Accounting Research Community Research Articles

Taking the world seriously: Autonomy, reflexivity and engagement research in social and environmental accounting

There is a long-standing debate within the social and environmental accounting research community concerning whether research engagement with (commercial) organisations and decision-makers is detrimental to the pursuit of sustainability transformation. Those critical of engagement research see such an approach as futile or outright harmful, suggesting that scholars are bound to be co-opted in the process and essentially end up reproducing systems of domination. In response, we emphasise in this paper how engagement research requires an exercise of reflexivity, which, hopefully, makes us “more conscious and more systematic” about engagement research and provides “the mutual surveillance” (Bourdieu, 2000b, p. 119) required for this academic exercise. Drawing on Bourdieu’s Pascalian Meditations, we discuss the implications of the notions of intellectual autonomy and scientific capital in the field of social and environmental accounting research and stress that both the scholastic situation and engagement with the social world are necessary elements for scholarship. We argue, on the one hand, that critical research in social and environmental accounting is a key mechanism to enhance the scientific capital of the field—through improved theorising of power and conflict—and hence retain (strengthen) the autonomy of social and environmental accounting. On the other hand, we also suggest that reinvigorating research on the relevance of accounting techniques for sustainable development is essential for our scientific capital and the wider contribution of social accounting across intellectual fields and beyond.

Still Flying in the Face of Low-carbon Scholarship? A Final Call for the CSEAR Community to Get on Board

ABSTRACT Socio-ecological crises in the Anthropocene are shaking the assumptions, norms and practices of many disciplines. The climate emergency and the COVID-19 pandemic have substantially disrupted academic work and life with calls to return to normal, embrace change and many other options in between. Here, we invite critical discussion and reflection amongst the Centre for Social & Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR) community on our collective reliance on international in-person conferences and associated air travel. In doing so, we seek to highlight the ways in which our intellectual and practical endeavours are increasingly being shaped by both the climate crisis and debates around post-pandemic academia. We also report on the results of a (pre-pandemic) survey of the CSEAR community, which reveals highly differentiated patterns of air travel, echoing global patterns of dependency and inequality. Following this, we outline various practical solutions that have been proposed or introduced at individual, institutional and community levels. These include recent grassroots campaigns which have sought to mobilise opinion around the issues and explore different practices and modes of organising knowledge production, as well as the work of other academic communities attempting to enact commitments to lower their carbon emissions. Finally, we briefly outline the wider contours around low carbon scholarship and conclude by considering whether this is sufficient to contribute to collective efforts for scholarship for sustainability.

There Should be More Normative Research on How Social and Environmental Accounting Should be Done

ABSTRACT I suggest that the SEA research community has not engaged significantly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because our community generally does not offer normative policy-focused advice on how to account for climate change. This raises the question ‘Why not?’. It cannot be because there is no demand for normative accounting guidance, as examples of this need abound everywhere. And it cannot be because normativity is ‘not academic’ as other academic disciplines engage in normative research, notably the fields of economics and life cycle assessment. The SEA research community may be constrained by its social constructivist epistemology, its focus on explanatory theory which drives us towards explanatory rather than normative questions, and our training in social science research methods rather than direct engagement with how to do social and environmental accounting. Notwithstanding the challenges there is a pressing need for better accounting practice, and who better to develop methods for social and environmental accounting than the social and environmental accounting research community? Arguably, there should be more normative research on how social and environmental accounting should be done.

