Alles 2020

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 39 (2020) 100489
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/accinf
Using the 2019 JBE conference and 2017 JIS themed issue as
natural experiments to examine the role of editors as
gatekeepers of the research literature in AIS and ethics q
Michael Alles
Rutgers Business School, Department of Accounting & Information Systems, One Washington Park, Room 928, Newark, NJ 07102-3122, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In April 2019, the Journal of Business Ethics (JBE) held a conference devoted to the ‘‘The
Received 18 May 2020 Impact of Technology on Ethics, Professionalism and Judgement in Accounting”. This fol-
Revised 6 August 2020 lows the summer 2017 Journal of Information Systems (JIS) themed issue on ‘‘Accounting
Accepted 15 October 2020
Information Systems and Ethics” I treat this conference and the themed issue as two nat-
Available online 1 December 2020
ural experiments into the evolution of the research literature on Accounting Information
Systems (AIS) and ethics. I label this literature as ‘‘AIS-ethics”, which I describe as the inter-
Keywords:
section of the fields of accounting, ethics and information systems. The choice of papers for
Ethics
Accounting Information Systems
these two initiatives is amongst the best available metrics of both the latest research on
AIS AIS-ethics, and of the kind of research considered desirable by editors/gatekeepers. In par-
AIS-ethics ticular, I analyze whether these editors/gatekeepers desire papers that fit unambiguously
Literature review into AIS-ethics, or whether they are willing to accept papers with a more tenuous connec-
tion in order to encourage broader participation by researchers. I find that of nine papers
selected for special issues or conferences in AIS-ethics over the last three years, only three
clearly fall into this domain, suggesting that achieving a critical mass of papers is priori-
tized over specialization at this stage in the development of a research literature into AIS
and ethics.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Ever since the 2008 ‘‘Great Recession” many business fields have been pressured to pay attention to the ethical implica-
tions of their work (Starr, 2011; Schoen, 2017). Accounting is no exception (ICMA, 2008). In this paper I undertake a litera-
ture review of recent research in Accounting Information Systems (AIS) and ethics. I label this literature as ‘‘AIS-ethics”,
which I define as the intersection of the fields of accounting, ethics and information systems.1
My first objective in this paper is to analyze whether the editors/gatekeepers of AIS-ethics desire papers that fit unam-
biguously into this area, or whether they are willing to accept papers with a more tenuous connection in order to encourage
broader participation by researchers. The role of editors in the publishing process has long been the focus of research in its
q
I thank the three referees for extremely helpful comments which markedly improved the paper, with particular thanks to ‘‘referee 1”.
E-mail address: alles@business.rutgers.edu
1
I emphasize up front that ‘‘AIS-ethics” is a shorthand description of my own creation for the research literature that I analyze in this paper. None of the
authors or editors mentioned in this paper use that term. Nonetheless, since these all papers were submitted to AIS journals and claim to represent ethical
issues, I consider ‘‘AIS-ethics” to be an appropriate descriptor for them.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2020.100489
1467-0895/Ó 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Alles International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 39 (2020) 100489
own right (Simon and Fyfe, 1994; Lee, 1997; Lee and Williams, 1999; Frey, 2003; Hopwood, 2007) and this paper contributes
to an understanding of the role of editors/gatekeepers in the AIS-ethics domain.
Research into the ethical aspects of AIS specifically—as opposed to ethics and information systems, or ethics and account-
ing, in general—is limited at present, hence the desire by editors to encourage more of it. Hence, my second objective in this
paper is to analyze the outcome of that process of encouragement by the AIS community. Is the end result the development
of a research literature into AIS-ethics that has a distinctive identity of its own? The conclusion I draw from my analysis is
that it is premature to describe the AIS-ethics literature as meeting that criteria. Of nine papers selected for special issues or
conferences in AIS-ethics over the last three years, I classify only three as clearly falling into this domain, suggesting that
achieving a critical mass of papers is prioritized by editors over specialization at this stage in the development of a research
literature into AIS and ethics.
Sutton (2010, page 289) states that AIS research is characterized by ‘‘(1) an absence of identity, (2) too many AIS scholars
researching in areas other than AIS, (3) too few researchers driving the discipline, and (4) too much AIS research lacking appropri-
ate academic rigor.” Alles (2018) examines the first two parts of this thesis on a subset of AIS research by using as a natural
experiment the 2018 Journal of Information Systems (JIS) conference on cloud computing. Alles (2018) used the occasion of
the conference to examine in what ways AIS researchers are able to link a generic technology with accounting and what they
contribute to the cloud computing literature over and beyond that of specialists in the technology from outside accounting.
