You are on page 1of 37

Approaches to accounting research –

Evidence from EAA Annual Congresses

Rolf Uwe Fülbier


Universität Bayreuth
Chair of International Accounting
Prieserstraße 2
D-95440 Bayreuth, Germany
Phone: +49(0)921-554820
E-mail: rolf.uwe.fuelbier@uni-bayreuth.de

Thorsten Sellhorn
WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management
Chair of Accounting
Burgplatz 2
D-56179 Vallendar, Germany
Phone: +49(0)261-6509 230
E-mail: rolf.fuelbier@whu.edu

We are indebted to Richard Mattessich, Robert W. Scapens, Manuel Weller and delegates at the 2006 EAA Annual Con-
gress in Dublin for providing helpful comments and to Marc Brunssen, Daniel Hartmann, Leonardo La Roche and Svenja
Streb for valuable research assistance. All errors are the authors’.

First version: January 2006


This version: December 2008

The previous version of this paper was circulated as “Methodological approaches to accounting re-
search – Evidence from EAA Annual Congresses”. The title change reflects a broadened scope.

This paper presents preliminary evidence from an ongoing research project.


Please do not quote without consulting the authors. Comments are welcome.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=985119


Approaches to accounting research –
Evidence from EAA Annual Congresses

ABSTRACT: This paper describes an ongoing empirical-archival meta-analysis of accounting re-


search over the last 30 years. We investigate different aspects of research approaches documented in
the abstracts of papers presented at EAA Annual Congresses. The project is organized in two distinct
phases: In the first phase, we present evidence on basic variables like topics pursued, methods applied
and other characteristics of accounting research (including co-authorships and international as well as
cross-institutional cooperation), both in terms of their development over time and their differences
across countries. We believe that the results of this exploratory analysis are likely to be relevant for
other researchers, journal editors, practitioners (including standard setters and firms) and others inter-
ested in current research trends as well as the debates surrounding “mainstream” accounting research,
the “multi-paradigmatic” nature of accounting research and the notion of “globalization” of accounting
research. Motivated by recurring debates about the status of accounting as an (applied or pure) science
and the raison d'être of prescriptive-normative (as opposed to descriptive-positive) research, the second
phase uses content analyses of abstracts to infer authors’ methodological approaches to accounting re-
search (including research objectives and research “world-views”, or paradigms). Here also, we look at
both the inter-temporal as well as cross-country dimensions. The second phase is expected to lend em-
pirical substance to ever-recurring disputes about the scientific status of accounting and the underlying
motivations of accounting researchers. Our data covers practically all EAA Annual Congresses
throughout the EAA’s history (1978-present), yielding about 10,000 abstracts of research papers in 20
topic areas, presented by delegates from more than 60 countries. This early version of our paper reflects
the subset of this data that has already been analyzed. We present basic descriptive evidence from EAA
Annual Congresses between 1998 und 2008 and put up for discussion initial results on our empirical
measure of research objective pursued.

Keywords: Methodology, accounting research, normative, positive, research objective

JEL Classification: M41, N01

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=985119


Approaches to accounting research –
Evidence from EAA annual congresses

1. Introduction

Accounting research has traditionally employed a variety of approaches. It has been labeled a “mul-
ti-school discipline” (Chua, 1986, 602) or multi-paradigmatic science, in which accounting paradigms1
“striving for primacy through books, journals, conferences, seminars, and other means of defense, are
mainly characterized by their exemplars, their images of the subject matter, their theories, and finally
the methods they use” (Riahi-Belkaoui, 1996, preface). However, these heterogeneous approaches,
paradigms, directions (Mattessich, 2008), schools or world-views do not coexist peacefully on a par.
According to a common perception, while a few “mainstream” approaches are regularly published in
the top journals in our field, others have been relegated to a niche existence. There is evidence that
these preferences have been shifting over time: For example, some hold that the “empirical revolution”
starting in the late 1960s has taken hold at the expense of deductive-normative work, which in turn has
been pushed out of the “mainstream” and chided as “unscientific” (Jensen, 1976, 12; Watts, 1977, 54).
In fact, there seems to be fundamental disagreement about the status of accounting as a (pure or ap-
plied) science. We also anecdotally observe international differences in research approaches: For ex-
ample, historical and sociological reasons are evoked to explain differences in accounting research be-
tween the UK and Germany (Power, 1997).

We believe that the questions touched upon above are more than mere “academic or “philosophi-
cal” debates that lack much relevance for practitioners and possibly even for researchers themselves.
On the contrary, the acceptance of certain research approaches as “scientific” by the relevant academic
community (including colleagues, doctoral and tenure committees, and journal editors) influences re-
searchers’ career prospects and, in turn, future research diversity and progress. Also, “pure” accounting
researchers are less likely to concern themselves (directly) with problems relevant to practice, where
“practice” includes managers, regulators, auditors, and investors. The perceived growing “gap” be-
tween research and practice would be likely to widen under a “pure science” view of accounting.

We contribute empirical evidence to these debates. To our knowledge, these debates lack a com-
prehensive empirical foundation that documents the research approaches taken by accounting academ-

1
The original term traces back to Kuhn (1962), who later introduced the “disciplinary matrix” (2nd ed., 1970) with respect to
a relevant science community with its shared theoretical beliefs, instruments, techniques, and even values.

3
ics from a large set of different countries and as well their development over time. This paper describes
an ongoing project intended to fill some of these gaps. We conduct an empirical-archival meta-study of
accounting research over the last 30 years. Collecting statistical data and using content analysis, we
investigate different aspects of research approaches documented in the abstracts of papers presented at
EAA Annual Congresses. Our data covers practically all congresses throughout the EAA’s history
(1978-present), yielding about 10,000 abstracts of research papers in 20 topic areas. This data set has
several advantages: While the AAA Annual Meetings are larger overall, the EAA Annual Congress is
arguable the largest truly international forum for accounting researchers, with delegates from more than
60 European and non-European countries around the world presenting their work. Compared to a sur-
vey of research already published, analyzing Congress abstracts has the advantage that selection bias
introduced by journals’ review processes is avoided and a more unfiltered picture of research activity is
obtained. On the other hand, the acceptance hurdle set by the EAA scientific committee (about 77% in
2008) allows us to ensure a minimum quality level. Tracking these papers to their subsequent publica-
tion outlets (if any) potentially yields additional insights into what defines “successful” research from
editors and reviewers perspective.

Our analyses pertain to four distinct groups of research questions: First, we take stock of research
approaches on an aggregate basis, averaging over all Congress years and all countries represented, in
order to obtain an overall picture of accounting research undertaken throughout EAA history as a refer-
ence point for subsequent analyses. Second, we investigate the change in research approaches over
time, averaging over countries, in an effort to identify pertinent trends and developments. Third, we
survey differences in research approaches across countries, averaging over Congress years, in order to
ascertain whether different national and/or regional research cultures and traditions are detectable in the
data. Fourth, and finally, we address the question whether research approaches converge globally over
time by analyzing how cross-country differences in research approaches behave over time.

The project is organized in two distinct phases, in which we operationalize and specify the vague
concept of “research approaches” by examining different variables that describe various methodologi-
cal as well as sociological aspects of the papers presented. In phase A, we present evidence on basic
variables like countries represented, topics pursued, author affiliations and other characteristics of ac-
counting research (including co-authorships and international as well as cross-institutional coopera-
tion). We believe that the results of this exploratory analysis are likely to be relevant for other research-
ers, journal editors, practitioners (including standard setters and firms) and others interested in current

4
research trends as well as the debates surrounding “mainstream” accounting research, the “multi-
paradigmatic” nature of accounting research and the notion of “globalization” of accounting research.

Phase B, motivated by recurring debates about the status of accounting as an (applied or pure)
science and the raison d'être of prescriptive-normative (as opposed to descriptive-positive) research,
uses content analyses of abstracts to infer authors’ methodological approaches to accounting research
(including research research methods, research objectives/motivations and research “world-views”, or
paradigms). Although our method is conceptually clear and observes the criteria of stability and repro-
ducibility, we are aware that using content analysis to measure these vague concepts is inherently sub-
jective. Nevertheless, this second phase of our project is expected to lend empirical substance to ever-
recurring disputes about the scientific status of accounting and the underlying motivations of account-
ing researchers, thereby contributing vital empirical and methodological insights to the ongoing metho-
dological debate in accounting research.

The current version of our paper presents preliminary findings reflecting the subset of data that has
already been analyzed. Pertaining to phase A, we show the distribution of EAA Annual Congress pre-
senters across countries for the past eleven years (1998-2008), the distribution of topic areas (1998-
2008) and the distribution of topic areas by country for the past five years (2004-2008). Based on this
descriptive data, we can draw initial conclusions about international differences and inter-temporal
developments in research activity and topic preference. With respect to phase B, we present evidence
on researchers’ fundamental objectives pursued and methods used by applying content analysis to a
sample of 115 financial reporting (FRG) and 77 international accounting (INA) abstracts presented at
the congresses in Gothenburg (2005) and Munich (2000).2 Due to the preliminary nature of this version
of our paper, we have refrained from positing and testing formal hypotheses.

Our preliminary results indicate notable shifts in countries represented and topics addressed over
the period 1998-2008. We also find a dominance of descriptive research objectives, which has been
increasing over time. This dominance is mirrored by an advance of empirical-archival methods, which
gain importance at the expense of other empirical as well as non-empirical approaches. The frequency
of descriptive objectives is disproportionately high in empirical-archival studies, although many ab-
stracts containing prescriptive statements also use this method. Therefore, we identify a kind of “main-
stream” methodology: empirical-archival studies with a descriptive objective. In terms of international
differences, the findings indicate that empirical-archival research, which is predominantly descriptive,
2
We exclude from our analysis poster sessions (held in 2005) and their former equivalents, research fora (held in 2000),
because poster sessions are not assigned to topic areas, resulting in missing data for our analysis.

5
is especially dominant in the US. The largest fraction of other research, especially with a prescriptive
objective, originates from Australia, Germany, and the UK.