The role of UNCTAD-ISAR guidance in monitoring the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals by enterprises

Purpose: The aim of the article is to present the activities of the Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on International Accounting and Reporting Standards (UNCTADISAR), and to explain and evaluate the importance and the role of its Guidance on Core Indicators for Entity Reporting on Contribution Towards Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which were set by the United Nations in the 2030 Agenda. Methodology/approach: The general review article was based on an analysis of the literature on the subject, an analysis and synthesis of UNCTAD materials and guide-lines, as well as regulations and other documents regarding sustainable development and corporate reporting in this area. Findings: The UNCTAD-ISAR guidance, issued in 2019, contains 33 core indicators designed for enterprises to measure the economic, environmental, social, and institutional aspects of sustainable development. The guidance and the training materials need to be disseminated globally in order to become a real tool for monitoring private sector contributions to SDG implementation. Their application by enterprises in Po-land, especially SMEs, may contribute to improving the perception of sustainable de-velopment and reporting issues in this regard by their skeptics and opponents. Research limitations/implications: Increased awareness of academics, students and accounting practitioners in Poland about the importance of global SDG and the need for their implementation and monitoring at the micro level. Originality/value: The article expands knowledge in the accounting research commu-nity about the ability of enterprises to measure and report their sustainability perfor-mance in line with the goals and tasks set out in the 2030 Agenda.

The audit society: opening up a meaningful epistemological agenda

PurposeThis paper aims to bring to the fore some conditions of possibility surrounding the audit society thesis that might have contributed to construct a sense of distinctiveness around it, thereby facilitating its spread and travel in the accounting research community (and beyond) as a meaningful epistemological agenda.Design/methodology/approachMy argument is that the aura of distinctiveness surrounding the audit society thesis as a noteworthy epistemological agenda relates to outsider influences, concept plasticity, and in-depth persuasiveness. I discuss these three features of distinctiveness through excerpts from the book and my own interpretations, the whole analytic process being circumscribed by a disciplined imagination exercise (Weick, 1989).FindingsWhile the webs of unpredictability surrounding social life necessarily influenced the travel of the audit society thesis in academia, it seems to me that the thesis’ journey may have been helped by the author’s outsider status, the malleability of the thesis’ key concepts, and the medium (as a book) through which the thesis was articulated (which provided a persuasive platform to underline and demonstrate the depth of the argument).Originality/valueIn an age where journal rankings abound, the audit society thesis constitutes a telling demonstration that one can have a meaningful impact in setting an epistemological agenda and consolidate her/his scholarly reputation through the publication of a scholarly book.

Is an Emoji Worth a Thousand Words? The Effect of Emoji Usage on Nonprofessional Investors' Perceptions

ABSTRACTEmojis act as non-verbal cues to disambiguate and communicate affect and are increasingly used in online corporate disclosures. Emotion work, a concept founded in social psychology, suggests that individuals adjust their behavior as emotions are evoked or suppressed. Despite the growing evidence that emojis may influence judgments and decisions due to their deliberate expression of context and affect, the accounting research community has yet to investigate emojis' impact. We experimentally explore whether emojis can soften nonprofessional investors' perceptions of bad news or enhance perceptions of good news. We find that emojis modestly suppress participants' positive emotions on positive news, influencing their investment-related judgments and decision-making. Subsequent data collection fails to replicate the initial findings in a less experienced participant pool, suggesting that investing experience may play a role. Our study enhances our understanding of the unintended consequences of emojis and introduces a sociology-based principle into the accounting literature.Data Availability: Please contact authors.

Methodological Openness, Theoretical Diversity and Societal Relevance. A Review of Jeffrey Unerman’s Contributions to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Research

ABSTRACT Jeffrey Unerman was a prominent figure in the social and environmental accounting research community. In this review I reflect on one specific element of his legacy, namely the research Jeffrey conducted and published on corporate social and environmental disclosures both on his own as well as with various co-authors. In addition to giving an overview of this research, I will also provide some reflections on his work. I structure my review around three themes featuring across Jeffrey’s research on organisational disclosures: methodological insight, theoretical diversity and agenda-setting discussion. I conclude by highlighting how Jeffrey emphasised the importance of pursuing rigorous scholarly research with societal relevance.