Alles’s (2018) methodology was a content analysis of the entire accounting literature on cloud computing, which at the time
consisted of twelve previously published papers as well as the seven papers accepted for the JIS conference. He subjected
each paper to the following two questions:
1. In what way does this paper conduct research into cloud computing?
2. In what way does this paper tie cloud computing to accounting information systems?
Alles (2018, page 58, emphasis added) concluded that, ‘‘the AIS cloud computing literature largely fails to establish a clear
role for itself relative to either the field of accounting or of cloud computing. That is largely the result of the AIS community being
unwilling to distinguish between cloud computing as an end in itself as a research subject and the cloud as a means towards an end
as a medium of data exchange. Adopting a broad perspective on the domain of AIS research yields a larger set of research
topics but increases the riskiness of producing research that fails to add value to the broader literature. This is a lesson that
extends beyond cloud computing to the AIS research literature as a whole.” In this paper I examine whether this lesson also
applies to the literature on AIS-ethics.
I adapt the Alles (2018) methodology to review the literature in AIS-ethics in order to see if it, in contrast to AIS cloud
computing research, is able to ‘‘establish a clear role for itself”. Given its longer track record, I cannot review every paper
published in AIS-ethics, as Alles (2018) was able to do with AIS and cloud computing. But like that earlier paper, I use papers
selected for special issues of journals and conferences as indicators of the priorities and direction of the AIS-ethics literature.
My equivalent of the 2018 JIS cloud computing conference used by Alles (2018) as his natural experiment are the summer
2017 JIS themed issue on ‘‘Accounting Information Systems and Ethics” and the April 2019 Journal of Business Ethics (JBE) con-
ference on ‘‘The Impact of Technology on Ethics, Professionalism and Judgement in Accounting”.
Of course, by ‘‘natural experiment”, I mean from my methodological perspective. The authors who wrote the papers that I
review, and the editors who accepted those papers, did not think of themselves as participating in any kind of experiment.
However, empirical event studies use the release of a new accounting standard as an opportunity to study how accounting
information impacts financial markets. Analogously, I view the special issue and conference as an ‘‘event” which I can use to
gain insights into the characteristics of the papers that are the latest additions to the AIS-ethics literature.
There are writings on ethics going back millennia, and a very large literature applying ethics to issues arising in financial
and managerial accounting, as well as in auditing and tax (Klein, 2015). Taken together, this literature can be labelled as
‘‘Accounting-ethics”. Over the last few decades, a large literature has also arisen applying ethics to information systems
in general (Reynolds, 2014), what might be called ‘‘IS-ethics”. In fact, there are numerous journals entirely devoted to IS-
ethics, including Ethics and Information Technology, International Journal of Ethics and Systems Information, Journal of Informa-
tion, Communication and Ethics in Society and the Journal of Information Ethics, as well as numerous articles in the Journal of
Business Ethics.
The existence of the established IS-ethics field raises the question of what ethical issues are specific to accounting infor-
mation systems, as opposed to information systems in general. In other words, what distinguishes a paper in AIS and ethics
from one in IS and ethics? For example, data privacy is the subject of enormous controversy today in the wake of scandals
involving Facebook and other social media companies. Privacy is also a key requirement in the relationship between external
auditors and their clients. What, if anything, is special about the ethical implications of the latter that is also not encom-
passed by the literature on the former? Is the ethics of maintaining and abusing accounting data any different from that con-
cerning medical, social media, credit card or any other information?
It is not the purpose of this paper to offer my own opinions as to what are the unique ethical aspects of accounting infor-
mation systems. Rather, I use the papers selected for the 2019 JBE conference and 2017 JIS themed issue on AIS-ethics as a
lens to understand what the research community itself sees as the role that AIS researchers can play in a field as broad and
2
long researched as ethics. As with Alles (2018), the assumption underlying this paper’s methodology is that the editors of JBE
conference and JIS themed issue act as gatekeepers chosen (or self-chosen) from the AIS research community in order to
decide on their behalf not just the quality of submissions, but also what is deemed to be ‘‘acceptable” in terms of research
topics and approaches.