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we provide some background on the methodologi-
cal and sociology-of-science debates in accounting research to which this project is expected to contri-
bute. We then derive our research questions from these theoretical underpinnings and discuss some
expectations regarding internationally different, inter-temporally changing and converging methodolo-
gies approaches to accounting research. In section 3, we introduce the constructs we use to measure
different aspects of what we generically refer to as “approaches to accounting research”. Especially, we
explain our approach to empirically distinguishing between prescriptive and descriptive research, intro-
ducing the notions of research objective and research method. This conceptualization rests upon the
conditional normative accounting methodology (CoNAM) advocated by Mattessich (1992, 1995a). In
section 4, we describe our method of content analysis as well as our sample and data. Some preliminary
findings based on the subset of data that has already been analyzed are presented in section 5. Section 6
concludes the paper.

2. Background and research questions

In order to approach the phenomenon of “accounting research” and to characterize its nature and
forms of appearance, statistical data from EAA Annual Congresses is valuable. Basic variables like
topics pursued, author affiliations, countries of origin and other characteristics of accounting research
(including co-authorships and international as well as cross-institutional cooperation) may be used to
explore its dimensions and facets.

First, we assume that research paradigms shift over time, either in line with the original perspective
of Kuhn (1970) – a revolutionary change in the paradigmatic consensus (paradigm shift) – or by a more
gradual development over a longer period. Both variants reflect changing attitudes of a relevant scien-
tific community expressed in changing methodological approaches, finally expressing a value-based
decision between incompatible modes of scientific life (Chua, 1986, 602). Second, we argue that the
importance and application of these different schools or paradigms vary between countries due to their
divergent national research traditions. This second thesis refers again to Kuhn and his notion of the
relevant research community. There is no precise definition of what constitutes the relevant research
community and its boundaries. We assume that relevant research communities are geographically and
culturally separated so that, for example, the German-language research community has developed a

6
different ranking of research paradigms than its Anglo-American counterpart. Third, we consider how
the phenomenon of globalization affects accounting research. We argue that globalization influences
accounting research communities in a way comparable to other social groups: research communities,
former nationally or culturally partitioned, coalesce especially in recent years. This is because the
process of internationalization in accounting yields more collective problems and research questions
supported by worldwide advancements in communication systems, database access, logistics, language
and other technical skills. This trend interacts with the methodological level, indicating a process to-
wards a more homogeneous research approach. Against this background, we pose the following three
research questions.

Question 1: Is accounting research characterized by changing methodological approaches?

Scientific knowledge tends to increase over time by accumulated research findings in an evolutio-
nary process of selective accretion and/or, with reference to the historical perspective of Kuhn (1970),
by the revolutionary transformation of paradigms. There may also be more gradual developments in the
non-revolutionary “normal” sciences. It seems interesting to analyze whether accounting research can
also be characterized by this “scientific growth” (Laudan, 1977). Possible forms in which such growth
gets expressed may include changing contents and problems (research field/topic area), increasing le-
vels of specialization of research questions, and, with respect to the changing principles for conducting
research, shifts in methodological views.3 Especially the latter seems appropriate to capture Kuhn’s
conception of paradigms. Here, we are interested in investigating whether one exclusive paradigm can
be identified – indicating one “mature” scientific community – or more. The exclusiveness of one para-
digm is, therefore, expressed in a high level of consensus about methodological approaches (e.g., Cole,
1983: 112). The co-existence of divergent methodological approaches may either indicate that account-
ing research is not highly scientifically advanced (i. e., a “pre-paradigmatic” science) or question
Kuhn’s theory in general. Lakatos (1968, 1970, 1978), for example, allows for the co-existence of al-
ternative research programmes at the same time and others, like Feyerabend, have stressed the histori-
cal incorrectness of Kuhn’s theory (also Laudan 1977: 74, 76, 136). The understanding of accounting
as a “multi-school discipline” (Chua, 1986, 602) or “multiparadigmatic science” (Riahi-Belkaoui,
1996, preface) seems to support the latter.

3
A much more detailed overview about the attempts to operationalize the concept of paradigm and paradigm development
is provided for example by Pfeffer (1993)

7
Question 2: Is accounting research characterized by regionally separated communities utilizing
different approaches?

Neither Kuhn nor Lakatos provide specific definitions of paradigms or research programmes. Espe-
cially their geographical dimension remains vague. Therefore, it may be possible that research com-
munities are regionally separated especially due to cultural barriers and divergent institutional settings.
This may justify nationally divergent research communities with different research traditions and, if
Kuhn’s notion of an exclusive paradigm applies, with different paradigms – each of them exclusive in
their respective communities and environments. This would establish a regionally driven explanation of
a multi-paradigmatic science. However, even if the perception of a multi-paradigmatic science applies
for one national research community, the importance and application of those different national para-
digms may vary between countries.

One justification for divergent research traditions is rooted in cultural differences. The understand-
ing of culture “is usually reserved for societies (in the modern world we speak of `nations`) or for eth-
nic and regional groups” (Hofstede, 1980: 26; critical Baskerville, 2003: 6-8) 4. This yields cultural
differences at least along national borders (national cultures) due to different specifications (dimen-
sions) of culture. Hofstede (1980) identifies four major dimensions of national culture: power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism and masculinity. This includes language as “the most clearly re-
cognizable part of culture” (Hofstede, 1980: 34). With reference to Hofstede’s dimensions, Gray (1988)
has shown that accounting follows different patterns in different parts of the world. Whereas Gray fo-
cuses more on the cultural influence on the development of (nationally divergent) accounting systems,
we argue that cultural differences also yield comparable differences in methodological approaches to
accounting research. This seems also in line with Kuhn (1996: 177) who acknowledges that researchers
in one community are characterized, amongst others, by similar education and professional initiations,
absorbing the same technical literature. All these dimensions have their cultural imprint and lead to the
conclusion that research communities may differ regionally –if culture also differs.

Another explanation for divergent accounting research communities and resulting methodological
approaches is the institutional setting of accounting. This setting comprises not only the specific form
and content of accounting regulation, but also every institutional factor influencing the contractual set-
ting of the firm and its stakeholders utilizing accounting information such as litigation, taxation, en-

4
Like Kuhn`s conception of paradigms Hofstede’s (1980) understanding of culture applies to values raising the question
whether Kuhn´s paradigms are connected to cultural differences in values as societal norms and, therefore, by definition not
global. For a critical assessment of Hofstede`s view see Baskerville (2003; reply by Hofstede, 2003).

8
forcement, the financial system etc. Obviously, this institutional setting is strongly driven by national
law and regulation. Even converging regulations and institutional settings, for example in the European
Union (EU), seem far from being homogeneous – let alone that cultural differences still remain. Whe-
reas cultural differences induce heterogeneous accounting research more implicitly, institutional differ-
ences lead explicitly to different research. Domestic institutional settings call for research that deals
with the relevant problems of the relevant accounting systems. Moreover, institutional factors may also
impact directly the research community with regard to the academic system and the ways to qualify for
tenured faculty positions. This may also be responsible for methodological differences.

Prior literature seems to support the notion of regionally separated accounting research. Lukka and
Kasanen (1996), for example, find that accounting research is more a local than a global discipline,
featuring a “polycentric oligarchy of research elites”, especially with regard to the US and European
academic elites. It seems remarkable that they identify such regional differences although they have
analyzed solely empirical studies published by six leading English language accounting research jour-
nals mainly from the US, UK and Australia. This indicates at least a certain methodological and cultur-
al contiguousness. Like Lukka and Kasanen (1996), other researchers identify a broad dichotomy be-
tween the US and European research cultures (Collin et al. 1996; Ballas and Theoharakis, 2003). In
contrast, the European identity is vaguely characterized by a variety of methodological approaches
brought about by different national accounting traditions (Panozzo, 1997; with doubts Carmona et al.,
1999). In contrast to the more homogeneous North-American mainstream research, the common Euro-
pean element is hereafter the “institutionally determined anti-dogmatism” (Panozzo 1997; see also
Chua 1986, Ryan/Scapens/Theobald 2002: 41-46). Other parts of the world are connected to either the
US group (Asia) or the European one (Australia, New Zealand) (e.g., Ballas and Theoharakis, 2003:
637).

Question 3: Do approaches to accounting research converge internationally over time?

The explanation of regionally separated accounting research communities using divergent methodo-
logical approaches has so far not considered the time dimension. The present situation and the recent
past are characterized by a temporal process of world-wide connectedness along the dimensions of ex-
tensity, intensity, velocity and impact – described regularly with the popular notion of globalization
(Held et al., 1999). Culture also seems to be affected by globalization, promoting an emergent global
culture and the obsolescence of national cultures (e.g., Bird and Stevens, 2003). Although it is unrealis-
tic to expect that the latter in their core elements will be completely replaced, a process of cultural con-

9
vergence may affect accounting research communities in a way comparable to other social groups. Es-
pecially if accounting is (also) seen as social practice mediating economic, social, cultural and political
relationships (e.g., Hopwood 1978, 1987), the globalization impact on these relationships will influence
accounting research dealing with it. This may constitute new spaces for additional accounting research
dealing with aspects of global accounting (Everett, 2003). This may also enhance the methodological
homogeneity if research communities grow together, identify more collective problems and research
questions and adopt more similar research perspectives and procedures. The impact on accounting re-
search seems to be intensified by parallel processes of regulative convergence. The rise of International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and its current application in more than 100 countries worldwide
is a major driver. Additional efforts of national and supranational regulators to converge in terms of
capital market regulation, corporate governance, accounting enforcement, auditing, litigation etc. veer
towards the same direction.

3. Measuring approaches to accounting research

In this section, we specify what we mean when we generically refer, as we have done in this paper
so far, to “approaches to accounting research”. In phase A of our project, we collect basic, descriptive,
statistical data that characterizes a given piece of accounting research work. In phase B, we try to tease
out researchers’ potentially more subtle methodological views and dispositions. In particular, we are
interested in the research methods used and the research objectives, or underlying motivations, pursued.

