and made more widely


19/72

that were almost exclusively devoted to positive research (JAR, 1963;JAE, 1979, and

RAST, 1996).

Other critical events have also helped to shape accounting research into its present

form. In 1973 the FASB a better funded organization with permanent staff devoted to

the formulation of GAAP replaced the Accounting Principles Board. AOSandCAR,

journals with a broader view of accounting research, were launched in 1976 and 1984,

respectively. Other landmark papers include Watts and Zimmerman, 1978, who

articulate how positive research can play a role in setting accounting standards (an area

where one would expect normative thought to naturally dominate). Their paper helped to

justify the growing output of positive research from academics. Healy (1985) shows how

managers bonus schemes are linked to their choice of accounting policies (thus,

accounting numbers went from being viewed by some as irrelevant in the pre-Ball and

Brown period to being linked to a growing number of economic phenomena). Hopwood

(1987) describes accounting systems as part of an endogenous system of social and

economic factors, increasing the richness of context in which accounting systems are

evaluated. Finally, the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 marked a structural

change in professional accounting and auditing that has significant future implications

and helped to spark interest in governance research from accounting academics.

Related Prior Research


20/72

journals draw mostly from other business fields, and then from economics and law.10

Hofstedt (1976) uses citations to compare and contrast behavioral accounting research

with capital markets research. Dyckman and Zeff (1984) examine citations as part of

their review on the impact ofJAR on academic accounting research. They also note that

the pace of interdisciplinary borrowing by accounting research increased in the 1960s

and 1970s. Brown and Gardner (1985) use citations to assess the impact ofTAR,JAR,

JAE, andAOSon CAR from 1976 to 1982.

Carnaghan et al. (1994) profile CAR over its first 10 years. Similar to our

approach, they provide a breakdown of papers by topic and methodology.11

We extend

their work by time frame and also by journal. Similarly, Stone (2002) provides a

breakdown of accounting publications by method and topic from 1989 to 1998 forAOS,

CAR, JAE, JAR, andTAR, and shows that the dominant topic and methodology over that

period was financial accounting and archival, respectively.12

We extend Stone in both

years and journals covered. Buchheit et al. (2002) compare the proportionate publication

rates for accounting, finance, management, and marketing, and find that the proportionate

amount of accounting faculty publishing in top accounting journals is significantly lower

than the corresponding rates for other disciplines.13

We focus on a similar set of

accounting journals as Buchheit et al. and Swanson (2004) specifically, CAR, JAE,

JAR, andTAR, and addAOSandRAST. More recently, Wakefield (2008) uses citations

to estimate the relative influence of 22 accounting research journals from 2000 to 2006.


21/72


22/72

We classify citations into eight major categories: accounting, finance, economics,

psychology, management, statistics, other academic journals, and other citations (i.e.,

books, professional journals, working papers, popular media, legal cases, etc.).17

An

alternative approach would be to exclude non-academic journal citations, but this would

preclude our comparison of citations going back to 1960 because many early articles did

not cite other academic journals (few academic journals existed at the time). We include

a large number of items in other citations, because books and working papers are more

difficult to classify (e.g., should a book on business valuation be classified as

accounting or finance?), and because of the diversity of other items cited (e.g.,

professional journals, court cases, websites, etc.). A few papers, mostly in the 1960s and

1970s, make no citations at all, and we exclude these papers from our citations analysis

but not from our analysis of topic and methodology.18

We classify papers by topic using six categories: financial accounting,

managerial accounting, auditing, tax, governance, and other topics (which captures a

variety of topics, including education, research methodology issues, and history).

Finally, we also classify papers by methodology: archival, experimental, field study,

review, survey, theoretical, and normative (i.e., research arguing over what should be

and often advocating a particular accounting treatment as opposed to positive research).

Our topic and methodology descriptions are expanded on in the Appendix.

Because we examine a 48-year time trend of changes in citations, topics, and


23/72

Our timeline is admittedly ad-hoc, necessarily brief, and considers the creation of new

academic journals, the introduction of accounting and financial databases, changes in

major accounting institutions, and publications of seminal research.19

4. Results

Table 1 shows our results for proportionate citations by literature from 1960 to

2007. Our opening years, 1960 to 1966, are characterized by relatively low proportionate

citations from accounting or other academic fields and very high proportionate citations

from books, legal cases, court cases, and other sources. However, starting with 1967, the

proportionate citations in accounting papers from accounting journals begins to increase

significantly.20

At the same time, citations from finance, economics, and management

also begin to increase. For the most part these trends continue, but one exception is that

management literature citations reached a high point of 9.8 percent in 1977 and have

reverted back to early 1960s levels in subsequent years.

[Insert Table 1 and Figure 1 Here]

Figure 1 shows the same results in graphical form alongside our historical

timeline.21

To avoid distracting clutter we show only the top three categories

(accounting, finance, and economics). The increase in accounting citations appears to

have been precipitated by the launch ofJAR in 1963 and the origination of CRSP and

Compustat in 1964. Accounting citations accounted for between 30 and 40 percent (other


24/72

than one exception in 1981) of citations between 1972 and 1985, increased from 1986 to

2003, and have tapered off slightly since then. Citations from finance and economics

have increased steadily from 1960 to 2007, with a few spikes (e.g., 1978 for finance,

contemporaneous with the publication of Watts and Zimmerman, 1978, and a spike in

economics citations in 1995 contemporaneous with the publication of Feltham and

Ohlson).

22

Citations from finance research reach their highest point in 2007, at 14.5

percent.

Overall, these results suggest that (1) current accounting research has a

considerable foundation from which to draw, and if accounting has been growing more

insular over time, the level of insularity appears to have peaked in 2003; (2) accounting

research in general appears to be drawing closer to finance and economics, but even by

2007, combined citations from finance and economics represent just under 25 percent of

total citations. These trends are consistent with the rise of positive research, which has its

roots in economics and finance.