Of course, editors can only accept papers that are submitted in response to a call for papers (CFP). While the editors can
shape to a greater or lesser extent that response through specifying what they are asking for, ultimately authors decide what
is submitted. Hence, the accepted papers are a joint outcome of the editors acting as gatekeepers, and researchers as authors
(and not forgetting the role of referees). As Sparks (2014, page 157) states: ‘‘In the editor-author relationship, editors do not
have a monopoly on power, and they are not simply enacting a received academic standard. Rather, editors and authors, along
with the other agents involved in the publication process, are negotiating scholarly practices and creating new knowledge.”
Nonetheless, the role of the editors as gatekeepers is central because even if they don’t have a monopoly on power, they cer-
tainly have a majority of it.
The role of the editors/gatekeepers is even more significant in the case of AIS-ethics. Reading the call for papers for the
two events, it is evident that their organizers are attempting to inspire authors to write papers that contribute to a research
literature in AIS and ethics that they feel is still emerging, as opposed to contributing to an already mature field. As Taylor
and Daigle (2017, page 2) write in their introduction to the JIS themed issue, ‘‘AIS and ethics; an area that has received little
attention by AIS researchers to date”.
Gatekeepers play a more determinative role in an emerging field than they do in the case of an established field, or when
editing a special issue devoted to a specific technology, such as cloud computing. In the former case, the ‘‘rules of the game”
are already known to both editors and authors. In the latter case there isn’t necessarily an intention to foster a continuing
research literature (for example, no area of research has arisen called ‘‘AIS-Cloud Computing”). By contrast, the explicit aim
of the editors/gatekeepers of AIS-ethics is to encourage new researchers to pay attention on an ongoing basis to this area of
the AIS literature. Further, as leaders of an emerging research literature, the choices made by these gatekeepers will also
determine the ‘‘standard operating procedures” for that area—in other words, what kinds of topics and methodologies are
classified as appropriate for AIS-ethic research, and equally, what to implicitly discourage as being outside the mainstream.
That leads to a third question that I examine in the paper that is not applicable in the case of Alles (2018): How do the authors
of the accepted papers adapt to the expressed preferences of the editors/gatekeepers of the conference or themed issue?
Of course, all authors who wish to have their papers accepted, shape them in response to a call for papers. There is a dif-
ference, though, between a CFP that simply lists suggested research topics, and one that specifies what that research should
look like. As I will show, the JIS call for papers is unique in my experience in that one of the themed issue editors wrote a
paper—one that was subsequently published as part of the themed issue—which the CFP all but required that potential
authors read before they undertake research for their themed issue submission. The explicit aim of the editors was to shape
proactively the research produced to an extent that goes well beyond the usual CFP. I contrast the resulting JIS themed issue
papers with those for the JBE conference whose editors adopted the more conventional hands-off approach in their CFP
(while recognizing the possibility that some of the papers for the later conference might have originated in response to
the CFP for the earlier themed issue).
Before proceeding with the paper, I strongly emphasize that I am not questioning the quality of any of the papers pre-
sented at the JBE conference or published in the JIS themed issue. I take it as given that by being selected for the conference
(presumably, at least some, if not all, of the conference papers will subsequently appear in JBE) and for publication in the JIS
themed issue, that these papers have met the threshold for quality as determined by the editors tasked with making that
judgment. My only objective in this paper is in assessing how and to what extent these papers fit into the AIS-ethics
literature.
Section 2 provides a framework for analyzing AIS-ethics. In Section 3, I discuss the call for papers and ‘‘required reading”
for the JIS themed issue. In Section 4, I undertake a context analysis of the four papers accepted for that themed issue. In
Section 5, I provide a similar analysis of the four papers presented at the JIS conference. Lessons learned from both natural
experiments are discussed in Section 6. Section 7 discusses strategies for undertaking research into AIS-ethics and gives
some examples of possible research topics. Section 8 offers concluding comments.
2. A framework for analyzing AIS-ethics
Since this paper examines how papers are chosen by the gatekeepers for the themed issue and conference on what I call
AIS-ethics, it is necessary to first define exactly what I mean by that term. Since AIS-ethics is a compound term, both of its
individual components also have to be defined. As far as ethics is concerned, there are thousands of years of writings to draw
upon (Shaw, 2016). AIS is a lot harder to define. Poston and Grabski (2000, page 10) wrote, ‘‘No widely accepted and agreed
upon definition of AIS research exists.” Sutton (1992); (2010;) argues that AIS is a subset of accounting research that struggles
with its identity.