Sailing the Big Blue Boat: Rob Gray and the Blue Meanies

ABSTRACT This paper reflects on the late Professor Rob Gray’s significant and enduring contribution to the social and environmental accounting research literature and community. It does this through the medium of four selected papers that appeared in the journal Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal in which he published a paper in its inaugural issue and served for many years as an editorial advisory board member and guest editor. Through these lenses and the author’s long association with Rob, this paper presents insights into his scholarly philosophies and his messages to our discipline. Further, it offers selected insights into a founder of our literature as well as a hugely influential early leader of the social and environmental accounting movement.

Reproducibility in Accounting Research: Views of the Research Community

ABSTRACTWe have little knowledge about the prevalence of irreproducibility in the accounting literature. To narrow this gap, we conducted a survey among the participants of the 2019 JAR Conference on their perceptions of the frequency, causes, and consequences of irreproducible research published in accounting journals. A majority of respondents believe that irreproducibility is common in the literature, constitutes a major problem, and receives too little attention. Most have encountered irreproducibility in the work of others (although not in their own work) but chose not to pursue their failed reproduction attempts to publication. Respondents believe irreproducibility results chiefly from career or publication incentives as well as from selective reporting of results. They also believe that practices like sharing code and data combined with stronger incentives to replicate the work of others would enhance reproducibility. The views of accounting researchers are remarkably similar to those expressed in a survey by the scientific journal Nature. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and provide several potential paths forward for the accounting research community.

Reproducibility in Accounting Research: Views of the Research Community

We have little knowledge about the prevalence of irreproducibility in the accounting literature. To narrow this gap, we conducted a survey among the participants of the 2019 JAR Conference on their perceptions of the frequency, causes, and consequences of irreproducible research published in accounting journals. A majority of respondents believe that irreproducibility is common in the literature, constitutes a major problem, and receives too little attention. Most have encountered irreproducibility in the work of others (although not in their own work) but chose not to pursue their failed reproduction attempts to publication. Respondents believe irreproducibility results chiefly from career or publication incentives as well as from selective reporting of results. They also believe that practices like sharing code and data combined with stronger incentives to replicate the work of others would enhance reproducibility. The views of accounting researchers are remarkably similar to those expressed in a survey by the scientific journal Nature . We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and provide several potential paths forward for the accounting research community.

Of stars and galaxies – Co-authorship network and research

We examine the association between network centrality and research using the accounting research community setting. We establish co-authorship network using papers published in the five top accounting journals from 1980 to 2016. We find that the co-authorship network in accounting is a “small world” with some most connected authors playing a key role in connecting others. We use machine learning to label published papers with multiple topics and find patterns in topics over time. More importantly, we find that co-authorship network centrality is positively associated with future research productivity and topic innovation and that the impact of centrality on productivity is higher with more senior authors. Further, centrality of an author’s co-authors also has an incrementally positive impact. We conclude that network centrality positively influences research output.

Diffusion of management accounting innovations: a virus perspective

PurposeThe diffusion of management accounting innovations (MAIs) is the focus of much debate in the management accounting research community. Extant contributions have drawn on a large of number of theories, including innovation diffusion theory and various sociologically inspired theories such as management fashion. The purpose of this paper is to examine and develop Røvik’s virus theory in the context of how MAIs diffuse. The paper further evaluates and elaborates on the potential usefulness of the virus perspective to empirical research on MAIs.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses a conceptual and explorative research approach. The paper introduces the virus perspective and compares this perspective with several other theoretical perspectives often used in studies of the diffusion of MAIs. This enables the identification of characteristics specific to the virus perspective. The paper also re-examines a number of prior studies of MAIs and identifies different virus characteristics implicit in these studies.FindingsThe findings of the paper imply that the virus perspective is a useful basis for empirical research on MAIs. The virus perspective differs from other theoretical perspectives in several respects and is particularly suited for longitudinal studies of both MAIs and organizational change. However, the perspective could be used at other levels of analysis as well. The extant studies reviewed in this paper provide support for the viral characteristics of MAIs. The paper also identifies and discusses avenues for future research using the virus perspective as a theoretical lens.Originality/valueThe virus perspective has been given little attention in research on MAIs, as well as more generally within accounting research. This research paper demonstrates that the virus perspective offers a rich and valuable conceptual framework for studying how demand-side organizations are affected by MAIs over extensive periods of time. The paper also discusses the implications of the virus perspective with respect to the research method.

