Accounting Research Conference Research Articles

DARC 2023 at Radboud University: Societal challenges in accounting research and education

This year, the 7th edition of the Dutch Accounting Research Conference (DARC) was hosted by the Nijmegen School of Management at Radboud University on Thursday, March 23. In total, over 75 accounting researchers from various Dutch universities were welcomed by Frank Hartmann, chair of the accounting group and head of the Business Economics department. During the day, four keynote speakers presented their research and in a panel discussion, the current state of accounting education was debated. In the evening, participants gathered to network over dinner. This article presents a discussion of the theme of the conference, an outline of the research papers and projects presented during the conference, and a summary of the panel discussion on Accounting Education.

DARC 2019; Insights into current accounting research in the Netherlands. Report on the 5 th Dutch Accounting Research Conference

 

Why Accounting Matters: Evidence from Accounting's “Big Bang”

ABSTRACT This article is based on my keynote speech presented at the 2018 Journal of International Accounting Research Conference held at Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy. The worldwide adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards in 2005 represents a “quasi-experimental” shock for thousands of companies around the world. This “Big Bang” event provided accounting researchers with an opportunity to gain insights into the fundamental qualitative characteristics of accounting that users find valuable. This research identifies several qualitative characteristics that help explain “why accounting matters,” including: (1) reliability, as captured by strong legal institutions, (2) accruals, (3) increased disclosure, (4) greater comparability, and (5) the use of historical costs (at least for contracting purposes). Notably, the overarching characteristic, which is necessary for all of the other characteristics to matter, is strong legal institutions.

Insights into current accounting research in the Netherlands

After successful editions in Maastricht, Rotterdam, and Tilburg, the Department of Accounting of the University of Groningen has hosted the 4th Dutch Accounting Research Conference (DARC) on Friday, June 15, 2018. DARC is a one-day conference that brings together accounting researchers from the Netherlands to discuss a broad range of current issues in accounting research. During the conference, five papers have been presented in a seminar format.

No System is Perfect: Understanding How Registration-Based Editorial Processes Affect Reproducibility and Investment in Research Quality--Free Responses to Survey of Conference Participants

This document includes the complete set of free-text responses to our survey of those who participated in the 2017 Journal of Accounting Research Conference, Registered Reports of Empirical Research. We solicited responses from authors of accepted and rejected proposals, reviewers, and conference attendees. Responses shed light on challenges faced and opportunities for improvement in proposal development, data gathering, analysis, review, revision, and interpretation of results.

No System is Perfect: Understanding How Registration-Based Editorial Processes Affect Reproducibility and Investment in Research Quality--Free Responses to Survey on Author Discretion

This document includes the complete set of free-text responses to our survey on the 2017 Journal of Accounting Research Conference, Registered Reports of Empirical Research. We solicited responses from all authors who have published in six well-regarded accounting journals over the last decade. Respondents provide thoughts on how research quality is affected by authors’ discretion to choose: which measures and analyses to report; whether or not to report a sample or subsample; which observations to exclude from primary analyses; whether to gather additional data after observing results; to change their predictions and/or underlying theory; and to choose not to report or highlight hypotheses. Respondents also provide first-hand accounts of discretionary choices and failed replications, advice to editors and reviewers, and their thoughts on other forms of discretion, motivations for using discretion, and any insights they wish to share not covered by their previous answers.

Report on the 3rd Dutch Accounting Research Conference

One of the best protected secrets of the Dutch accounting community is that the Netherlands is among the best European countries when it comes to accounting research and that Dutch universities also perform excellent when making worldwide comparisons. The current situation is the result of the hard work of many people at the different Dutch universities during the last three decades. Despite the fact that accounting research flourishes in the Netherlands and despite the geographic concentration of the different universities, initiatives to bring accounting researchers together were lacking. The Dutch Accounting Research Conference (DARC) aims at filling this gap.