Consider the way in which Taylor and Daigle (2017, page 1), the editors of the JIS themed issue, define AIS: ‘‘A system that
collects, records, stores, and processes data to produce information for decision makers. It includes people, procedures and instruc-
tions, data, software, information technology infrastructure, and internal controls and security measures. (Romney and Steinbart
2015, 10)”. Two things are noteworthy about Taylor and Daigle’s (2017) chosen definition. First, that these JIS editors adopt a
3
definition of AIS that comes from an undergraduate AIS textbook (Romney and Steinbart, 2015) rather than from a more
research oriented source. Second, and even more striking, is that their chosen definition makes no explicit mention of the
word ‘‘accounting”. Of course, it can be argued that accounting encompasses the processes mentioned in the definition,
but in the absence of a specific reference to accounting, it could equally serve to define a generic technology not designed
exclusively for accountants to use, for example, an ERP system like SAP or a data visualization tool such as Tableau.
Making a differentiation between IS specific to accounting, and IS in general has been a continuing challenge in the AIS
literature. One solution has been to focus on technologies that are unambiguously accounting-specific, notably continuous
auditing (Alles et al., 2008b) and XBRL. The other has been to undertake research into non-accounting-specific technologies
that have a joint application in the accounting sphere, with ERP again being the most obvious example in the AIS literature
(Grabski, Leech and Schmidt, 2011). The difference between the two approaches is one of competition. With non-accounting-
specific technologies there is also research undertaken into the same topics by researchers outside accounting (for example,
into cloud computing, as Alles (2018) points out). By contrast, with accounting-specific technologies, such as XBRL, the
‘‘competition” over which authors have to establish their contribution are usually only their fellow AIS researchers, and
not also IS researchers from outside accounting.
After examining various definitions of AIS put forward by McCarthy (1990), Sutton (1992) and others, Poston and Grabski
(2000, page 10) conclude: ‘‘While there is no specific definition of what constitutes AIS research, there seems to be consensus that
it has accounting and management information systems as parent disciplines (or endpoints on a continuum).” To avoid becoming
embroiled in the ongoing controversy about what AIS is, I follow Poston and Grabski’s (2000) lead and adopt a description of
the field that is as broad as I think that it is feasible for it to be: that AIS is the intersection of accounting and information
systems (IS). My characterization includes as a subset not just the Taylor and Daigle (2017)/Romney and Steinbart (2015)
formulation, but virtually any other.
I use IS as a catchall term for any technology that is considered part of AIS by the editors/gatekeepers of AIS journals. IS
represents an even broader domain than the management information systems of Poston and Grabski (2000), since IS also
includes pure technologies with no explicit management component (for example, cryptography and cybersecurity). Not
coincidentally, the AIS literature also encompasses a wider range of technologies than only IS, such as blockchain (Alles
and Gray, 2020), XBRL (Vasarhelyi et al., 2012), ERP systems (Nicolaou, 2004) and so forth.
Fig. 1 illustrates my characterization of AIS:
Of course, for this characterization of AIS to be meaningful, the meaning of the terms ‘‘accounting” and ‘‘IS” have to be
known and accepted by all parties. But, on the whole, I think that is an easier assumption to make than trying to define
AIS directly as an independent construct, as Romney and Steinbart (2015) and others have attempted to do. Nonetheless,
the dependence of my characterization on other, undefined terms, makes it clear that Fig. 1 is designed only to serve as a
classification tool for the papers surveyed in this paper. Under no circumstances should Fig. 1 be seen as another entry into
the long-running debate about how to define AIS from first principles, or how its borders are delineated with respect to other
areas of accounting and technological research (a fact I reinforce by eschewing the word ‘‘definition” in favor of
‘‘characterization”).
Having characterized the AIS literature for my purposes, AIS-ethics can then in turn be specified as the intersection of AIS
and ethics, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
In other words, AIS-ethics is the intersection of all three of the foundational fields of accounting, information systems and
ethics. As discussed above, the intersection of two fields by themselves define well-established research areas in their own
right, namely, accounting-ethics and IS-ethics, and, AIS, as shown in Fig. 1. I add that the intersections shown in Fig. 2 are
purely symbolic and their area does not represent the actual volume of the research literature that underlies them. In terms
of the numbers of published papers, the AIS-ethics domain is orders of magnitudes smaller in relative terms than any of the
other areas shown, including non-ethics AIS.