Guest editorial

An extensive literature exists exploring the perceived “gap” between the interests and priorities of the accounting academic and practitioner communities (e.g. the papers in Evans et al. (2011) provide an overview of this debate). Parker et al. (2011, p. 6) suggest that the divide between academe and practice is wide: In the field of accounting there have been claims that research has become too far removed from the interests of the profession and practitioners. Researchers in turn point out the shortcomings of current professional practices. Indeed, some of the accounting research community go so far as to consider that many practical issues of concern to professional accountants do not warrant the attention of researchers! However, the relationship between academics and accounting practice is complex, and Barth (2015) has noted that the closeness of that relationship has waxed and waned over the past 50 years or so. When we, the guest editors, began our careers, it was quite common for researchers to publish in practitioner journals such as those of the major professional bodies. Established researchers presented their work in a manner that was understandable and relevant to practitioners (Brown, 1970), and those new to academia could develop their communication skills by writing for a non-academic audience (Howieson, 1989). While some academic work is still published in these outlets, it is less common, as the objectives of academics and those journals seem to have parted ways. In more recent times, journals such as the Accounting Research Journal and the Australian Accounting Review have sought to act as a bridge between the two communities. The “publish or perish” pressures that have been placed before academics have also helped to drive a wedge between academics and practitioners as the scholarly “highly ranked” journals are perceived to address “abstract” research questions and their studies are written in a language inaccessible to most practitioners (Tilt, 2010). Notwithstanding these concerns, accounting standard setters have increasingly turned to academic research as an input to their deliberations giving rise to a model of “evidence based policy making” (Leuz, 2018). In Australia, the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) has been proactive in seeking to engage with the research output of accounting academics. Among other things,[1] in July 2015, the AASB established an Academic Advisory Panel[2] to encourage interaction with the academic community. Further, the AASB has to date held two successful Research Forums in which academic research directly relevant to the AASB’s deliberations has been presented to, and discussed by, panels of practitioners, standard setters, and academics[3]. A further initiative is this special issue of the Accounting Research Journal, “Research to Inform Accounting Standard Setting.” Relevant and high quality research matters to the AASB. One reason is simply to help meet its obligations under legislation. Section 231 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 requires the AASB to “carry out a cost/benefit analysis of the impact of a proposed accounting standard before making or formulating the standard.” A cost/benefit analysis is required even if a proposed standard is an international standard. Although measuring the costs and benefits of standard setting is problematic (Schipper, 2010), academic research can help the AASB either anticipate potential consequences of a proposed standard or identify consequences once a standard has been implemented[4]. As such, quality academic research can inform the deliberations of the AASB more generally. Academic research has the additional advantage that it is perceived as an “independent” source relative to the inputs provided by other constituents who might be aligned with particular interest groups.

Processes of hybridization and de-hybridization: organizing and the task at hand

Purpose The problematization indicates the need for enhancing the understanding of hybrid settings as potentially dynamic, changing and fragile. The purpose of this paper is to generate the knowledge through a conceptualization of the relationship between hybrid organizing and object, helping us understand how and why hybridization takes place or de-hybridizing occurs. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a longitudinal qualitative case study of an attempt to introduce cost-benefit calculations as a management initiative in the social sector. In total, 18 observations of meetings and 48 interviews were done. Findings The main contribution is the empirically detailed description of how hybridizing must be understood in connection to a complex task at hand. A core observation is how complexity is escaped by either an intensive framing or compartmentalization – the former either leading to a disciplined hybrid allowing efficient action or to a hot and contested situation characterized by inertia. The latter, compartmentalization, presupposes less complexity with the potential of full de-hybridization into single-purpose organizing, failing to deal with the complex task at hand. Research limitations/implications A limitation is the one case approach and further research could focus on other settings. Practical implications The paper provides concepts useful for analysis of specific cooperative arrangements. Social implications The authors believe that the findings can bring useful insights to professionals, policy makers and others who are engaging in and addressing complex societal issues, not least within the public sector, a matter all too often overlooked by the accounting research community. Originality/value The originality of the paper is the focus on the organization and control in relation to the task at hand.