[Insert Figure 2 Here]

Figure 2 Panel A shows the aggregate number of papers published by year in our

accounting journals, with the same timeline as in Figure 1. These results show that the

number of accounting papers published has increased significantly since 1982 even

though Fogarty and Markarian (2007) and Leslie (2008) report a drop in accounting

researchers. The increase is not monotonic (for example, there was a decrease from 1968


25/72

two factors: First, Leslie (2008) reports a slight increase in accounting researchers at

doctoral-granting schools (although they also report a significant drop in researchers at 4-

year non-doctoral schools). As faculty at doctoral-granting schools are more likely to be

research active (because of higher research budgets and because of a reduced teaching

load), the decrease in the number of researchers may not translate directly into a decrease

in the number of publications. Second, Leslie also finds that the number of hours spent

on research reported by accounting faculty has increased by 52 percent from 1993 to

2004, suggesting that an increase in output-per-faculty is compensating for a decrease in

the number of faculty.

One shortcoming with Figure 2 Panel A is the number of papers published will

increase mechanically over time because of new journals being added. Thus, it could be

that the number of publications on a per-journal basis have diminished over time even

though we see an increase in aggregate. Accordingly, we break out the number of papers

published by journal in Panels B to G. TAR andJARboth appear to have suffered a drop

in the number of annual publications TAR dropping from a high of 83 papers in 1964 to

about 25 papers per year in 2002, and then increasing in recent years. JAR also dropped

from a high of 71 papers in 1974 to a fairly stable level of around 31 papers per year

thereafter. AOSshows a less precipitous decline from 43 in 1988 to 29 in 2007. JAE

shows considerable variance in the number of publications, and 2007 publications are

only 18 papers (versus 32 in 2006). CAR andRASTboth show an increasing trend.


26/72

AOS are headquartered in Canada and the United Kingdom respectively. Overall, trends

by individual journal suggest that publication output has not decreased over time.

[Insert Table 2 Here]

Table 2, Panel A, examines citations sorted by research topic. The vast majority

of papers fall into financial accounting (2,577, over three times the number published in

managerial accounting, the next closest topic, at 741). Different topics draw from

somewhat different categories. Auditing and financial accounting draw proportionately

more from prior accounting research than from other categories, at 44 percent for

auditing and 43 percent for financial accounting; however, auditing draws the most from

psychology at 5.1 percent while financial accounting draws very little from psychology.

The newest topic, corporate governance and control, draws the least from

accounting and the most from economics (consistent with the seminal paper in that field,

Gompers et al., 2003, published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics), as well as

borrowing substantially from finance. Managerial accounting draws significantly from

economics, but relatively little from finance.

When broken out by topic and decade, (Panels B to G), the results suggest a

strong trend towards more accounting citations as accounting researchers take ownership

of research streams and build on prior accounting papers in the area. Financial

accounting, auditing, tax, governance, and other topics all show increased borrowing

from finance, while managerial accounting has decreased its borrowing from finance.


27/72

plays a limited roll for most topics except for management accounting (where it is

declining).

Table 2, Panel B, shows that the number of financial accounting papers has

increased significantly from the 1960s to the 2000s. Panels C to G show that

managerial accounting, auditing, and tax have all decreased from the 1990s to the 2000s

and, as mentioned previously, governance has increased significantly in the 2000s but

still remains a relatively small topic.23

Figure 3 shows the relative proportion of papers

by topic graphically, and emphasizes the increase in financial accounting papers, from

about 42 percent in 1960 to about 65 percent in 2007. However, the most dramatic

increase in financial accounting occurred around 1995, coinciding with the publication of

Feltham and Ohlson (1995), Sloan (1996), and the founding ofRASTin 1996. The

portion of other topics has generally decreased in a similar manner: relative stability until

around 1995, tapering off slightly thereafter.


Table 3, Panel A, performs a similar analysis as in Table 2, but breaks out papers

by research methodology instead of topic. Because most financial accounting research

uses archival methodology our results show a similar dominance by archival research (the

number of archival papers is over twice the next highest methodology, theoretical

modeling). Different methodologies also draw from different literatures. Archival

research draws heavily from finance at almost 15 percent. Theoretical research draws


28/72

least from prior accounting and are much more dependent on management. A similar

result also holds for survey papers.


Figure 4 shows the time trend in relative proportion of methodologies, and shows

the precipitous drop in normative research, from a high in 1963 to almost negligible by

the mid 1980s, consistent with observations from Bricker and Previts (1990), Reiter and

Williams (2002), Williams (2003), and Granoff and Zeff (2008). The period from 1968

to 1979 is characterized by roughly equal representation among all methodologies except

normative, which declined.24

However, roughly corresponding with the publication of

Watts and Zimmerman (1978) and the inauguration of theJAEin 1979, we see a growing

dominance of archival research over other methodologies. The decrease is slight for

theoretical research, and more pronounced for experimental research.25


Tables 4 to 6 break out citations, topics, and methodologies by journal, and help

to characterize the particular flavor of each journal. Panel A in Table 4 gives an

overview of citation sources by journal. Consistent with its name,JAEpapers draw from

economics (11 percent), but even more heavily from finance (18 percent). AOSdraws the

least from prior accounting work (30 percent versus 39 percent forTAR, the next lowest)

and draws the most from psychology and management. Panels B to F detail the trend in

citations for each journal by decade. Each journal shows a strong trend towards citing


29/72

from the 1990s to 2000s, at 45 percent, coupled with a large increase in citations from

finance).


