Seeds of Innovation in Accounting Scholarship

Abstract

S everal senior scholars have recently suggested that innovation in modern accounting scholarship is low (Demski 2007; Fellingham 2007; Hopwood 2007; Kaplan 2011; Sunder 2011). These essays lead to three questions about innovation in current accounting scholarship that I consider here. First, what is ‘‘innovation’’ and how do we know that the level of innovation in accounting scholarship is low? Second, if innovation in accounting scholarship is low, how did this state of affairs come to exist? Third, if accounting scholarship is low on innovation, can we actually do anything to change it? For present purposes, I define ‘‘scholarly innovation’’ as material long-run improvement in the state of knowledge within an academic discipline. The (unobservable) construct I have in mind is the change through time in the extent to which thinking about accounting is supported by a body of theory and empirical evidence that explains why accounting exists and takes the form that it does. Stated broadly, scholarly innovation refers to positive long-run change in the body of knowledge present in an academic discipline. I see scholarly innovation as an evolved characteristic that requires both variation in ideas and robust selection among competing ideas. Variation in ideas is present when scholars (1) pursue alternative lines of inquiry using different theoretical and methodological perspectives, and (2) take risks that introduce intellectual ‘‘mutations’’ that open new lines of inquiry. Selection results from