Gathering Data for Archival, Field, Survey, and Experimental Accounting Research

ABSTRACTIn the published proceedings of the first Journal of Accounting Research Conference, Vatter [1966] lamented that “Gathering direct and original facts is a tedious and difficult task, and it is not surprising that such work is avoided.” For the fiftieth JAR Conference, we introduce a framework to help researchers understand the complementary value of seven empirical methods that gather data in different ways: prestructured archives, unstructured (“hand‐collected”) archives, field studies, field experiments, surveys, laboratory studies, and laboratory experiments. The framework spells out five goals of an empirical literature and defines the seven methods according to researchers’ choices with respect to five data gathering tasks. We use the framework and examples of successful research studies in the financial reporting literature to clarify how data gathering choices affect a study's ability to achieve its goals, and conclude by showing how the complementary nature of different methods allows researchers to build a literature more effectively than they could with less diverse approaches to gathering data.

1st Dutch Accounting Research Conference (DARC)

On June 4 2015, the 1st Dutch Accounting Research Conference (DARC) took place in Maastricht at the Maastricht University School of Business and Economics. More than 60 accounting academics from eight Dutch universities participated in the conference, 20% of which were PhD students. The purpose of the conference is to provide feedback on each other’s work, exchange ideas, and discuss (the relevance of) recent developments in academia that affect all Dutch accounting departments.

Is There A Scientific Basis for Accounting? Implications for Practice, Research, and Education

ABSTRACTThis essay is based on a keynote speech at the 2014 Journal of International Accounting Research (JIAR) Conference. That talk was built upon a 2009 American Accounting Association (AAA) Annual Meeting panel presentation titled “Is There Any Scientific Legitimacy to What We Teach in Accounting 101?” I evaluate whether accounting practice, regulation, research, and teaching have a strong underlying scientific basis. I argue that recent accounting research, regulation, and teaching are often based on unscientific ideology but that evolved accounting practice embeds scientific laws even if accountants are largely unaware of them. Accounting researchers have an opportunity to expand scientific inquiry in accounting by improving their research designs and exploring uses of accounting outside formal capital markets using field studies and experiments.

Gathering Data for Financial Reporting Research

In the published proceedings of the first Journal of Accounting Research Conference, Vatter [1966] lamented that “Gathering direct and original facts is a tedious and difficult task, and it is not surprising that such work is avoided.” For the fiftieth JAR Conference, we introduce a framework to help researchers understand the complementary value of seven empirical methods that gather data in different ways: prestructured archives, unstructured (“hand-collected”) archives, field studies, field experiments, surveys, laboratory studies, and laboratory experiments. The framework spells out five goals of an empirical literature and defines the seven methods according to researchers’ choices with respect to five data gathering tasks. We use the framework and examples of successful research studies in the financial reporting literature to clarify how data gathering choices affect a study’s ability to achieve its goals, and conclude by showing how the complementary nature of different methods allows researchers to build a literature more effectively than they could with less diverse approaches to gathering data.

Is There Any Scientific Basis for Accounting? Implications for Practice, Research and Education

This essay is based on a keynote speech at the 2014 Journal of International Accounting Research (JIAR) Conference. That talk was built upon a 2009 American Accounting Association (AAA) annual meeting panel presentation titled “Is there any scientific legitimacy to what we teach in Accounting 101?” I evaluate whether accounting practice, regulation, research and teaching have a strong underlying scientific basis. I argue that recent accounting research, regulation and teaching are often based on unscientific ideology but that evolved accounting practice embeds scientific laws even if accountants are largely unaware of them. Accounting researchers have an opportunity to expand scientific inquiry in accounting by improving their research designs and exploring uses of accounting outside formal capital markets using field studies and experiments.