Table 5 examines paper topics by decade and journal. The increasing dominance

of financial accounting is evident in Panel A, along with the relative decline of

managerial accounting, audit, and tax. Panel B breaks out topics by journal and indicates

some stark differences. RASTpublishes predominantly financial accounting papers (with

some managerial, but relatively few audit, tax, and governance papers). In contrast,AOS

publishes proportionately more managerial accounting papers than other journals (34

percent to 16 percent, the next highest from TAR), andCARpublishes proportionately the

most audit research. Tax research makes up a relatively small portion of total research,

withJAEpublishing proportionately more tax research than the other journals. The drop

in published research in audit and tax is consistent with the unmet demand for audit and

tax researchers noted by Plumlee et al. (2005).

Breaking out trends by individual journal, CAR is the only journal to move

contrary to the trend towards increasing financial accounting research (60 percent of

papers in the 1990s to 50 percent in the 2000s); all other journals have increased the

proportion of financial accounting papers published. CAR also increased its proportion of

managerial, audit, and tax papers, while these topics have declined (or remained the

same) forJAR, RAST, andTAR. AOSshows a small increase in financial papers


30/72


Table 6 examines methodologies by decade and journal. Consistent with the

increase in financial accounting research noted in the prior tables, there is a strong trend

towards proportionately more archival research, shown in Panel A. Normative research

drops from being the dominant methodology in the 1960s to being almost nonexistent.

Experimental work declined from a zenith in the 1980s, and theoretical work seems to

have wide swings over time. Panel B shows considerable variation by journal: JAEand

RASTpublish primarily archival papers;JAR, AOSandCAR publish relatively more

experimental papers;RASTandCAR publish relatively more theoretical papers.

Panels C to G show the time trend for each journal. Almost all journals show an

increase in the relative proportion of archival research from the 1990s to the 2000s (the

only exception beingJAE, which devoted its entire September 2001 issue to reviews).

Experimental research shows a precipitous decline inJAR, going from 25 percent in the

1970s down to 8.0 percent in the 2000s, but an increase in both CAR andAOS.

Theoretical research is also declining in all journals, most significantly in CAR andRAST.


Overall, these results present a mixed picture on the health of accounting as an

academic discipline. On the one hand, accounting research appears to have constructed a

strong foundation from which to build: about half the citations in recently published

accounting papers refer to prior accounting work. The research output of papers in top


31/72

in the publication output of top journals. However, if the trends noted by Plumlee et al.

(2005) and Leslie (2008) continue, we expect to see a significant decrease in publication

output (or, alternatively, a significant increase in the acceptance rate of top journals) as

aging faculty retire without being replaced and as the remaining faculty reach their limits

in the number of hours put into research.26

Most significantly, the drop in publications in

audit and tax from 2000 to 2007 is consistent with the significant number of unfilled

positions for audit and tax researchers at universities documented by Plumlee et al.

(2005).

Concerns of decreasing diversity in publications (Rayburn, 2005, 2006; Tuttle and

Dillard, 2007) are supported by our results. We find that financial accounting topics and

archival methodologies are growing more dominant across most journals, and that other

topics and methodologies are declining, consistent with the unmet demand for faculty in

audit and tax (and, to a lesser degree, managerial), discussed earlier.

Concerns over growing insularity in the profession (Hopwood, 2007) seem to be

partially supported. Citations to other accounting papers have increased steadily from

1960 to 1997, and appear to have leveled off since then at about 50 percent. Borrowing

from economics seems to remain consistent at about 9 percent over the past few years,

and borrowing from finance seems to be slowly increasing, reaching 15 percent by 2007.

Although Zeff (1996) names psychology and management as neighboring disciplines to

accounting, recent papers appear to draw very little from these fields (and also very little


32/72


33/72

based on prior accounting publications must be broad enough to include financial and

managerial accounting (obviously), auditing, tax, and possibly governance. Kinney

(2001) defines the domain of accounting scholarship as the knowledge of the individual

and aggregate effects of alternative standardized business measurement and reporting

structures (page 278). His approach stems from an institutional viewpoint and is

perhaps more normative in nature; our focus is on what accounting authors and editors

have concluded on which papers are within the bounds of accounting research. In

addition, Kinney is describing an area where accounting researchers have a relative

advantage, not necessarily providing an all-inclusive characterization of accounting

research.

In spite of the above differences, our proposed characterization builds on

Kinneys description of the domain of accounting: accounting research is research into

the effect of economic events on the process of summarizing, analyzing, verifying, and

reporting standardized financial information, and on the effects of reported information

on economic events.

The term financial information is purposefully very broad, and is meant to

include tax information, analyst forecasts, and even relatively simple information such as

cash level and inventory.28 For most accounting research, financial information relates to

businesses, but accounting research can also extend to other entities such as governments

and non-profit organizations. Standardized information is information that is generated


34/72

be used inside the firm. Effect is also a very broad term, and encompasses used,

misused, misunderstood, or even ignored for example, Sloan (1996) and Picconi

(2006). Economic events is equally broad; most accounting research will fall within a

pecuniary definition of the change in a firms reported income or stock price, but the term

can also extend to all human events dealing with the allocation of scarce resources (e.g.,

hiring or firing of a CEO).

Some may view this characterization as too broad. It intrudes significantly into

finance and economics research. Using too broad a characterization may result in

accounting research becoming indistinguishable from other research (for example,

accounting research could morph into finance research); too narrow a characterization

would restrict accounting researchers to a limited set of topics that could become

researched out, resulting in a literature that examines increasingly irrelevant minutia.

Further, it may be that accounting research will continue to shift, and any characterization

agreed upon would be moot in future years. Hopefully our proposal can serve as a useful

starting point for future discussion and debate.

5. Summary and conclusion

This paper examines trends in accounting research in citations (as a proxy for the

literatures from which seminal accounting research ideas are drawn), topic, and

methodology. Our intent is to assess the current condition of academic accounting


35/72

Our results on the proportion of citations being drawn from accounting research,

and on the number of papers being published by top accounting journals, suggest that

there are significant problems ahead. The increase in output seems more attributable to

faculty working increased hours than to an overall increase in faculty. Trends from PhD

programs suggest that there will continue to be unmet demand, especially in auditing and

taxation, and we find that the proportion of research from these fields published in our six

journals is already dropping. The Accounting Doctoral Scholars program announced by

the AICPA in 2008 should help to attract more auditing and tax researchers to the

profession, but no similar program exists to attract managerial accounting or theoretical

researchers.