Phase A: Collecting and utilizing EAA data to characterize “approaches to accounting research”

In this first phase, we collect, for each of the roughly 10,000 abstracts contained in the proceedings
books of the past 31 EAA Annual Congresses, basic information including country of origin, topic,
author affiliations and number of authors. These variables, as well as the ones described below, are
explained in Figure 2. We focus on a time series that spans three decades of accounting research mir-
rored by EAA congresses embracing information about the current situation as well as the chronologi-
cal development of accounting research in the respective period. Moreover, we differentiate our find-
ings in regard to different countries to capture regionally separated research communities.

10
Phase B: Methodological classifications of accounting research

For the second phase of the project, we have settled on two constructs to measure the methodologi-
cal views of the researchers “behind” the Congress abstracts we analyze. In order to capture (different)
methodological properties of accounting research, we need an adequate taxonomy. The reference to the
paradigm terminology of Kuhn (1970, x) seems, if anything, a starting point, since he vaguely defines it
as “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solu-
tions”. This alludes to uncertain “accepted examples of actual scientific practice” (Kuhn, 1996, 10) and,
therefore, to shared theoretical beliefs, instruments, techniques, and even values of a relevant commu-
nity of researchers (Kuhn, 1996, 175; Schneider, 2001) sometimes labeled as “almost a world-view”
(Oldroyd, 1986, 321, in the context of accounting Chua, 1986, 602). Similar to Riahi-Belkaoui (1996,
preface), we assume superior principles for conducting science (methodology in its narrower meaning)
regularly influencing research objectives, questions, applied methods or the focus on a specific subject
matter.

Methodological literature in the context of accounting research is mainly driven by various attempts
to classify all types of accounting research on a superior methodological level. Quite common seems
the reference to the sociological work of Burrell and Morgan (1979: 1-37) who have introduced two
major differentiators affecting the nature of social sciences and the nature of society. The former con-
stitutes a subjective-objective continuum embracing aspects of ontology (nominalism vs. realism),
epistemology (anti-positivism vs. positivism), human nature (voluntarism vs. determinism) and (their
version of) methodology (idiographic vs. nomothetic). The latter is projected on a sociological conti-
nuum ranging from social order (regulation) to conflict (radical change) which yields in combination
with the former an four-quadrant matrix described by Burrell/Morgan (1979, 21) as the four “para-
digms” (radical humanist, radical structuralist, interpretative, functionalist). This four-quadrant matrix
is assigned to (management) accounting research especially by Hopper/Powel (1985, also
Ryan/Scapens/Theobald, 2002, 39-40) by integrating three accounting research “world-views” ‘critical
accounting research’, interpretative research’ and ‘mainstream accounting research’ (Chua, 1986). Al-
though this sociologically divided trichotomy of “world-views” is originally developed to differentiate
management accounting research and seems, moreover, to represent a more Anglo-American perspec-
tive, it remains useful also for an international taxonomy of management and financial accounting re-
search. It can be utilized in combination with the more specific methodological attributes mentioned
before: research objectives and questions, applied methods and subject matter. Those attributes provide
further dimensions which amend and restrict the two sociological ones.

11
First, we reduce the subjective-objective continuum to a prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy finally
expressed in the research objective or underlying research motivation. We refer here to a current debate
about the practical (especially standard-setting) implications in accounting research (esp. Holthau-
sen/Watts, 2001; Barth/Beaver/Landsman, 2001). This debate traces back to the science-art distinction
of John Stuart Mill (1836/1967), who in turn refers to David Hume (1739) and his segregation between
fact-based descriptive (observations about what ‘is’) from value-based prescriptive statements (conclu-
sions connected with an ‘ought’), later labeled “Hume’s Guillotine” (Black, 1970, p. 24; Blaug, 1992).
The transfer into the positive-normative-distinction is often accredited to Keynes (1891, pp. 34-35) and
was deepened especially in the methodological dispute about the role of value judgments (“Wertur-
teilsstreit”) in Germany at the beginning of the last century with reference especially to Max Weber
(1904, 1913). This dispute found its equivalent in the range of accounting research in the fierce and
dogmatic debate about positive accounting theory in 1970s and 1980s (esp. Watts/Zimmerman, 1978,
1986; Tinker/Merino/Neimark, 1982; Christenson, 1983; Whittington, 1987, Mouck, 1990) establish-
ing a dominant positive “mainstream research” which stigmatizes normative approaches – till today –
as being unscientific (esp. Jensen, 1976, 12; Watts, 1977, 54). As we think that the question of practical
implications of accounting research is a material differentiator between accounting research communi-
ties (see in the following) we access indirectly to this debate under consideration of a more neutral and
unemotional terminology: descriptive versus prescriptive.

In order to measure how the ‘descriptive-prescriptive’ distinction described above manifests itself
in concrete accounting research projects, a more precise understanding of what distinguishes a prescrip-
tive from a (purely) descriptive approach is required. In our view, research can be prescriptive in nature
at two distinct levels: (1) the (often implicit) research objective level;5 and (2) the (often explicit) re-
search question level. This subtle distinction between research objective and research question is im-
portant for inferring a researcher’s methodological position from the mere text of a written research
document. It is summarized in Figure 1 and elaborated on below.

5
We refer to the research objective as potentially ‘implicit’ because some researchers may not concern themselves with
methodological, philosophy-of-science issues. These researchers’ methodological positions may be apparent from their
work without them being actively aware of them.

12
Figure 1: Possible levels of applying the ‘descriptive-prescriptive’ distinction

First, the ultimate objective (or motivation) of an accounting research project can be either descryp-
tive (to describe and explain accounting reality) or prescriptive (to make policy recommendations to
accounting practitioners). Second, the research question also can be descriptive or prescriptive. While
the research question addresses a specific unsolved problem, which the researcher wishes to address by
using scientific methods6, the research objective denotes a broader, more fundamental intention of the
researcher that motivates her to pose this particular research question. For example, in an empirical
study of the value relevance of different earnings definitions, the research question could be: “Which
earnings definition is more strongly correlated with stock price movements: net income or comprehen-
sive income?” This (descriptive) research question may be motivated by two fundamentally different
underlying research objectives: A descriptive researcher, constructing a positive theory of investors’
information processing, is interested in finding evidence to support a positive statement such as: “Ap-
parently, investors’ trading behavior is more consistent with the information that is reflected in net in-
come rather than comprehensive income.” However, another researcher may address that same research
question with the prescriptive objective of making a recommendation to practitioners: “Investors
should adopt investment strategies based on net income rather than comprehensive income, since stock
price movements are more strongly associated with the former rather than the latter;” or, “standard set-
ters should require comprehensive income as the bottom line in a performance statement.”

6
For example, Laudan (1977, p. 11) defines science as a “problem-solving activity”. A research problem is defined by
Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias (2000, p. 46) as a “question or an issue that stimulates a response in the form of a struc-
tured scientific inquiry.”

13
In addition to the research objective and research question, we identify a third level, the research
method. The research method interacts directly with the research question, since the method is chosen
by the researcher to address a given research question. However, the research method is not necessarily
determined by either the research objective or the research question adopted. In our view, the ‘descrip-
tive-prescriptive’ distinction does not unambiguously determine the research method, although we sup-
pose that some methods are strongly correlated with the descriptive research questions, while others are
better suited to address prescriptive questions. For example, empirical-archival methods are appropriate
for addressing many descriptive research questions. It is much more difficult to argue how empirical-
archival methods can be employed to answer prescriptive questions. After all, the methodological prob-
lem occurs that in this case an ‘ought’ would be deduced from an ‘is’ (see section 2). However, it
seems possible to adopt non-empirical methods, theoretical or analytical, to address descriptive or pre-
scriptive questions7.

Since the research method level is not deterministically linked to the research question level, the
identification and classification of research methods is not in the centre of this study. The ‘descriptive-
prescriptive’ distinction can only be identified on the first two levels. Complexity occurs due to the fact
that researchers may adopt a descriptive research question while implicitly pursuing an ultimately pre-
scriptive research objective. For example, Holthausen and Watts (2001) identify several value-
relevance studies that (implicitly or explicitly) have a standard-setting motivation. In our terminology,
several of these studies adopt descriptive research questions and empirical-archival methods, while
their ultimate objective is to address recommendatory ‘should’ statements to standard-setters. In our
understanding, this makes their research objectives prescriptive.

This view is consistent with Mattessich’s (1995a) notion of a ‘conditional normative accounting
methodology’: Researchers assume a range of potential objectives that practitioners pursue (and which
are not the researcher’s task to prescriptively decide upon). Based on these objectives, researchers offer
a range of means-end relations, which are frequently (but not exclusively) derived from empirically
found cause-effect relations. Therefore, a (descriptive) empirical research question can be consistent
with an ultimately prescriptive research objective8. This view is supported by Max Weber, one of the
preeminent advocates of value-free, positivistic research: Weber concedes that, while it is not the re-
searcher’s task to make value judgments, she is intellectually able to use her findings to guide practi-

7
For example, analytical principal-agent modeling can be carried out to address prescriptive or descriptive questions.
8
Consistent with this notion of conditional-normative research, Schneider (2001, p. 311) states that normative theories are
possible as, among other things, empirical examinations of appropriate means required to obtain a specified end.

14
tioners, provided that they specify objectives that are ultimately derived from their own, not the re-
searchers’, value judgments (Weber 1904, p. 40).

The distinction between the (often explicit) research question level and the ultimate (often implicit)
research objective level is fundamental, but also quite subtle. Despite its subtlety, it can quite clearly be
operationalized for application in our empirical analysis of EAA congress abstracts: Pure descriptive
researchers would refrain from making statements including policy recommendations. Naturally, they
are intellectually aware that, given certain objectives, accounting practitioners (i.e. standard-setters,
preparers, and users of financial statements), may construe their positive, frequently empirical findings
as being supportive of certain (regulatory/policy) actions. However, it is not consistent with their self-
image as ‘pure scientists’ to address (prescriptive) ‘should’ statements to practitioners. In their view,
the objective of accounting research as a ‘pure science’ is (merely) to describe, explain, and predict
account practice in terms of the (natural) ‘laws’ that govern it. It is the job of practitioners to shape this
reality by setting objectives and adopting the appropriate measures to reach these objectives. Therefore,
where a researcher includes what amounts to a ‘should’ statement in her research, her methodological
position is not a purely descriptive one. Because we focus on the ultimate research objective level, us-
ing the broadest approach to identifying prescriptive accounting research, we view such research as
having an (implicit) prescriptive objective.