“[T]here are known knowns … things we know that we know”

PurposeThe starting point for this paper is that the researcher is intimately bound up in all aspects of the research process. This idea of what is a critical aspect of much interpretive methodology has been challenged by some proponents of the interpretive accounting research (IAR) project. The authors suggest that adopting some of the views expounded in the IAR project may lead to the accounting research community becoming isolated from other interpretive methodology inspired disciplines. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approachCurrently popular views on IAR are informed by selective theoretical insights from interpretive sociology. The authors argue that these insights cannot provide a general frame with which to encapsulate accounting research that may be reasonably termed “interpretive.”FindingsThe authors’ reading of the literature suggests that the some of the IAR literature exhibits: a tendency to routinely make overly specific claims for what it is possible for interpretive research to achieve; the promotion of a somewhat reductionist view of what the bounds of interpretive research are. The authors suggest that these tendencies detract from the strengths of (adopting a broad view of) IAR.Research limitations/implicationsIn expressing the authors’ concerns, the authors do not wish to make an exclusive argument for what IAR is and is not. This would not be in line with writing an interpretive paper. While the authors do not eschew the possibility of a limited building of knowledge by applying interpretive methodological stances neither do the authors see such activity as a central plank of interpretive research.Practical implicationsThe authors believe that positivistic commentaries on qualitative enquiry should not be taken as exemplary of interpretive research (in accounting – or elsewhere). The authors feel that IAR needs to be more open to an array of subjectivist motivations, if it is to provide useful critique of the nature of day-to-day accounting practice.Originality/valueThe authors seek to go beyond the rather unhelpful debate about whether IAR should be seen to possess both objective and subjective elements. The authors argue that IAR suffers more from a lack of engagement and debate than it faces dangers from areas of interpretive methodology that adopt positions considered to be too subjectivist.

The Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal Community in its 30th year

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the origins and development of the “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ) Community”, a flourishing international interdisciplinary accounting research community. This scholarly community has emerged over some 30 years from the publication in 1988 of the inaugural issue of AAAJ under the joint editorship of James Guthrie and Lee Parker. This historical account discusses the motivation for establishing the journal and the important publishing initiatives, developments and trends across this period. The study positions the journal as a key thought leader, the catalyst for other Community activities such as the Asia-Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting conference.Design/methodology/approachThe investigation involved a selective review of the contents of AAAJ, particularly the annual editorials published since inception, and other relevant literature, analysis of the main research themes and the most cited papers, and oral history interviews with the joint editors. The future prospects for the AAAJ Community are addressed.FindingsThe AAAJ Community has shaped and led developments in interdisciplinary accounting research. Recognised for innovation and with a reputation for nurturing scholars, AAAJ continues to grow in stature as one of the world’s leading accounting journals, challenging the status quo and fostering inclusive scholarship.Research limitations/implicationsThe study does not examine the journal’s publication patterns nor assess in detail the research studies that have been published in the journal.Originality/valueThe study recognises AAAJ as central to the development of an interdisciplinary accounting research community, firmly located in the sociological, critical and interpretative tradition also associated with some other leading accounting journals.