The relative proportion of citations drawn from prior accounting papers appears to

have plateaued at just under 50 percent, and borrowing from economics and finance has

increased, which suggests that accounting is not becoming more insular. However,

concerns about decreasing diversity in accounting research are supported: we show that

financial accounting is becoming increasingly dominant (except forCAR and AOS) and

other topics are declining. Archival methodology is also becoming more dominant.

With respect to the trend towards more financial accounting/archival research,

this trend is consistent with a significant number of events beginning with the founding of

JAR in 1963, the publication of Ball and Brown in 1968, and aided by an increasing

availability of externally reported financial statement and stock price information


36/72

interests, but fewer can accommodate other topics or methodologies (especially tax and

theoretical research). These trends are also related to the conscious decision of many

researchers to pursue a positive research paradigm following the social sciences see

Granof and Zeff (2008).

We believe that the long-term dominance of the positive paradigm has the

undesirable effects of crowding out other ideas. Accounting research should focus on

asking and answering questions that are (1) useful to both academics and non-academics,

and (2) are within the varied expertise of accounting researchers. The particular

methodologies used should be the best ones suited for the question, not necessarily the

ones in vogue at the time. When we limit ourselves to only questions that can be

answered by the dominant methodology, existing homogenized databases, or worse, to

only questions within the dominant topic of the day, we do ourselves and the professional

accounting community a disservice. Although the trends we observe are entrenched, and

change will likely take place slowly, recent events such as articles like the keynote

addresses from the 2009JAR conference on the regulation of securities markets are a

refreshing development (see the May 2009 issue ofJAR).

Our study is meant to initiate and continue discussion and debate, not conclude it.

Our proposed current characterization of accounting research is a starting point, to be

followed by further reasoning and discussion. As mentioned previously, we also do not

intend for our results to be interpreted as criticism of editors and reviewers. Authors are


37/72

2007; Moizer, 2009), and to send those papers to journals that have published similar

papers. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy; for example,JAEhas published little

experimental research, so would an experimental researcher risk sending her work there

for review?

We hope to make several contributions to the literature, primarily by facilitating

informed discussion on the health of the profession, and on facilitating informed

discussion on the question: what is accounting research? Several researchers have raised

concerns about the profession (e.g, Swanson, 2004; Plumlee et al., 2005; Rayburn, 2005;

Fogarty and Markarian, 2007; Hopwood, 2007; Demski, 2007; Fellingham, 2007; Leslie,

2008; Granof and Zeff, 2008). As Demski notes, many of the challenges we face today

are not new (for example, see Williams, 1985, and Mautz, 1965). But this does not mean

they should be ignored.

We believe that this paper will also be a useful tool for introductory PhD research

seminars that wish to provide a general overview on trends in accounting research. PhD

students and new faculty may be interested in our findings when considering possible

homes for their research. Administrators of PhD programs may be interested in our

results as they make decisions on where to allocate scarce resources and on their

admissions decisions. We also hope that this paper can emphasize calls for greater

diversity within the umbrella of accounting research (e.g., Rayburn, 2006; Granof and

Zeff, 2008).


38/72

Works Cited

Abbott, A. D., (2004). Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New

York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Ball, R. & Brown, P. (1968). An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers.Journal of Accounting Research 6, 159-178.

Beaver, W. H. (1968). The information content of annual earnings announcements.Journal of Accounting Research 6, 67-92.

Bell, P. W. (1984). Image and disarray in accounting and the problem of attractingquality inputs into doctoral programs. In G. Dillon (Ed.),Issues in doctoral

education (pp. 59-68). American Accounting Association Doctoral Programs

Conference.

Bernard, V. L., & Thomas, J. K. (1989). Post-earnings announcement drift: Delayed

price response or risk premium? Journal of Accounting Research 27, 1-36.

Biehl, M., Kim, H. & Wade, M. (2006). Relationships among the academic business

disciplines: A multi-method citation analysis. Omega: The International Journal

of Management Science 34, 359-371.

Bonner, S. E., Hesford, J. W., Van der Stede, W. A., &Young, M. (2006). The most

influential journals in academic accounting.Accounting, Organizations, andSociety 31, 663-685.

Bricker, R. J., & Previts, G. J. (1990). The sociology of accountancy: A study of

academic and practice community schisms.Accounting Horizons 4, 1-14.

Brooks, L. D., & Buckmaster, D. A. (1976). Further evidence of the time series propertiesof accounting income. The Journal of Finance 31, 1359-1373.

Brown, L. D. (1996). Influential accounting articles, individuals, Ph.D. granting

institutions and facilities: A citational analysis.Accounting, Organizations, andSociety 21, 723-754.

Brown, L. D., & Gardner, J. D. (1985). Using citation analysis to assess the impact of

journals and articles on Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR).Journal of


39/72

Carnaghan, C., Flower-Gyepesi, J., & Gibbins, M. (1994). A profile ofContemporary

Accounting Research: Fall 1984-Spring 1994. Contemporary AccountingResearch 11, 251-270.

Demski, J. S. (2007). Is accounting an academic discipline? Accounting Horizons 21,

153-157.

Dikolli, S. S., Kinney, W. R. Jr., & Sedatole, K. L. (2007). Measuring customer

relationship value: The role of switching cost. Contemporary AccountingResearch 24, 93-132.

Dyckman, T. R., & Zeff, S. A. (1984). Two decades of the Journal of AccountingResearch. Journal of Accounting Research 22, 225-297.

Erickson, M. M., Wang, S. (2007). Tax benefits as a source of merger premiums in

acquisitions of private corporations. The Accounting Review 82, 359-387.

Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work.

Journal of Finance 25, 383-417.

Fellingham, J. C. (2007). Is accounting an academic discipline? Accounting Horizons 21,

159-163.

Feltham, G. A., & Ohlson, J. A. (1995). Valuation and clean surplus accounting for

operating and financial activities. Contemporary Accounting Research 11, 689-731.

Filbey, E., (1926). Remarks from President-Elect Filbey, Papers and Proceedings of the

Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Association of University Instructors of

Accounting (p 135).

Fleming, R. J., Graci, S. P., & Thompson, J. E. (2000). The dawning of the age of

quantitative/empirical methods in accounting research: Evidence from the

leading authors ofThe Accounting Review, 1966-1985. Accounting Historians

Journal 27, 43-72.

Fogarty, T. J., & Markarian, G. (2007). An empirical assessment of the rise and fall ofaccounting as an academic discipline.Issues in Accounting Education 22, 137-

161.


40/72

Hand, J. R. M. (2002). Discussion of Earnings surprises, growth expectations, and stock

returns, or, dont let an earnings torpedo sink your portfolio.Review ofAccounting Studies 7, 313-318.

Healy, P. M. (1985). The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions.Journal of

Accounting and Economics 7, 85-107.

Hofstedt, T. R. (1976). Behavioral accounting research: Pathologies, paradigms and

prescriptions.Accounting, Organizations, and Society 1, 43-58.

Hopwood, A. G. (1976). Editorial: The path ahead.Accounting, Organizations, and

Society 1, 1-4.

Hopwood, A. G. (1987). The archaeology of accounting systems.Accounting,

Organizations, and Society 12, 207-234.

Hopwood, A. G. (2007). Whither accounting research. The Accounting Review 82, 1365-

1374.

Karuna, C. (2007). Industry product market competition and managerial incentives.

Journal of Accounting and Economics 43, 275-297.

Keynes, J. N., (1891). The Scope and Method of Political Economy. London: MacMillan

and Co.

Kinney, W. R. Jr. (2001). Accounting scholarship: What is uniquely ours? The

Accounting Review 76, 275-284.

Kothari, S. P. (2001). Capital markets research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and

Economics 31, 105-231.

Leslie,D. W. (2008).Report of the AAA:Faculty in U.S. Colleges and Universities:Status and Trends 1993-2004. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.

Louis, H. (2004). Earnings management and the market performance of acquiring firms.Journal of Financial Economics 74, 121-148.

Lowe, A., & Locke, J. (2005). Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm:Results of a web-based survey of British accounting academics.Accounting,


41/72

Moizer, P. (2009). Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?Accounting,Organizations, and Society 34, 285-304.

Nikolai, L. A., Bazley, J. D., & Jones, J. P. (2007).Intermediate Accounting, 10th

Edition.

U.S.A.: Thompson Publishing.

Oler, D. K. (2008). Does acquirer cash predict post-acquisition returns? Review of

Accounting Studies 13, 479-511.

Picconi, M. (2006). The perils of pensions: Does pension accounting lead investors and

analysis astray? The Accounting Review 81, 925-955.

Plumlee, D. H., Kachelmeier, S. J., Madeo, S. A., Pratt, J. H., & Krull, G. (2005).Report of the AAA/AAPLG Ad Hoc Committee to Assess the Supply andDemand for Accounting Ph.D.s. Sarasota, FL: American AccountingAssociation. Available at:http://aaahq.org/about/reports/FINAL_PhD_Report.pdf.

Rayburn, J. (2005). Presidents Message.Accounting Education News 33, issue 4 (Fall).

Rayburn, J. (2006). Presidents Message.Accounting Education News 35, issue 3

(Summer).

Reiter, S. A., & Williams, P. F. (2002). The structure and progressivity of accounting

research: the crisis in the academy revisited.Accounting, Organizations, and

Society 27, 575-607.

Ravenscroft, S., & Williams, P. F. (2009). Making imaginary worlds real: The case of

expensing employee stock options. Accounting, Organizations, and Society,

forthcoming.

Schipper, K. (2007). Required disclosures in annual reports. The Accounting Review 82,

301-326.

Shultz, G. P., & Caine, S. (1963). A statement.Journal of Accounting Research 1, 1-2.

Skinner, D. J., & Sloan, R. G. (2002). Earnings surprises, growth expectations, and stockreturns, or, dont let an earnings torpedo sink your portfolio. Review of


42/72

Swanson, E. P. (2004). Publishing in the majors: A comparison of accounting, finance,management, and marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research 21, 223-255.

Swanson, E. P., Wolfe, C. J., & Zardkoohi, A. (2007). Concentration in publishing at top-

tier business journals: Evidence and potential explanations. ContemporaryAccounting Research 24, 1255-1289.

Tuttle, B., & Dillard, J. (2007). Beyond competition: Institutional isomorphism in U.S.accounting research.Accounting Horizons 21, 387-409.

Wakefield, R. (2008). Networks of accounting research: A citation-based structural andnetwork analysis. The British Accounting Review 40, 228-224.

Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1978). Towards a positive theory of the determination

of accounting standards. The Accounting Review 53, 112-134.

Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1979). Editorial.Journal of Accounting & Economics

1, 1-2.

Williams, P. F. (1985). A descriptive analysis of authorship in The Accounting Review.

The Accounting Review 60, 300-315.

Williams, P. F. (2003). Modern accounting scholarship: The imperative of positive

economic science.Accounting Forum 27, 251-269.

Zeff, S. A. (1996). A study of academic research journals in accounting.AccountingHorizons 10, 158-177.


43/72

Appendix Classification Explanations for Topic and Methodology

Topic Definitions

Financial AccountingPapers dealing with external financial reporting (including analysts and analyst

forecasts).

Managerial AccountingPapers dealing with internal reporting and evaluation, internal budgeting, and transferpricing.