In the context of our study, a researcher’s ultimate research objective can frequently be gleaned on-
ly implicitly from an EAA congress abstract’s wording. Thus, classifying a work as either prescriptive
or descriptive requires us to make the following fine, but conceptually sound distinction: First, where a
researcher states that her research “may” or “could” have implications for standard-setters, regulators,
management practice, investors, or other practitioners, we classify her paper as descriptive. This proce-
dure is consistent with the notion that descriptive researchers, while aware that their findings may be
construed by practitioners as supporting certain (regulatory/management) actions, refrain from making
prescriptive recommendations themselves. However, descriptive researchers do occasionally indicate
potential policy implications, if only to give their work an interesting, topical air. Second, prescriptive
research is characterized by wording that indicates the researcher’s objective to contribute to the shap-
ing of ‘accounting reality’. Recommendatory ‘should’ statements are phrased relatively clearly, al-
though not necessarily very elaborately, given an abstract’s space constraints. Consequently, where a
researcher explicitly states that her research “has” implications for (or “is” relevant to) practice, we
classify her work as prescriptive. In contrast, when it is mentioned that the findings may “help” stan-
dard-setters “to understand” a particular problem, we identify a descriptive objective.

15
Carried to extremes, this fine distinction may result in abstracts being classified into different cate-
gories on the sole basis that the concluding sentences are phrased slightly differently. The necessary
reliance on subjective interpretation of texts that defines content analysis (Krippendorf 2004, preface)
makes computerized analyses based on keywords such as ‘should’, ‘ought’, ‘recommend’, or ‘standard-
setting’ inappropriate. An interesting example given by Schneider (2001) illustrates this point: While
the sentence, “murder is an outrage” comes across as fact-based description, it is merely a disguised
form of the value-based prescriptive statement (norm), “thou shall not kill”.9

Holthausen and Watts (2001) deal with this subtlety in the following way: “We rely on statements
in the papers to assess whether the authors view their results as having implications for standard set-
ting. Papers that explicitly state that their results have such implications are … listed in Table 1. We
identify 54 such papers. We also include in Table 1 a small number of papers (eight) whose language
implies (but does not explicitly state) standard-setting implications. This latter determination is neces-
sarily subjective. Note that standard setting is not necessarily the sole motivation of the papers listed in
Table 1 since many also contribute to the accounting valuation literature.”10 This quote also reflects the
subtle difference between the research objective (motivation) and research question levels described
above.

Besides these conceptual intricacies, further practical problems arise in the empirical analysis of
EAA congress abstracts: Researchers may not make their objectives or even questions unequivocally
clear in their abstracts, resulting in ambiguity with respect to methodological classification. Such ambi-
guity would not necessarily indicate the absence of a clear, if implicit, methodological position. Rather,
some abstracts reflect a certain lack of expositional clarity or even of the fact that many researchers are
not native speakers of the congress language, English. Again, our analysis remains primarily form-
oriented (word-based) and does not presume hidden or underlying intentions when they are not at all
anchored in the abstract’s phrasing. While our method of content analysis shall rest “on the belief that it
is possible to go behind the text as presented” (Smith, 2003, p. 148), we do not feel that mere interpre-
tations and speculations about research objectives are scientifically reasonable. Thus, our classification
rests primarily on the mere wording. We feel that our results are reproducible by any researcher famili-
ar with our methodological categories described in this section.

9
See Schneider 2001, p. 307 (translated).
10
Holthausen and Watts (2001, p. 7, emphasis added). The authors extensively quote from four papers as examples, three of
which are considered to have explicit standard-setting motivations (Ayers, 1998; Barth, 1994; Dhaliwal et al., 1999), while
one (Amir and Lev, 1996) is given as an example of an implicit standard-setting motivation.

16
Finally, it is important to note that we view research to be prescriptive when its ultimate objective is
to provide recommendations to practitioners, i.e. to players outside the research community. In this
view, a researcher’s (prescriptive) recommendation to other researchers that a certain methodology
should be adopted (or a certain theory rejected) does not per se make a paper prescriptive, since the
prescriptive statement is not directed to practitioners and addresses the academic world.

4. Method, sample and data

We conduct an empirical-archival study of accounting research abstracts. With respect to the me-
thodological questions outlined in the previous section, our approach can be characterized as content
analysis of EAA Annual Congress abstracts, “a method that uses a set of procedures to make valid infe-
rences from texts” (Smith 2003, p. 147). The analysis is conducted manually by the authors. In order to
minimize the subjectivity and unreliability of this method, we design our classification rules to observe
the following three reliability criteria (Krippendorff 2004, pp. 214-216): (1) stability, to reduce inter-
temporal coding differences in the same individual; (2) reproducibility, to ensure that different individ-
uals in different environments substantially agree on their classifications; and (3) accuracy, to minim-
ize differences between the classifications made by the individuals and the supposed ‘correct’ assign-
ments. In order to achieve a reliable and meaningful content analysis consistent with these criteria, we
conduct our research as described below.

We use as our data pool the abstracts of papers presented at EAA Annual Congresses and reported
in the official EAA congress documentation. Research projects presented at EA Annual Congresses
seem highly appropriate as objectives for our research: While the AAA Annual Meetings are larger
overall, the EAA Annual Congress is arguable the largest truly international forum for accounting re-
searchers, with delegates from more than 60 European and non-European countries around the world
presenting their work. Compared to a survey of research already published, analyzing Congress ab-
stracts has the advantage that selection bias introduced by journals’ review processes is avoided and a
more unfiltered picture of research activity is obtained. On the other hand, the acceptance hurdle set by
the EAA scientific committee (about 77% in 2008) allows us to ensure a minimum quality level. Track-
ing these papers to their subsequent publication outlets (if any) potentially yields additional insights
into what defines “successful” research from editors and reviewers perspective.

While our ultimate goal is to cover the EAA’s complete congress history from 1978 to the present,
we use this preliminary draft to demonstrate our two-step approach on a relatively small subset. Per-

17
taining to phase A, we collect data about the distribution of EAA Annual Congress presenters across
countries for the past eleven years (1998-2008), the distribution of topic areas (1998-2008) and the dis-
tribution of topic areas by country for the past five years (2004-2008). With respect to the second phase
we concentrate in this preliminary draft on two topic areas for two Annual Congresses: We identify 115
financial reporting (FRG) and 77 international accounting (INA) abstracts presented at the 2000 (Mu-
nich) and 2005 (Gothenburg) congresses are reported below. However, the following descriptions doc-
ument the design of our proposed full-scale study.

In order to generate the data required to conduct our tests, we assign values of the following va-
riables to each of these abstracts: year (of the annual congress under study); abstract ID (primary key to
allow clear identification of a given abstract or data set); topic (as defined in the official congress do-
cumentation, e.g. FRG for ‘financial reporting’); objective (descriptive, prescriptive, or ambiguous);
method (empirical versus non-empirical, each with subcategories); and country (country of domicile of
the presenting author’s research institution). Tables 1 and 2 provide additional explanations.

In assigning of abstracts to topic areas, we rely on the official congress documentation, i.e. we re-
frain from reclassifying abstracts that we feel should have been assigned to a topic area other than the
one selected by the authors. In classifying the research methods used, we adopt the categories defined
for self-classification in the online submission systems of the most recent congresses: The primary em-
pirical/non-empirical dichotomy collapses into the following secondary subcategories: empirical arc-
hival – database or archive (EA), empirical experiment (EE), empirical field or case study (EF), empir-
ical survey (ES), non-empirical – analytical (NEA), and non-empirical – theory (NET). An ‘other’
(OTH) category has been added by the congress organizers, apparently to capture combinations of re-
search methods and research methods not easily assigned to the previous categories. Although we find
the EAA classification somewhat flawed in that it is ambiguous and could include more refined subdi-
visions,11 we adopt it in order to achieve coherence across (future) years.12 Where the research method
is not made clear in the abstract, we assign the attribute ‘ambiguous’ (AMB). Where authors adopt
multiple methods, we assign the respective abstract to the ‘other’ category. We have to note that these

11
For example, given only the category titles, it is difficult to see the exact delimitation between the NET and NEA catego-
ries. It seems that the former would include the latter, being the super-ordinate concept. We understand NEA to imply for-
malized mathematical modeling, whereas NET would be characterized mainly by the absence of such analytical reasoning.
NET, then, would include deductive reasoning and intuitive discussion.
12
Since abstracts are classified into these categories at the 2006 congress and probably henceforth, our only other option
would be to develop our own classification and re-classify the 2006 (and future) abstracts. However, we would not feel
comfortable with this procedure because it would potentially imply deviating from the methodological category into which
an author has self-selected.

18
six categories partly overlap and that there is a lack of common and accepted definitions for most of the
categories. For an attempt by the authors to clarify the method categories, refer to Table 2.

We assign abstracts to countries by focusing on the country in which the presenting author’s re-
search institution is domiciled. Given that different ‘schools of thought’ (e.g. the ‘Chicago School’, the
‘Rochester School’13, etc.) are dominant at different universities, we feel that an individual’s research
outlook is more strongly shaped by the research environment she is currently working in than by fac-
tors such as nationality or academic background. Moreover, the current research institution is in most
cases the only information available in the official EAA congress documentation.

5. Preliminary results

We note again that this version of our paper presents preliminary evidence from an ongoing re-
search project. Our ultimate goal is to cover the EAA’s complete congress history from 1978 to the
present. However, we use this preliminary draft to report some initial phase A statistics on countries
represented and topics pursued as well as to test our phase B approach to identifying research objec-
tives and methods. Due to the preliminary nature of this version of our paper, we have refrained from
positing and testing formal hypotheses. Thus, the results presented briefly below are primarily descrip-
tive, exploratory, and intended to help generate more formal hypotheses in the future.