Deception in Management Accounting Experimental Research: A Tricky Issuee Revisited

Management accounting scholars generally accept the proposition that our subject matter requires a multi-disciplinary approach to study. The question of what are appropriate norms for conducting research in that environment is not as clear as it may be in more homogenous research communities. One research methods issue that has become more controversial in recent years in our literature is the appropriateness of the experimenter deceiving experimental participants. Broadly speaking there are two main positions about experimental deception: from a psychology perspective “deception if necessary” and from an experimental economics perspective “deception should be banned.” Our goal is to deepen and develop a common understanding within the management accounting research community about what constitutes deceptive research practices. We review the viewpoints and arguments supporting the views of the two base disciplines and the transfer of their norms to management accounting research. We develop a framework for analyzing the need for and potential consequences of using deception in management accounting research. Our analysis implies the need for careful case-by-case consideration, ex ante by researchers and ex post by journal editors, of experiments employing deception in light of the considerations raised in this article. In the longer run, our analysis suggests that the management accounting research community may need to consider if a more explicit policy statement on the role of deception in management accounting research is warranted or whether a case-by-case approach as advocated by us as an interim measure is sufficient.

New development: How MPs in the Dutch parliament strengthened their budgetary and accounting powers

After experiencing a lack of political interest for financial and performance information in the Dutch House of Representatives, the author, a member of parliament, introduced a systematic approach for parliamentarians to review the country’s national budget and accounts. Drawing on corporate experience, the approach is a parliamentary version of a corporate audit committee working with a standardized review questionnaire. It gained wide support and is now used by several parliamentary committees. Nevertheless, the author raises various questions to the public accounting and control research community to improve the method and ensure its long-term use by politicians.

The struggle to fabricate accounting narrative obfuscation

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the accounting research project concerned with accounting narrative obfuscation, focusing on the translation of the concept of readability from educational psychology via an earlier literature concerned with the readability of accounting narratives per se. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses actor-network theory and examines, in particular, the need for a network to accommodate the interests of its actors and the consequent risk of failure. Findings The analysis shows that the project is failing because the network seeking to support it is failing, and failing because of its inability to adapt sufficiently to accommodate the interests of its constituents. This failure is contrasted with the earlier concern with readability per se, which did see a successful reconfiguration of actors’ interests. Research limitations/implications The puzzle of the maladjustment of the network concerned with obfuscation is examined and it is suggested that it is a consequence of interests prevailing in the wider academic research network within which the relevant human actors are embedded. Social implications The reasons for the failure of the project are bound up in the wider circumstances of the contemporary accounting research community and may affect scholars’ capacity to pursue knowledge effectively. Originality/value This paper contributes to a modest stream of actor–network analysis directed at accounting research itself.

So, who really is a “noted author” within the accounting literature? A reflection on Benson et al. (2015)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the propensity of some researchers within the accounting research community (and elsewhere) to ignore potentially rich insights available from other paradigms, and the implications this has for the advancement of knowledge both from an educational and a social perspective. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on a review of a paper published in the Australian Journal of Management by Benson et al. (2015) together with a synthesis of other work which cautions against dismissing conflicting “world views”. Findings – The analysis suggests that the propensity of some accounting researchers to dismiss, or ignore, research undertaken by researchers outside of their paradigm is still apparently “alive and well” within today’s accounting research community. The implications associated with ignoring or dismissing rich interdisciplinary insights are highlighted. Research limitations/implications – The implications of the research are that many rich insights are apparently being ignored by a segment of the accounting research community and this has implications for the advancement of knowledge, education and society. The limitations of this commentary are that the views are based on personal opinion which by its very nature is biased and based on the political views of the author. Practical implications – The practical implications are that in highlighting a propensity to ignore potentially valuable research from alternative paradigms the commentary encourages researchers to consider other world views, as well as the political foundations inherent in their own work. This can have positive implications for the advancement of knowledge, and of society. Social implications – By highlighting the propensity of some researchers to potentially dismiss entire areas of research as not being “notable” it is hoped that there will be a revision of this tendency and this will have possible implications for the advancement of knowledge. Originality/value – The commentary highlights how certain elements of the accounting research community continue to appear to have a propensity to forget/ignore that potentially useful insights are available from people who undertake research beyond the confines of their research paradigm.