AuditingPapers dealing with auditing and auditors (including internal controls over financial

reporting).

TaxPapers dealing with federal and state income tax issues, tax planning, and tax strategies.

GovernancePapers dealing with overall corporate governance and control (e.g., structure of the board,

shareholder rights).

Other TopicsAll other topics that do not appear to fit into the above categories (e.g., education, history,the CPA exam, etc.).


44/72

Methodology Descriptions

Archival

Papers using data from historical market information (almost always stock prices, butcould include bond or commodity prices). Also known as capital markets research (e.g.,

Kothari, 2001).

Experimental

Papers using data from human subjects that are assigned to multiple treatment groups (todistinguish from survey research, where data is collected from all subjects with no pre-

treatment assignment).

Field Study

Papers using data from direct observation (i.e., company visits, interviews), characterizedby a small sample size (often one firm) but rich, descriptive data.

ReviewA pseudo-methodology because a review does not provide new data. Summarizes andsynthesizes prior research.

SurveyPapers using data gathered by soliciting information from human subjects without

assignment to a treatment group.

TheoreticalPapers constructing and/or using analytical (i.e., mathematical) models, characterized by

proofs, lemmas, etc.

NormativePapers that do not include data or analytical models (and that do not review prior work).This is a catch-all category for work that does not fit into the above methodologies.

Normative papers typically argue for a particular accounting treatment or course of action

(i.e., what shouldbe).


45/72

Figure 1

Proportion of Citations Made by Top Accounting Journals

50.0%

60.0%

40.0%

Citation

s

20.0%

30.0%

Proportionof ccount ng

Finance

Economics

10.0%

0.0%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

1963 JAR

Launched

1968 Ball

& Brown

1973 FASB

replaces APB

1978 Watts &

1979 JAE

Launched1995 Feltham

& Ohlson

1998 WRDS

Launched

1985

Healy

1987

1964 Compustat

Launched

1970 EMH

Articulated by

Eugene Fama

Zimmerman1984 CAR

Launched

1996 Sloan;

RAST

Launched

2002 SOX

Passed1976 AOS

Launched

Hopwood1960 CRSP

Launched


46/72

Figure 1

This figure shows the proportionate amount of citations made by top accounting journals (AOS, CAR, JAE, JAR, RAST, andTAR)from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author. Proportions are calculated based on the total citations listed in thepaper. For brevity, only citations from accounting, finance, and economics are shown. CRSP refers to the Chicago Center forResearch into Stock Price, EMH refers to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, FASB refers to the Financial Accounting StandardsBoard, APB refers to the Accounting Principles Board, WRDS refers to Wharton Research Data Services, and SOX refers to theSarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.


47/72

Figure 2 - Panel A

Number of Pa ers b Year

160

180

140

100

120

60

80

40

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

1963 JAR

Launched

1968 Ball

& Brown

1973 FASB

replaces APB

1978 Watts &

1979 JAE


& Ohlson

1998 WRDS

Launched

1985

Healy

1987

1964 Compustat

Launched

1970 EMH

Articulated by

Eugene Fama

Zimmerman1984 CAR

Launched

1996 Sloan;

RAST

Launched

2002 SOX

Passed1976 AOS

Launched

Hopwood1960 CRSP

Launched


48/72

F i g u re 2 - P a n e l B

Nu mb e r o f P ap e rs b y In d iv id u a l Jou rn a l

A OS

F i g u re 2 - P a n e l C

Nu mb e r o f P ap e rs b y In d iv id u a l Jo u rn a l

C A R

35

40

45

50

US Au t ho rs All Au t ho rs

40

50

60


5

10

15

20

25

30

10

20

30

0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

F i g u re 2 - P a n e l D


F i g u re 2 - P a n e l E


40

45

50

US Au th or s All Au th or s

60

70

80


10

15

20

25

30

20

30

40

50

0

5

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005


49/72

F i g u re 2 - P a n e l F

Nu mb e r o f P ap e rs b y In d iv id u a l Jo u rn a l

R A S T

F i g u re 2 - P a n e l G


TA R

25

30


70

80

90

US Au th or s All Au th or s

5

10

15

20

20

30

40

50

60

0

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

10

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005


50/72

Figure 2

This figure shows the number of papers published in six top accounting journals (AOS, CAR, JAE, JAR, RAST, andTAR) from

1960 to 2007. Panel A shows aggregate number of papers published, and Panels B to G break out papers published in individual

journals. Panels B to G also distinguish between papers with at least one U.S. author and those without at least one U.S. author.

re ers o e cago en er or esearc n o oc r ce, re ers o e c en ar e ypo es s, re ers o

the Financial Accounting Standards Board, APB refers to the Accounting Principles Board, WRDS refers to Wharton Research

Data Services, and SOX refers to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.


51/72

Figure 3

Proportion of Papers by Topic

80%

60%

70%

40%

50%

roportio

FA

MA

Audit

Tax

Other

10%

20%

30%

0%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20051963 JAR

Launched

1968 Ball

& Brown

1973 FASB

replaces APB

1978 Watts &

1979 JAE


& Ohlson

1998 WRDS

Launched

1985

Healy

1987

1964 Compustat

Launched

1970 EMH

Articulated by

Eugene Fama

Zimmerman1984 CAR

Launched

1996 Sloan;

RAST

Launched

2002 SOX

Passed1976 AOS

Launched

Hopwood1960 CRSP

Launched


52/72

Figure 3

This figure shows the proportionate amount of papers published by topic in the top six accounting journals (AOS, CAR, JAE, JAR,RAST, andTAR) from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author. If a paper covered more than one topic, we selectedthe primary topic for purposes of categorization. Because governance topics make up a relatively low proportion of topics, forbrevity governance is excluded from this figure. CRSP refers to the Chicago Center for Research into Stock Price, EMH refers tothe Efficient Market Hypothesis, FASB refers to the Financial Accounting Standards Board, APB refers to the AccountingPrinciples Board, WRDS refers to Wharton Research Data Services, and SOX refers to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.