Pertaining to phase A, Table 3 describes the representation of countries during 1998-2002 and
2004-2008.14 While several large participants including Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK and
the USA experience slight declines in average representation between the two periods, several larger
countries (notably France and Germany) as well as a large number of smaller countries have seen their
fraction of papers presented increase. In Table 4 shows that distribution of topics addressed also
changed during across these two periods. While management accounting and financial reporting have
had stable and large shares in the research presented, the interest in audit research seems to have de-
clined (from 10.1 to 6.5%). Other areas including corporate governance and social/environmental ac-
counting have recently increased their “market shares”. For some other areas, the results are difficult to
interpret at this point because the EAA’s topic taxonomy has shifted over the periods of time presented
here. Table 5 contains information on regional preferences for certain topic areas. To give but one ex-
ample: While about 10% of UK papers deal with issues of public and nonprofit accounting, only very
few US papers are in this field.
13
This term is used, for example, by Christensen (1983, p. 20).
14
Data for 2003 is missing because the 2003 Congress proceedings book does not allow matching abstracts to countries.

19
With respect to phase B, we base our preliminary evidence on the 115 financial reporting (FRG)
and the 77 international accounting (INA) abstracts presented at the congresses in Gothenburg (2005)
and Munich (2000).15 In terms of the main focus of this paper, the research objectives pursued, descrip-
tive (DE) research accounted for 63% of all papers in 2000, while prescriptive (PRE) objectives were
pursued by 28% of delegates. In 2005, DE research had extended its lead to 79% of presented papers,
while PRE research accounted for 12%.16 Table 6 Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden
werden.reports on the relative significance of the two different research objectives in the participating
countries and in the two topic areas (FRG and INA). While the sample size is too small draw definite
conclusions, it appears that FRG research is less frequently (26% in 2000 and 10% in 2005) conducted
with a prescriptive objective. In contrast, INA researchers pursue prescriptive objectives in 30% (2000)
and 15% (2005) of cases, respectively. Also, INA objectives are more frequently classified as ‘ambi-
guous’ (AMB). Especially in 2000, we do not identify any clear associations concerning the relation of
country and objective. In 2005, Australia, Germany and UK seem to provide the most abstracts with
prescriptive research objectives (5 out of 9 in FRG and 5 out of 7 in INA).

As Table 7 shows, the dominance of descriptive research objectives was mirrored by an advance of
empirical-archival methods. EA research accounted for 51% of all abstracts in 2000, rising to 70% in
2005. The next largest fraction was the ‘other’ (OTH) category at 21% and 10%, respectively. This
category mainly captures papers that apply a combination of (frequently empirical and non-empirical)
methods. The frequency of descriptive objectives is disproportionately high in EA studies. In 2000,
76% of EA papers had a descriptive objective, while only 63% of all papers had such a focus. In 2005,
79% of all papers were descriptive, while even 87% of EA papers had a descriptive research objective.
It is interesting to note that prescriptive objectives are also frequently pursued using EA methods. In
2000 (2005), 6 (7) out of 16 PRE papers used EA methods. Other methods used to do prescriptive re-
search were especially NET, OTH and AMB. Refer also to Table 8 for a breakdown of research me-
thods by country in 2000 and 2005. Notably, US researchers applied EA methods more frequently than
average, choosing this method in 78% of cases (total: 51%) in 2000 and in 85% of cases (total: 70%) in
2005.

15
We exclude from our analysis poster sessions (held in 2005) and their former equivalents, research fora (held in 2000),
because poster sessions are not assigned to topic areas, resulting in missing data for our analysis.
16
In both 2000 and 2005, 9% of abstracts could not be classified without ambiguity. Further content analyses of past and
future EAA congress abstracts will prove whether this strong focus on positive research objectives can be observed over a
longer period of time.

20
6. Discussion and implications for future research

In this final section, we attempt to provide preliminary explanations for our findings, which we
mean to extend and substantiate in later versions of this paper. Moreover, we highlight some implica-
tions for future research, including the ongoing process to improve and extend our own investigation.

As a first step of our project to empirically analyze the methodological characteristics of abstracts
presented at EAA annual congresses throughout the EAA’s history, we present in this preliminary draft
initial findings based on a content analysis of 192 abstracts in the financial reporting (FRG) and inter-
national accounting (INA) topic areas presented at the 2000 (Munich) and 2005 (Gothenburg) con-
gresses. We concentrate in our study on the relations between research objective, research method, top-
ic area, country, and time. In this respect our results corroborate the popular notion that positive, empir-
ical-archival studies are increasingly dominant and do earmark a kind of current ‘mainstream’ account-
ing research. We also document cross-country as well as inter-temporal differences in research objec-
tives pursued, research methods adopted, and other interrelations and properties such as topics ad-
dressed. Although preliminary, these findings substantiate the prevalent notion of ‘mainstream’ re-
search with regard to methodological aspects.

Explaining our findings will rest upon two key results; first, the increasing dominance of positive,
empirical-archival studies, and second, the cross-country differences in methodological approaches.
Although especially the first result supports our implicit expectation and is consistent with the ongoing
process described in section 2, the question remains open why there is such a development. Moreover,
the question occurs why cross-country differences exist. In the words of Kuhn (1970): If positive, em-
pirical-archival studies are accepted by (most of) the relevant scientific community as accounting re-
search, primarily sociological explanations are required to understand the change and possible regional
differences in methodological beliefs and values. These explanations could, for example, address the
dominance of US approaches in general, which is often a simplistic proxy for the ‘state of the art’. This
notion ranges from cultural dimensions to technological issues and potentially comprises even meth-
odological aspects of science. Having such an importance, it may be comprehensible that major US
accounting journals, representing the US approach, influence worldwide accounting research, espe-
cially when the “academic conformity” (Hopwood, 2002, p. 780) in such journals and the dominance of
some schools (esp. Chicago, Rochester, and Stanford; see Williams 2003) are considered. Another
point of interest is added by Mouck (1993), who refers to the sophisticated statistical procedures of
current accounting research as the “paradigm with clear-cut research opportunities“. The opportunity of
distinguishing oneself from competitors provides at least the motivation to use selective methods. Fur-
21
ther research is necessary to answer the question why this demand for specific methods correlates with
the renunciation of normative research objectives, given that we show in this paper that the latter can
also be pursued using empirical methods. Further research is also necessary to investigate the cross-
country differences in that particular respect.

For explaining our findings on a more theory-driven level, it may help to consider both the demand
and supply sides of accounting research in different legal and economic environments. The former re-
lates to different demand behaviour depending, for example, on different legal systems and, therefore,
different roles of researchers in accounting regulation. More generally, an analysis of different socio-
economic backgrounds may help explain different user orientations of national accounting systems or
different roles of national capital markets in corporate finance. The latter, the supply side of accounting
research, refers strongly to different research attitudes in different countries. For example, Küpper and
Mattessich (2005, pp. 380-381) identify a “cultural manifestation” of accounting research and, with
respect to Germany, a very different competitiveness due to a non-journal-oriented publishing system.
For example, articles published outside academic journals, e.g. in reputable annotations, commentaries,
or handbook encyclopaedias, have high potential of being acknowledged as a researcher‘s output. This
puzzling fact is highlighted by Zeff’s (1996) finding that, among 77 academic research journals in ac-
counting, not a single one is published out of Germany, one of the pre-eminent nations in accounting
thought.17 Research attitudes are also influenced by institutional differences in the academic systems,
where differences in teaching loads or financing opportunities result in divergent attitudes towards real-
ize synergies between research and teaching. Continuing comparative investigation seems necessary to
identify these differences.

Apart from substantiating our ad hoc explanations, we plan to advance our project by adding further
data from EAA congresses as well as by developing and testing specific hypotheses. In addition, we
plan to extend our approach to classifying research published in academic journals and in working pa-
per databases, and to survey accounting researchers on their methodological positions But even this
early draft contributes vital empirical and methodological insights to the ongoing methodological de-
bate in accounting research.

17
Refer to Zeff (1996, Exhibit II on p. 170).

22
Table 1: Variable definitions

topic The topic areas as defined in the official abstract volumes.


objective The researcher’s ultimate research objective as inferable from the abstract. We do not
delve into the main text. As discussed at length in section 3, we rely solely on the ab-
stract’s wording to assign a paper to the prescriptive (PRE)/descriptive (DE) dichoto-
my. Occasionally, an abstract is not easily classified. Where the research objective is
not made clear in the abstract, we assign the attribute ‘ambiguous’ (AMB). Where a
study has both descriptive and prescriptive aspects, we classify it as prescriptive.
method The research method as defined for self-classification in the online submission system
of the most recent EAA congresses: Empirical Archival – database or archive (EA),
Empirical Experiment (EE), Empirical Field or Case Study (EF), Empirical Survey
(ES), Non-Empirical – Analytical (NEA), Non-Empirical – Theory (NET), Other
(OTH). The category definitions are elaborated on in table 2. Where the research me-
thod is not made clear in the abstract, we assign the attribute ‘ambiguous’ (AMB).
Where a study combines two or more research methods, we classify it as ‘other’.
country The abstract’s country of origin, derived from the country in which the presenting
author’s research institution is domiciled.
Table 2: Parameter values of the variable ‘method’