Employee Ownership and Firm Disclosure

Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 32, Issue 2 p. 639-673 Original Article Employee Ownership and Firm Disclosure† Francesco Bova, Francesco Bova University of TorontoSearch for more papers by this authorYiwei Dou, Yiwei Dou New York UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorOle-Kristian Hope, Ole-Kristian Hope University of TorontoSearch for more papers by this author Francesco Bova, Francesco Bova University of TorontoSearch for more papers by this authorYiwei Dou, Yiwei Dou New York UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorOle-Kristian Hope, Ole-Kristian Hope University of TorontoSearch for more papers by this author First published: 31 March 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12084Citations: 68 †Accepted by Shivaram Rajgopal. We thank Joseph Blasi, Doug Kruse, Clive Lennox, and workshop participants at the Rotman School of Management, Florida State University, University of Technology Sydney Summer Symposium, Rutgers University, the Labor and Employment Relations Association 63rd Annual Meeting, the University of Mannheim, the American Accounting Association Annual Meeting (Denver), Norwegian School of Economics, 5th Annual Rotman Accounting Research Conference, the Chinese Accounting Professors' Association of North America Conference 2011, and University of Hong Kong for helpful comments. We are also grateful for funding from the Rotman School of Management, the Louis O. Kelso Fellowship for Research in Employee Ownership (Bova), and the Deloitte Professorship (Hope). Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume32, Issue2Summer 2015Pages 639-673 RelatedInformation

Analysts' Cash Flow Forecasts and the Decline of the Accruals Anomaly

Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 31, Issue 4 p. 1143-1170 Original Article Analysts' Cash Flow Forecasts and the Decline of the Accruals Anomaly† Partha S. Mohanram, Partha S. Mohanram University of TorontoSearch for more papers by this author Partha S. Mohanram, Partha S. Mohanram University of TorontoSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 August 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12056Citations: 70 †Accepted by Steve Salterio. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 2012 Contemporary Accounting Research Conference, generously supported by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. The author would like to thank Steve Salterio, the discussant Katherine Schipper, two anonymous referees, Sid Balachandran, Urooj Khan, Gordon Richardson, Julian Yeo, and seminar participants at the 2012 CAR Conference, Columbia Business School, University of Toronto, Ohio State University, Carnegie-Mellon University, IIM-Bangalore, INSEAD, RSM-Erasmus University and the Indian School of Business. The author acknowledges generous research support funding from the Certified General Accountants of Ontario (CGA Ontario) and the Rotman School of Management. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume31, Issue4Winter 2014Pages 1143-1170 RelatedInformation

Discussion of “The Economics of Setting Auditing Standards”

Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 30, Issue 3 p. 1216-1222 Article Discussion of “The Economics of Setting Auditing Standards”† Judson Caskey, Judson Caskey University of TexasSearch for more papers by this author Judson Caskey, Judson Caskey University of TexasSearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 September 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12008 † Accepted by Raffi Indjejikian. An earlier version of this discussion was presented at the 2011 Contemporary Accounting Research Conference, generously supported by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. I thank Dan Simunic and Minlei Ye, the authors of the paper I discussed, for comments on the discussion. I would also like to thank John Hughes, Volker Laux, Bugra Ozel, and the conference participants for their comments. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume30, Issue3Fall 2013 (September)Pages 1216-1222 RelatedInformation

The Economics of Setting Auditing Standards

Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 30, Issue 3 p. 1191-1215 Article The Economics of Setting Auditing Standards† Minlei Ye, Minlei Ye University of TorontoSearch for more papers by this authorDan A. Simunic, Dan A. Simunic University of British ColumbiaSearch for more papers by this author Minlei Ye, Minlei Ye University of TorontoSearch for more papers by this authorDan A. Simunic, Dan A. Simunic University of British ColumbiaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 September 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2012.01191.xCitations: 27 † Accepted by Raffi Indjejikian. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2011 Contemporary Accounting Research Conference, generously supported by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. The authors greatly appreciate the advice from Kin Lo, Hugh Neary, Sandra Chamberlain, and especially Ralph Winter. An earlier version of the paper benefited from comments by Florin Sabac and Paul Fischer. We also wish to thank Paul Newman, Bill Kinney, Volker Laux, Gordon Richardson, Ping Zhang, Gilles Hilary, Jeroen Suijs, Robert Knechel, Pierre Liang, Giri Kanagaretnam, Tim Baldenius, Steven Salterio, Raffi Indjejikian, Judson Caskey, two anonymous referees, seminar participants at the University of British Columbia, the University of Toronto, the University of Texas at Austin, HEC Paris, Tilburg University, the University of Arizona, the City University of Hong Kong, and the University of Technology–Sydney, as well as conference participants at the Auditing Midyear Meeting 2010, EAA conference 2010, CAAA conference 2010, the JCAE Doctoral Symposium held at Seoul National University 2010, and the CAR conference 2011. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the KPMG Research Bureau in Financial Reporting at the Sauder School of Business, UBC, and the start-up research fund, University of Toronto. This paper is based on Professor Ye's Ph.D. thesis at the University of British Columbia. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume30, Issue3Fall 2013 (September)Pages 1191-1215 RelatedInformation

Discussion of “Are Analysts' Cash Flow Forecasts Naïve Extensions of Their Own Earnings Forecasts?”

Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 30, Issue 2 p. 466-481 Article Discussion of “Are Analysts' Cash Flow Forecasts Naïve Extensions of Their Own Earnings Forecasts?”† Claudine Mangen, Claudine Mangen Concordia UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Claudine Mangen, Claudine Mangen Concordia UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 13 June 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/care.12016Citations: 3 † Accepted by Steve Salterio. This paper was presented at the 2011 Contemporary Accounting Research Conference, generously supported by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. I am grateful to Michel Magnan as well as conference participants for useful comments. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume30, Issue2Summer 2013 (June)Pages 466-481 RelatedInformation

Beyond the Numbers: Measuring the Information Content of Earnings Press Release Language*

Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 29, Issue 3 p. 845-868 Beyond the Numbers: Measuring the Information Content of Earnings Press Release Language* Angela K. Davis, Angela K. Davis University of OregonSearch for more papers by this authorJeremy M. Piger, Jeremy M. Piger University of OregonSearch for more papers by this authorLisa M. Sedor, Lisa M. Sedor DePaul UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Angela K. Davis, Angela K. Davis University of OregonSearch for more papers by this authorJeremy M. Piger, Jeremy M. Piger University of OregonSearch for more papers by this authorLisa M. Sedor, Lisa M. Sedor DePaul UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 29 July 2011 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01130.xCitations: 388 † Accepted by Michael Welker. The authors would like to thank Franklin Williams, Mikhail Pevzner, Michelle Armesto, and Nam Tram for research assistance. We thank Mike Welker, three anonymous reviewers, Bob Bowen, Rich Frankel, Greg Hess, Ron King, Dawn Matsumoto, Bill Mayew, James Morley, Terry Shevlin, Shankar Venkataraman, Michael Williams and workshop participants at the University of Oregon, University of Utah, Washington University, the 2005 Washington University Accounting Research Conference, and the 2008 FEA Conference for helpful comments and suggestions. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume29, Issue3Fall 2012 (September)Pages 845-868 RelatedInformation

Performance Spillover in a Multitask Environment*

Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 29, Issue 2 p. 563-589 Performance Spillover in a Multitask Environment* GARY HECHT, GARY HECHT University of Wisconsin–MadisonSearch for more papers by this authorIVO TAFKOV, IVO TAFKOV Georgia State UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorKRISTY L. TOWRY, KRISTY L. TOWRY Emory UniversitySearch for more papers by this author GARY HECHT, GARY HECHT University of Wisconsin–MadisonSearch for more papers by this authorIVO TAFKOV, IVO TAFKOV Georgia State UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorKRISTY L. TOWRY, KRISTY L. TOWRY Emory UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 25 June 2011 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01114.xCitations: 30 † Accepted by Alan Webb. We appreciate the helpful comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers, Gregory Berns, Shana Clor-Proell, Gavin Ekins, Anne Farrell, Carol Gee, Rick Gilkey, Lynn Hannan, Steve Kachelmeier, Marsha Keune, Tim Keune, Benjamin Luippold, Linda Thorne, Brian Mayhew, Chad Proell, Steve Salterio, Geoff Sprinkle, Matt Sooy, Thomas Vance, Alan Webb, Michael Williamson, Wilda Womanac, and workshop participants at Emory University, University of Florida, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, University of Wisconsin–Madison, the Queens-York Behavioural Accounting Conference, 2008 Southeast Accounting Research Conference, and the 2009 AAA Management Accounting Section Meeting. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume29, Issue2Summer 2012 (June)Pages 563-589 RelatedInformation

11th Manufacturing Accounting Research Conference

11th Manufacturing Accounting Research Conference