53/72

Figure 4

Proportion of Papers by Methodology

100%

70%

80%

90%

50%

60%

roportio

Arc v a

Experimental

Theoretical

Normative

20%

30%

0%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20051963 JAR

Launched

1968 Ball

& Brown

1973 FASB

replaces APB

1978 Watts &

1979 JAE


& Ohlson

1998 WRDS

Launched

1985

Healy

1987

1964 Compustat

Launched

1970 EMH

Articulated by

Eugene Fama

Zimmerman1984 CAR

Launched

1996 Sloan;

RAST

Launched

2002 SOX

Passed1976 AOS

Launched

Hopwood1960 CRSP

Launched


54/72

Figure 4

This figure shows the proportionate amount of papers published by methodology in the top six accounting journals (AOS, CAR,JAE, JAR, RAST, andTAR) from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author. If a paper used more than onemethodology we categorized the paper by its primary methodology. Because field studies, reviews, and surveys make up arelatively low proportion of methodologies, for brevity they are excluded from this figure. CRSP refers to the Chicago Center forResearch into Stock Price, EMH refers to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, FASB refers to the Financial Accounting StandardsBoard, APB refers to the Accounting Principles Board, WRDS refers to Wharton Research Data Services, and SOX refers to the

Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.

Figure 5


55/72

Mapping Accounting Research into Financial Reporting

Company

EconomicGovernance

Audit

Activities Managerial Decisions AffectingCorporate Activities

Managerial Decisions Affecting

Corporate Activities

Account ng

InformationAuditors Internal Users

External Users:

Capital Markets

IRS

Financial Anal stsFinancial

Managerial

Investment Decisions Affecting


Investment Decisions Affecting


Investment

Decisions


56/72

Figure 5

This figure maps different topics of accounting research into financial reporting, based on a diagram of financial reportingprovided in Nikolai et al. (2007).

Table 1

Proportion of Citations made by Papers Published in Top Accounting Journals

This table shows the proportionate amount of citations made by top accounting journals (Accounting, Organizations, and Society,

Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Review of

Accounting Studies, andThe Accounting Review) from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author. Proportions are


57/72

Year Accounting Finance Economics Psychology Statistics Management

Other

Academic

Journals

Other

Citations

Papers

with No

Citations

Total

Number of

Papers

1960 29.7% 1.9% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 4.6% 60.3% 15 57

1961 31.2% 2.5% 1.1% 0.0% 2.3% 1.7% 1.1% 60.1% 16 60

1962 24.2% 0.8% 2.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 71.2% 20 70

1963 27.5% 1.5% 1.6% 0.2% 0.1% 2.5% 10.3% 56.4% 14 88

1964 27.7% 3.8% 2.6% 0.4% 1.0% 2.7% 10.9% 50.9% 17 93

1965 29.7% 0.7% 1.6% 0.0% 0.4% 2.6% 5.6% 59.4% 10 72

1966 28.1% 2.1% 2.5% 0.0% 1.4% 2.6% 8.0% 55.3% 16 87

1967 33.0% 4.7% 2.7% 0.3% 2.4% 4.9% 5.2% 46.7% 18 80

1968 42.7% 4.3% 1.5% 0.1% 0.7% 3.9% 3.0% 43.8% 12 90

1969 41.1% 2.5% 2.7% 2.0% 2.0% 5.3% 4.1% 40.3% 8 95

1970 40.0% 5.9% 3.3% 0.6% 1.5% 5.3% 2.7% 40.6% 4 83

1971 25.4% 6.4% 3.5% 1.5% 0.7% 4.5% 4.1% 54.0% 6 87

1972 30.1% 6.2% 3.8% 3.4% 3.1% 3.5% 2.8% 47.1% 5 86

1973 36.7% 6.4% 2.6% 2.5% 0.9% 3.7% 1.6% 45.7% 1 73

1974 34.2% 5.7% 6.5% 3.0% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 44.5% 5 68

1975 37.6% 6.7% 3.1% 3.6% 1.4% 5.2% 0.1% 42.3% 1 62

1976 31.7% 7.6% 4.8% 6.0% 0.6% 7.9% 0.7% 40.6% 4 87

1977 34.7% 5.6% 4.4% 6.3% 0.8% 9.8% 1.0% 37.3% 3 96

1978 35.3% 11.7% 5.0% 2.1% 1.3% 5.5% 0.2% 38.8% 2 79

1979 31.6% 8.2% 6.8% 3.8% 0.6% 4.9% 0.3% 43.7% 2 89

1980 35.1% 8.2% 7.7% 6.1% 0.2% 4.7% 0.4% 37.6% 1 90

1981 25.6% 10.0% 8.1% 6.7% 0.4% 5.8% 0.7% 42.6% 2 97

1982 37.6% 7.8% 5.2% 6.4% 1.2% 3.4% 0.4% 38.0% 1 113

1983 34.0% 8.8% 6.1% 6.3% 0.6% 7.4% 0.4% 36.3% 1 861984 36.3% 10.4% 5.6% 5.3% 1.0% 3.5% 0.4% 37.6% 0 107

1985 35.9% 8.6% 9.8% 3.7% 0.9% 3.2% 0.6% 37.4% 4 121

1986 44.0% 8.4% 6.2% 2.5% 1.0% 6.1% 1.6% 30.2% 0 99

1987 39.2% 8.7% 9.4% 2.5% 0.9% 2.1% 0.6% 36.7% 0 101

1988 44.3% 6.9% 7.9% 3.3% 0.5% 5.5% 0.9% 30.6% 0 108

1989 43.3% 9.0% 7.8% 3.9% 0.2% 1.7% 0.7% 33.5% 1 116

1990 39.8% 9.7% 10.4% 2.6% 0.6% 3.2% 0.8% 32.9% 3 152

1991 39.8% 9.3% 10.8% 2.1% 0.3% 1.9% 1.6% 34.2% 5 115

1992 42.2% 8.4% 7.7% 3.2% 1.3% 3.1% 1.0% 33.0% 2 1201993 37.9% 10.7% 8.9% 2.9% 3.2% 2.1% 1.0% 33.2% 0 122