empirical archival – This category includes “research based on historical documents, texts, journal
database or archive articles, corporate annual reports, company disclosures etc.” (Smith 2003,
(EA) p. 142). Data sources can be classified as primary or secondary. Today, this
research mainly applies sophisticated statistical techniques to data drawn from
commercial databases. However, we note that EA research may range from the
fundamental analysis of accounting numbers to the content analysis of texts
and narratives such as accounting standards and other regulation, as long as the
research is restricted to mere analysis without considering non-empirical pro-
cedures. Therefore, comparable law is also subsumed under this category.
empirical experi- According to Abdel-Khalik and Ajinkya (1979, p. 31), the defining feature of
ment (EE) an experiment is that the researcher manipulates one or more variables with
subjects who are assigned randomly to various groups. Frankfort-Nachmias
and Nachmias (2000) distinguish between four major research designs: The
classic experimental design allows for pretest, posttest, and control. It controls
for most sources of internal validity and it does not allow researchers to make
generalizations to non-test populations). The other three categories are quasi-
experimental, cross-sectional, and pre-experimental designs.
empirical field or Field study and case study research is preoccupied with studying the role and
case study (EF) function of accounting in its natural context (Smith 2003, p. 131). The term
‘case study’ usually implies research confined to a single unit of analysis,
which might be a single department, company, industry, or even country (sin-
gle unit focus) (Smith 2003, p. 134). Ryan et al (1992, p. 114) distinguish de-
scriptive, illustrative, experimental, exploratory, and explanatory case studies.
Case study research is narrower than the term ‘fieldwork’. The latter encom-
passes more general studies of social activity.
empirical survey In surveys, researchers usually ask a random sample of individuals to respond
(ES) to a set of questions about their backgrounds, past experiences, attitudes etc.
(Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 2000, p. 116). Important survey methods
are mail questionnaires, personal interviews, and telephone interviews.
non-empirical – ana- We understand analytical research to comprise theory construction and evalua-
lytical (NEA) tion using formalized, mathematical models. This research includes financial
modeling, formal game theory, agency models etc. in, among others, the areas
of auditing, financial reporting, and disclosure.
non-empirical – This category refers to every form of scientific (often deductive) reasoning
theory (NET) which is non-analytical and non-empirical. We define theory not only in a
Popperian sense with respect to the exploration of hypotheses. It is more “a set
of tentative explanations” (Smith 2003, p. 39), which “provides acceptable
answers to interesting questions” (Laudan, 1977, p. 13). This broad approach
seems reasonable since we do not (and cannot) precisely define and evaluate
the notion of ‘theory’ in a comprehensive methodological context.
other (OTH) This category essentially captures authors adopting multiple methods. It also
includes research methods not easily assigned to the previous categories, as
well as abstracts without any clue about the method.
ambiguous (AMB) Where the research method is not made clear in the abstract, we assign the
attribute “ambiguous”

24
Table 3: Representation of countries during 1998-2002 and 2004-200818

This table contains the numbers and percentages of abstracts presented by delegates from research institutions domiciled in different coun-
tries.

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 All % 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 All %
Andorra 0 0 0 0 2 2 0,1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Argentina 0 1 0 0 0 1 0,0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0,1%
Australia 47 66 70 44 45 272 7,9% 35 23 34 31 33 156 8,4%
Austria 14 21 11 5 4 55 1,6% 1 4 2 3 2 12 0,6%
Bahrain 1 1 1 1 2 6 0,2% 2 0 2 1 1 6 0,3%
Bangladesh 0 0 1 0 0 1 0,0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0,1%
Belgium 18 21 18 20 16 93 2,7% 19 8 9 15 8 59 3,2%
Brazil 12 7 2 1 1 23 0,7% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Canada 24 30 24 25 20 123 3,6% 23 10 7 11 7 58 3,1%
Chad 0 0 0 0 1 1 0,0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
China 2 10 13 0 0 25 0,7% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0,1%
Croatia 1 2 0 1 2 6 0,2% 1 1 3 1 3 9 0,5%
Cyprus 3 6 6 2 4 21 0,6% 0 1 2 2 1 6 0,3%
Czech Rep. 4 8 8 1 13 34 1,0% 2 1 0 1 1 5 0,3%
Denmark 6 9 12 12 10 49 1,4% 7 6 8 8 1 30 1,6%
Egypt 1 1 1 0 0 3 0,1% 1 1 0 0 0 2 0,1%
Estonia 3 3 3 2 2 13 0,4% 1 0 1 1 1 4 0,2%
Finland 21 27 23 24 18 113 3,3% 12 18 18 9 8 65 3,5%
France 31 58 40 32 40 201 5,8% 29 12 13 26 9 89 4,8%
Germany 69 64 52 39 32 256 7,4% 25 19 27 13 17 101 5,4%
Greece 10 13 9 11 15 58 1,7% 9 19 9 4 3 44 2,4%
Hongkong 10 0 0 1 5 16 0,5% 5 1 0 2 4 12 0,6%
Hungary 0 1 0 1 2 4 0,1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
India 0 0 1 0 0 1 0,0% 1 0 0 1 0 2 0,1%
Iran 1 0 0 0 0 1 0,0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Ireland 2 6 19 11 13 51 1,5% 5 4 6 1 0 16 0,9%
Israel 1 0 3 2 7 13 0,4% 2 0 0 0 0 2 0,1%
Italy 38 35 29 33 41 176 5,1% 32 10 15 10 6 73 3,9%
Jamaica 0 0 1 0 0 1 0,0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Japan 11 13 12 13 3 52 1,5% 0 4 5 3 5 17 0,9%

18
Data for 2003 is missing because the 2003 Congress proceedings book does not allow matching abstracts to countries.
Table 3 continued

Jordan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0% 2 1 0 0 0 3 0,2%


Latvia 0 0 0 0 1 1 0,0% 6 0 0 0 0 6 0,3%
Lebanon 1 1 1 0 1 4 0,1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Lithuania 0 1 0 1 0 2 0,1% 0 0 0 0 1 1 0,1%
Macedonia 0 0 1 0 0 1 0,0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Malaysia 0 0 1 1 0 2 0,1% 5 0 0 0 0 5 0,3%
Ned. Antillen 1 0 0 0 0 1 0,0% 0 0 0 0 1 1 0,1%
Netherlands 50 56 32 28 32 198 5,7% 27 24 36 27 22 136 7,3%
New Zealand 5 9 12 4 3 33 1,0% 3 2 0 4 2 11 0,6%
Norway 6 8 4 4 7 29 0,8% 3 6 8 5 2 24 1,3%
Poland 4 11 10 9 15 49 1,4% 1 9 10 3 5 28 1,5%
Portugal 18 38 32 24 21 133 3,9% 17 7 2 0 0 26 1,4%
Qatar 1 0 0 0 0 1 0,0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Romania 3 1 1 0 2 7 0,2% 2 1 1 0 0 4 0,2%
Russia 3 3 1 0 3 10 0,3% 3 0 2 0 0 5 0,3%
Saudi Arabia 2 6 2 3 2 15 0,4% 1 1 0 0 0 2 0,1%
Singapore 6 9 3 6 4 28 0,8% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0,1%
Slovenia 3 4 2 5 2 16 0,5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
South Africa 3 1 5 0 2 11 0,3% 0 0 3 0 0 3 0,2%
South Korea 2 2 1 1 1 7 0,2% 2 1 1 0 0 4 0,2%
Spain 58 96 64 48 62 328 9,5% 69 40 36 31 15 191 10,3%
Sweden 20 34 31 27 18 130 3,8% 13 29 28 24 8 102 5,5%
Switzerland 7 11 9 3 5 35 1,0% 2 4 2 2 4 14 0,8%
Taiwan 3 5 5 4 2 19 0,6% 0 0 0 0 1 1 0,1%
Thailand 0 1 1 0 0 2 0,1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Tunisia 3 1 0 1 1 6 0,2% 0 1 1 0 0 2 0,1%
Turkey 2 3 4 2 1 12 0,3% 1 2 0 0 0 3 0,2%
Ukraine 0 1 1 0 1 3 0,1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
United Arab Em. 3 1 2 0 1 7 0,2% 0 1 0 0 0 1 0,1%
UK 55 86 87 84 83 395 11,4% 56 59 65 68 61 309 16,6%
USA 37 67 80 58 54 296 8,6% 68 30 44 37 21 200 10,8%
Usbekistan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0% 0 0 0 1 0 1 0,1%
Vietnam 0 0 1 0 0 1 0,0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Yugoslavia 0 0 0 0 1 1 0,0% 2 1 0 1 1 5 0,3%
All 626 859 752 594 623 3454 100,0% 495 364 401 346 254 1860 100,0%

26
Table 4: Representation of topics during 1998-2008

This table contains the numbers and percentages of abstracts presented in different topic areas. The classification into topic areas was taken
from the EAA Annual Congress proceedings books. Presenters typically self-classify into these categories.

Note that the EAA’s topic taxonomy has shifted over the periods of time presented here:
• “Accounting and Capital Markets” was discontinued in 2004 and replaced by “Financial Accounting (capital markets)” in 2006.
• “Accounting and Strategy” was discontinued in 2005.
• “Critical Perspectives on Accounting” was established in 2001.
• “Finance and Financial Management” did not exist prior to 2000 and was discontinued in 2005.
• The “Other” category only existed in 2005.

topic area 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 All % 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 All %
Accounting and Capital Markets 0 0 0 0 87 71 158 3,8% 70 41 37 21 21 190 10,2%
Accounting Education and Research 14 25 28 16 26 22 131 3,2% 11 14 16 23 12 76 4,1%
Accounting History 11 33 17 17 15 25 118 2,9% 14 9 15 6 12 56 3,0%
Accounting and Information Systems 9 14 15 18 14 16 86 2,1% 6 13 15 6 6 46 2,5%
Accounting and Strategy 0 0 0 0 10 14 24 0,6% 0 11 9 7 6 33 1,8%
Accounting Theory 10 81 5 8 8 8 120 2,9% 0 13 16 21 6 56 3,0%
Auditing 51 9 66 48 44 48 266 6,5% 43 30 45 43 27 188 10,1%
Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19 39 28 13 16 11 126 3,1% 0 6 0 0 0 6 0,3%
Economic Analytical Accounting 19 23 10 19 3 12 86 2,1% 12 12 10 5 12 51 2,7%
Financial Analysis 17 18 21 43 10 18 127 3,1% 17 11 7 18 12 65 3,5%
Finance and Financial Management 0 0 0 0 21 20 41 1,0% 14 20 11 0 0 45 2,4%
Financial Accounting (capital markets) 102 113 97 0 0 0 312 7,6% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
Financial Reporting 47 67 84 92 66 77 433 10,5% 60 42 30 35 21 188 10,1%
Corporate Governance 66 61 67 53 43 29 319 7,7% 17 11 15 12 12 67 3,6%
International Accounting 52 74 49 47 36 59 317 7,7% 48 25 33 34 27 167 9,0%
Management Accounting 98 123 126 97 106 117 667 16,2% 101 60 80 60 35 336 18,1%
Organization and Behavioral Aspects of Accounting 24 43 37 38 26 25 193 4,7% 19 9 14 10 12 64 3,4%
Public Sector and Nonprofit Accounting 35 57 59 48 40 55 294 7,1% 36 21 32 21 15 125 6,7%
Social and Environmental Accounting 29 61 31 18 38 29 206 5,0% 22 15 15 6 6 64 3,4%
Accounting and Taxation 23 18 12 14 14 9 90 2,2% 6 1 4 19 6 36 1,9%
Other / unspecified 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0,1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0%
All 626 859 752 594 623 665 4119 100,0% 496 364 404 347 248 1859 100,0%
Table 5: Representation of topics by country for the period 2004-2008

This table contains the numbers and percentages of abstracts by country and topic area for the period 2004-2008.

MAN
ACM

AUD

GOV

OBA
AED

ATH

EAA

TAX
FAN

FFM

FRG
AST

SEA
PSA
AHI

INA
CPP
AIS

FIN

All

%
Andorra 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0,1
Argentina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0,0
Australia 5 21 1 4 0 9 16 10 0 2 2 27 26 29 15 35 11 32 24 3 272 7,9
Austria 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 13 2 0 2 5 3 5 6 1 2 1 13 55 1,6
Bahrain 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 0,2
Bangladesh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
Belgium 1 1 1 6 0 4 13 0 3 3 1 3 13 8 11 14 1 4 4 2 93 2,7
Brazil 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 3 4 0 2 1 23 0,7
Canada 3 5 5 3 0 5 11 5 0 2 0 10 16 19 2 13 4 5 5 10 123 3,6
Chad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
China 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 5 2 6 2 0 0 0 1 3 25 0,7
Croatia 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 6 0,2
Cyprus 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 1 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 21 0,6
Czech Rep. 1 3 6 0 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 3 1 3 5 0 1 1 2 34 1,0
Denmark 2 2 1 2 1 6 2 3 0 0 0 2 4 5 0 12 2 2 2 0 49 1,4
Egypt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0,1
Estonia 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 2 3 0 0 13 0,4
Finland 4 0 0 6 0 4 6 1 0 5 1 7 8 7 1 36 11 10 6 0 113 3,3
France 1 2 13 2 1 9 13 12 6 2 0 8 22 14 15 44 17 4 16 0 201 5,8
Germany 7 5 4 5 0 13 7 9 16 1 3 28 28 13 31 49 13 3 6 17 256 7,4
Greece 5 0 0 2 0 2 6 2 1 1 1 9 12 4 1 3 4 2 1 2 58 1,7
Hongkong 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 16 0,5
Hungary 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0,1
India 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0,0
Iran 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
Ireland 1 11 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 6 5 5 1 6 5 2 2 0 51 1,5
Israel 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 13 0,4
Italy 1 1 8 3 2 4 4 2 3 6 0 12 20 19 14 36 8 20 12 1 176 5,1
Jamaica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
Japan 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 1 0 2 0 11 3 0 4 17 1 3 0 0 52 1,5
MAN
ACM

AUD

GOV

OBA
AED

ATH

EAA

TAX
FAN

FFM

FRG
AST

SEA
PSA
AHI

INA
CPP
AIS

FIN

All

%
Latvia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
Lebanon 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0,1
Lithuania 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0,1
Macedonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0,1
Ned. Antillen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
Netherlands 4 2 5 2 0 12 14 3 2 3 1 14 14 13 10 63 21 6 4 5 198 5,7
New Zealand 0 2 1 3 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 5 0 5 2 4 0 1 0 2 33 1,0
Norway 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 0 6 1 12 0 1 29 0,8
Poland 1 3 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 2 3 4 2 6 9 0 5 5 2 49 1,4
Portugal 3 0 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 9 1 9 26 4 18 25 5 6 6 7 133 3,8
Qatar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
Romania 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 0,2
Russia 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 0,3
Saudi Arabia 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 15 0,4
Singapore 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 2 9 6 1 0 0 0 0 28 0,8
Slovenia 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 16 0,5
South Africa 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 11 0,3
South Korea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0,2
Spain 9 9 12 14 2 9 28 10 8 18 7 19 40 25 17 20 11 48 34 18 333 9,6
Sweden 2 1 1 1 0 2 7 13 0 4 0 10 10 3 6 34 9 21 6 0 130 3,8
Switzerland 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 3 4 4 6 6 0 0 0 1 35 1,0
Taiwan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 5 0 5 1 0 1 0 19 0,5
Thailand 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0,1
Tunisia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0,2
Turkey 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 12 0,3
Ukraine 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0,1
Utd. Arab Em. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0,2
UK 11 14 14 1 1 14 23 25 7 19 7 35 36 44 29 37 15 37 22 3 395 11,4
USA 19 13 1 15 1 6 29 6 3 13 1 41 31 27 37 24 18 4 5 2 296 8,6
Vietnam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
Yugoslavia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,0
All 87 109 93 70 10 112 218 115 74 109 26 312 356 290 258 550 168 239 177 81 3459 100,0
% 2,5 3,2 2,7 2,0 0,3 3,2 6,3 3,3 2,1 3,2 0,8 9,0 10,3 8,4 7,5 15,9 4,9 6,9 5,1 2,3 100,0

29
Table 5 continued

Notes:

ACM Accounting and Capital Markets


AED Accounting Education and Research
AHI Accounting History
AIS Accounting and Information Systems
AST Accounting and Strategy
ATH Accounting Theory
AUD Auditing
CPP Critical Perspectives on Accounting
EAA Economic Analytical Accounting
FAN Financial Analysis
FFM Finance and Financial Management
FIN Financial Accounting (capital markets)
FRG Financial Reporting
GOV Corporate Governance
INA International Accounting
MAN Management Accounting
OBA Organization and Behavioral Aspects of Accounting
PSA Public Sector and Nonprofit Accounting
SEA Social and Environmental Accounting
TAX Accounting and Taxation
ÓTH Other / unspecified

30
Table 6: Objective by topic and country for the periods 2000 and 2005

This table displays the distribution of descriptive (DE) and prescriptive (PRE) research objectives by topic (Financial Reporting [FRG] and
International Accounting [INA]) and country for the Congress years 2000 and 2005. AMB marks abstracts with an ambiguous objective.

2000 2005
country FRG INA FRG INA
DE PRE AMB DE PRE AMB DE PRE AMB DE PRE AMB
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Austria 1 100 1 100
Australia 1 100 1 50 1 50 2 40 2 40 1 20 5 83 1 17
Belgium 1 100 4 80 1 20
Canada 2 50 1 25 1 25 1 100
Switzerland 1 100
Croatia 1 100
Cyprus 1 100
Denmark 1 100 1 100 1 100
Finland 1 100 3 100
France 1 50 1 50 4 100 3 100
Germany 1 100 1 33 1 33 1 33 4 67 2 33 1 25 2 50 1 25
Greece 3 100 2 100 1 100
Ireland 1 100 1 100 1 100
Italy 2 100 1 100 3 60 2 40 2 67 1 33
Japan 1 100 1 100 2 100
Netherlands 1 50 1 50 2 67 1 33 3 100 1 50 1 50
Poland 1 100
Portugal 3 100 4 100
South Korea 1 100
Singapore 2 100
Slovenia 1 100
South Africa 1 50 1 100
Spain 2 100 1 100 4 80 1 20 3 75 1 25
Sweden 1 100 2 100 2 100 2 100
Taiwan 1 100
Tunisia 1 100 1 100
UK 4 80 1 20 2 40 1 20 2 40 11 92 1 8 1 20 2 40 2 40
USA 2 67 1 33 3 50 2 33 1 17 18 86 1 5 2 10 5 100
Total 19 70% 7 26% 1 4% 17 57% 9 30% 4 13% 72 82% 9 10% 7 8% 35 74% 7 15% 5 11%
Table 7: Objective by method for the periods 2000 and 2005

This table displays the distribution of descriptive (DE) and prescriptive (PRE) research objectives by research method for the Congress years
2000 and 2005. AMB marks abstracts with an ambiguous objective.