1994 42.2% 8.7% 8.2% 1.5% 2.8% 1.2% 1.7% 33.7% 3 121

1995 38.9% 6.6% 13.3% 2.3% 2.6% 3.6% 1.4% 31.2% 0 119

1996 45.7% 8.0% 7.7% 1.3% 1.8% 1.1% 1.0% 33.4% 1 131

1997 47 9% 7 9% 4 7% 2 4% 0 3% 1 6% 0 6% 34 5% 7 127

) p p p

calculated based on the total citations listed per paper. Other Academic Journals represents an aggregate of remaining academic

citations from law, sociology, education, health, and miscellaneous disciplines. Other Citations represents an aggregate of

remaining citations (including working papers, books, popular media, and professional journals). The weighted average is

calculated based on the number of papers published in a given year.

Table 2

Proportion of Citations made by Papers Published in Top Accounting Journals by Research Topic


58/72

Topic

Number

of Papers Accounting Finance Economics Psychology Statistics Management

Other

Academic

Journals

Other

Citations

Financial Accounting 2577 43.1% 12.2% 6.5% 1.2% 0.8% 1.3% 1.2% 33.8%Managerial Accounting 741 34.5% 4.1% 10.6% 4.3% 1.0% 9.2% 1.9% 34.4%

Auditing 684 44.0% 1.8% 3.7% 5.1% 1.0% 1.8% 1.1% 41.5%

Tax 237 36.3% 9.1% 8.6% 1.5% 0.6% 0.9% 1.3% 41.7%

Control/Governance 34 27.6% 18.2% 13.8% 1.4% 0.1% 3.0% 1.3% 34.6%

Other Topics 623 32.9% 5.6% 5.6% 3.5% 0.9% 5.6% 4.0% 42.0%

Decade

Number


OtherAcademic

Journals

Other

Citations

1960's 334 34.7% 3.0% 2.3% 0.2% 0.7% 1.8% 3.9% 53.3%

1970's 408 33.8% 10.2% 4.6% 1.8% 1.3% 3.1% 1.4% 43.8%

1980's 497 41.1% 13.8% 7.5% 2.3% 0.7% 1.2% 0.5% 32.9%

1990's 610 46.9% 13.0% 8.5% 1.0% 1.4% 0.9% 0.8% 27.5%

2000's 728 50.3% 15.6% 7.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 0.6% 25.1%

Panel A: Citations by Topic

Panel B: Financial Accounting by Decade

This table shows the proportionate amount of citations made by top accounting journals (Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Contemporary

Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Review of Accounting Studies, andThe Accounting

Review) from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author, broken out by research topic (Panel A) then by decade for each topic (Panels B to

G). Proportions are calculated based on the total citations. Other Academic Journals represents an aggregate of remaining academic citations fromlaw, sociology, education, health, and miscellaneous disciplines, and Other Citations represents an aggregate of all other citations (accounting

regulations, books, working papers, etc.).

Number

Other

Academic Other

Panel C: Managerial Accounting by Decade


59/72

Decade

Number


Academic

Journals

Other

Citations

1960's 113 38.1% 4.7% 3.6% 0.3% 1.9% 6.1% 5.7% 39.7%

1970's 139 32.5% 4.9% 5.3% 6.0% 1.6% 10.7% 1.0% 38.0%

1980's 164 33.4% 4.0% 8.8% 7.4% 0.4% 13.1% 1.0% 31.9%

1990's 182 31.6% 3.3% 17.5% 2.7% 1.0% 7.1% 1.6% 35.1%

2000's 143 38.7% 3.8% 14.6% 4.5% 0.1% 8.6% 1.2% 28.4%

Decade

Number


Other

Academic

Journals

Other

Citations

1960's 33 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.7% 3.8% 3.7% 65.0%

1970's 91 40.5% 0.7% 1.7% 3.7% 1.1% 3.1% 1.3% 47.8%

1980's 186 38.0% 1.6% 3.5% 7.3% 1.1% 2.1% 0.4% 46.0%

1990's 223 45.9% 1.9% 5.1% 5.0% 1.2% 1.3% 1.5% 38.0%

2000's 151 54.7% 3.2% 4.1% 4.3% 0.2% 1.0% 0.5% 32.0%

Decade

Number


Other

Academic

Journals

Other

Citations

1960's 26 23.7% 2.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 5.3% 66.0%

1970's 14 35.8% 3.9% 4.4% 1.1% 1.1% 2.6% 0.8% 50.3%

1980's 42 31.4% 6.3% 10.7% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 47.8%

1990's 85 38.7% 9.6% 10.9% 1.5% 1.1% 0.3% 0.7% 37.2%2000's 70 41.2% 13.7% 8.1% 2.1% 0.1% 0.9% 1.1% 32.7%

Panel E: Tax by Decade

Panel D: Auditing by Decade

Other

Panel F: Control/Governance by Decade


60/72

Decade

Number


Other

Academic

Journals

Other

Citations

1960's 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

1970's 1 8.0% 4.0% 0.0% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80.0%

1980's 2 6.7% 7.9% 39.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 44.9%

1990's 6 26.0% 18.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 42.8%

2000's 25 30.5% 19.6% 13.4% 1.5% 0.1% 3.0% 1.8% 30.0%

Decade

Number

of Papers Accounting Finance Economics Psychology Statistics Mana

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	maulana-hasan
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

characterizing accounting research - oler

Documents