2000 2005
Method DE PRE AMB total DE PRE AMB total
% %
N % N % N % N N % N % N % N
total total
empirical archival – data-
22 76% 6 21% 1 3% 29 51% 82 87% 7 7% 5 5% 94 70%
base or archive (EA)
empirical experiment (EE) 1 100% 1 2%
empirical field or case
1 50% 1 50% 2 4% 2 100% 2 1%
study (EF)
empirical survey (ES) 3 75% 1 25% 4 7% 8 100% 8 6%
non-empirical – analytical
1 100% 1 1%
(NEA)
non-empirical – theory
2 50% 2 50% 4 7% 3 38% 3 38% 2 25% 8 6%
(NET)
other (OTH) 6 50% 2 17% 4 33% 12 21% 7 50% 4 29% 3 21% 14 10%
ambiguous (AMB) 1 20% 4 80% 5 9% 7 88% 1 13% 8 6%
total 36 63% 16 28% 5 9% 57 100% 107 79% 16 12% 12 9% 135 100%

32
Table 8: Method by country for the periods 2000 and 2005
Panel A: 2000

EA EE EF ES NEA NET OTH AMB All


country N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
AT 1 100% 1 2%
AU 2 67% 1 33% 3 5%
BE 1 100% 1 2%
100
CR 1 1 2%
%
CY 1 100% 1 2%
DE 1 100% 1 2%
FI 1 100% 1 2%
FR 1 50% 1 50% 2 4%
GE 1 25% 1 25% 1 25% 1 25% 4 7%
GR 2 67% 1 33% 3 5%
IR 1 50% 1 50% 2 4%
IT 2 67% 1 33% 3 5%
100
JP 1 1 2%
%
NE 2 40% 1 20% 1 20% 1 20% 5 9%
SO 1 50% 1 50% 2 4%
SP 2 67% 1 33% 3 5%
SW 1 33% 2 67% 3 5%
TN 1 100% 1 2%
UK 3 30% 1 10% 3 30% 1 10% 2 20% 10 18%
US 7 78% 2 22% 9 16%
All 29 51% 1 2% 2 4% 4 7% 0 0% 4 7% 12 21% 5 9% 57 100%

33
Panel B: 2005

EA EE EF ES NEA NET OTH AMB All


country N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % all
Austria 1 100% 1 1%
Australia 6 55% 2 18% 1 9% 2 18% 11 8%
Belgium 4 80% 1 20% 5 4%
Canada 4 80% 1 20% 5 4%
Switzerland 1 100% 1 1%
Denmark 1 50% 1 50% 2 1%
Finland 2 67% 1 33% 3 2%
France 6 86% 1 14% 7 5%
Germany 6 60% 1 2 20% 1 10% 10 7%
Greece 2 67% 1 33% 3 2%
Ireland 1 100% 1 1%
Italy 4 50% 1 13% 1 13% 1 13% 1 13% 8 6%
Japan 2 67% 1 33% 3 2%
Netherlands 4 80% 1 20% 5 4%
Poland % 1 100% 1 1%
Portugal 6 86% 1 14% 7 5%
South Korea 1 100% 1 1%
Singapore 1 50% 1 50% 2 1%
Slovenia 1 100% 1 1%
Spain 6 67% 1 11% 1 11% 1 11% 9 7%
Sweden 1 25% 2 50% 1 25% 4 3%
Tainwan 1 100% 1 1%
Tunisia 1 100% 1 1%
UK 11 65% 1 6% 1 6% 1 6% 3 18% 17 13%
USA 22 85% 4 15% 26 19%
All 94 70% 0 0% 2 1% 8 6% 1 1% 8 6% 14 10% 8 6% 135 100%

Notes:
EA: empirical archival – database or archive; EE: empirical experiment; EF: empirical field or case study: ES: empirical survey; NEA: non-empirical –
analytical; NET: non-empirical – theory; OTH: other; AMB: ambiguous.

34
REFERENCES

Amir, E./Lev, B. (1996) Value-Relevance Of Nonfinancial Information: The Wireless Communications


Industry, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 22(1-3), pp. 3-30.
Ayers, B. C. (1998) Deferred Tax Accounting Under SFAS No. 109: An Empirical Investigation Of Its
Incremental Value-Relevance Relative To APB No. 11, in: The Accounting Review, Vol. 73 (2),
pp. 195-212.
Ballas, Apostolos/Theoharakis, Vasilis (2003) Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal
perceptions, in: Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 20(4), pp. 619-644.
Barth, M. E. (1994) Fair Value Accounting: Evidence From Investment Securities And The Market
Valuation Of Banks, in: The Accounting Review, Vol. 69 (1), pp. 1-25.
Barth, M. E./Beaver, W. H./ Landsman, W. R. (2001) The Relevance Of The Value Relevance Litera-
ture For Financial Accounting Standard Setting: Another View, in: Journal of Accounting and
Economics, Vol. 31 (1-3), pp. 77-104
Baskerville, Rachel F. (2003) Hofstede never studied culture, in;: Accounting, Organizations and Soci-
ety, Vol. 28(1), pp. 1-14.
Bird, Allan/Stevens, Michael J. (2003) Toward an emergent global culture and the effects of globaliza-
tion on obsolescing cultures, in: Journal of International Management, Vol. 9(4), pp. 395-407.
Black, M. (1970) Margins of Precision, Essays in Logic and Language, Ithaca, NY.
Blaug, M. (1998) Positive-Normative Distinction, The, in: Davis, J. B./Hands, D. W./Mäki, V. (eds.),
The Handbook of Economic Methodology, Cheltenham, UK et al. 1998, pp. 370-373.
Carmona, Salvador/Gutiérrez, Isabel/Cámara, Macario (1999) A profile of European accounting re-
search: Evidence from leading accounting journals, in: European Accounting Review, Voll. 8(3),
pp. 463-480.
Christenson, C. (1983) The Methodology of positive accounting, in: The Accounting Review, Vol. 58,
pp. 1-22.
Chua, W. F. (1986) Radical Developments in Accounting Thought, in: The Accounting Review, Vol. 61,
No. 4, pp. 601-632.
Cole (1983) American Journal of Sociology
Dhaliwal, D./Subramanyam, K. R./Trezevant, R. (1999) Is Comprehensive Income Superior To Net
Income As A Measure Of Firm Performance?, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 26
(1-3), pp. 43-67.
Everett, Jeffery (2003) Globalization and its new spaces for (alternative) accounting research, in: Ac-
counting Forum, Vol. 27(4), pp. 400-424.
Feyerabend, P. (1975) Against Method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge, London.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C./Nachmias, D. (2000) Research Methods in the Social Sciences. 6th ed., New
York.
Hofstede, Geert (2003) What is culture? A reply to Baskerville, in: Accounting, Organizations and Soci-
ety, Vol. 28(7-8), pp. 811-813.
Holthausen, R. W./Watts, R. L. (2001) The relevance of the value-relevance literature for financial ac-
counting standard setting, in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 31 (1-3), pp. 3-75.
Hopwood, A. G. (2002) ‘If only there were simple solutions, but there aren’t’: some reflections on
Zimmerman´s critique of empirical management accounting research, in: European Accounting
Review, Vol. 11(4), pp. 777-785.
Hume, D. (1739) A Treatise of Human Nature, London (reprint 1962).
Jensen, M. C. (1976) Reflections on the state of accounting research and the regulation of accounting,
in: Stanford Lectures in Accounting, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, pp. 11-19.
Keynes, J. N. (1891) The scope and method of political economy, Cambridge.
Krippendorf, K. (2004) Content Analysis. 2nd ., Thousand Oaks et al.
Kuhn. T. S. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd. ed., Chicago.
Küpper, H.-U./Mattessich, R. (2005) Twentieth Century Accounting Research in the German Language
Area, in: Accounting, Business & Financial History, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 345-410.
Lakatos, I. (1968) Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, in: Proceedings
of the Aristotelian Society Vol. 69, pp. 149-186.
Lakatos, I. (1970) Falsificationism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, in: Criti-
cism and the growth of knowledge, ed. by Lakatos, I., and Musgrave, A., Cambridge , pp. 91-196.
Lakatos, I. (1978) Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1: The methodology of scientific research programmes,
Cambridge, New York.
Laudan, L. (1977) Progress and its Problems, Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth, Berkeley et al.
Lukka, Kari/Kasanen, Eero (1996) Is accounting a global or a local discipline? Evidence from major
research journals, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 21(7-8), pp. 755-773.
Mattessich, R. (1992) On the history of normative accounting theory: paradigm lost, paradigm re-
gained?, in: Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 2, pp. 181-198.
Mattessich, R. (1995a), Critique of accounting – Examination of the foundations and normative structure
of an applied discipline, Westport, CT.
Mattessich, R. (1995b) Conditional-Normative Accounting Methodology, Incorporating Value-
Judgements and Means-End Relations of an Applied Science, in: Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 259-284.
Mattessich, R. (2008), Two Hundred Years of Accounting Research, London/New York.
Mill, J. S. (1836) On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Philosophical Investiga-
tion in that Science.
Mouck, T. (1990) Positive Accounting Theory as a Lakatosian Research Programme, in: Accounting
and Business Research, Vol. 20, pp. 231-239.
Mouck, T. (1993) The ‘Revolution’ in Financial Reporting Theory: A Kuhnian Interpretation, in: Ac-
counting Historians Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 33-57.
Panozzo, Fabrizio (1997) The making of the good academic accountant, in: Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 22(5), pp. 447-480.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1993) Barriers to the advance of organizational science; Paradigm development as a
dependent variable, in: Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18(4), pp. 599-620.
36
Power, Michael (1997), Academics and the Accounting Policy Process: England and Germany Com-
pared, in: J. Flower and C. Lefebvre (eds.), Comparative Studies in Accounting Regulation in
Europe, 1997.
Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (1996) Accounting, A Multiparadigmatic Science, Westport, CT et al.
Ryan, R./Scapens, R. W./Theobald, M. (1992) Research Method and Methodology, London.
Schneider, D. (2001) Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Vol. 4: Geschichte und Methoden der Wirtschaftswissen-
schaft, München et al.
Smith, M. (2003) Research Methods in Accounting, London et al.
Tinker, A. M./Merino, B. D./Neimark, M. D. (1982) The normative origins of positive theories: Ideol-
ogy and accounting thought, in: Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 7, pp. 167-200.
Watts, R. L./Zimmerman, J. L. (1978) Towards a positive theory of the determination of accounting
standards, in: The Accounting Review, Vol. 53, pp. 112-134.
Watts, R. L./Zimmerman, J. L. (1979) The demand for and supply of accounting theories. The market
for excuses, in: The Accounting Review, Vol. 54, pp. 273-305.
Watts, R. L./Zimmerman, J. L. (1986) Positive accounting theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Weber, M. (1904) Die „Objektivität“ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis, in;
Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, Vol. 19, pp. 22-87.
Weber, M. (1913) Diskussionsbeitrag, in: Äußerungen zur Werturteilsdiskussion im Ausschuss des
Vereins für Socialpolitik, 1913.
Wells, M. C. (1976) A Revolution in Accounting Thought?, in: The Accounting Review, Vol. 51, No. 3,
pp. 471-482.
Williams, P. F. (2003) Modern accounting scholarship: The imperative of positive economic science, in:
Accounting Forum, Vol. 27(3), pp. 251-269.
Zeff, S. A. (1996) A study of academic research journals in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 10 (3):
158-177.

37

You might also like