One important conclusion drawn from these characterizations is that since AIS arises from the interaction between
accounting and IS, and AIS-ethics from that subset of AIS that interacts with ethics as in Fig. 2, it is logically impossible
for AIS-Ethics to be distinct from IS-ethics. It is simply not feasible for ethics to interact with the AIS domain without also
doing so with the IS domain. What, then, is the justification for creating a field of AIS-ethics that is distinct from IS-ethics if
the two fields overlap? A similar argument applies to the distinction between Accounting-ethics and AIS-ethics. The objec-
tive of the editors/gatekeepers of the JIS themed issue and JBE conference is to make the case that there is both a demand for,
and a supply of, research whose domain is the intersection of all three of the foundational fields of accounting, IS and ethics,
but which is distinct from any two of them.
The obvious explanation is one of specialization, that there are accounting specific applications of information systems,
which, along with their attendant ethical issues, are outside the field of expertise of non-accountants. This is the same argu-
ment made for the necessity of AIS itself, that there exists a need for a specialized field for tacking problem that require
expertise in both technology and accounting. AIS researchers are presumed to enjoy a comparative advantage (Alles et al.,
2008a) in examining problems arising at the intersection of the IS and accounting domains. For example, while XBRL may
be an offshoot of XML, it takes an accounting background to recognize the challenges of applying that generic markup lan-
guage to financial reporting. Similarly, if any ethical issues arise from the shift of auditing to continuous from periodic, that
would be a problem suited for researchers in AIS-ethics since the problem can only be analyzed by someone with a keen
understanding of auditing technology, auditing practice, auditing standards and auditor independence.
4
Fig. 1. Characterizing AIS as the intersection of Accounting and Information Systems.
Specialization is a necessary, but not sufficient justification, however, for the creation of AIS-ethics. If the ethical issues
being examined in the accounting context are essentially similar to the ethical problem in a non-accounting context then
there is the danger that the accounting researcher is ‘‘reinventing the wheel”, especially if they are not fully familiar with
the broad scope of the non-accounting ethics literature. By ‘‘essentially similar”, I mean that the ethical problem is not spe-
cialized to the accounting domain.
For example, as discussed before, does the need for privacy in accounting raise ethical issues that are different from pri-
vacy in medicine or social media? If there is, then it is incumbent for the AIS researcher to make that case, given that there is
already a burgeoning literature on privacy in non-accounting settings. This preliminary argument can be dispensed with
only when the specialization is focused on ethical problems that are ‘‘clearly” unique to accounting—which is obviously
not the case with privacy.
What is both necessary and sufficient to be characterized as an AIS-ethics problem? A specific accounting setting that has
technology as a key factor and an ethical problem that is not repetition of a generic problem that is also present in non-
accounting settings. The question is how much of the literature can be described in this way.
In summary, having defined AIS-ethics in Fig. 2, the underlying assumption I use to classify the 2017 JIS themed issue and
presented at the 2019 JBE conference is as follows:
What is an AIS-ethic paper? The relative impact of each of the three foundational fields of accounting, ethics
and IS will vary depending on the research topic and methodology, but, in my opinion, all three have to present
and to play a substantive and not token role for a paper to legitimately belong to the AIS-ethics domain.
The methodology for putting this characterization into practice is to adapt the process developed by Alles (2018). Thus, I
undertake a content analysis of papers placed into the AIS-ethics domain by the gatekeeper/editors in order to ascertain:
Fig. 2. The relationship between AIS, Accounting, Information Systems and Ethics.
5
1. In what way does this paper conduct research into ethics?

2. In what way does this paper tie ethics to accounting information systems?
3. How do the authors of the accepted papers adapt to the expressed preferences, if any, of the editors/
gatekeepers of the conference or themed issue?
The first subject of analysis is the JIS themed issue.
3. The JIS themed issue on AIS-ethics and the suggested reading
Appendix 1 reproduces the call for papers for the JIS themed issue on ‘‘Accounting Information Systems and Ethics”.2 The
key sentence (emphasis added) in it rationalizing the decision to create the field of AIS-ethics is: ‘‘Virtually every aspect of AIS
has ethical implications because people (and controls implemented by and that affect people) are key elements in AIS, and
managers, regulators, investors, and others use reported accounting information to make decisions about people’s lives (e.g., contract-
ing, hiring, investing, purchasing, and selling).” This declaration echoes one by Sutton (2004, page 3) with respect to AIS that ‘‘there
is very little research in IS (or accounting for that matter) that would not have implications for AIS”. Sutton’s (2004) argument
implies that the overlap between the accounting and IS domains in Fig. 1 is almost total, just as the JIS themed issue CFP implies
the same between AIS and ethics.
Note that the statement that ‘‘virtually every aspect of AIS has ethical implications” is predicated on the fact that people
are involved with every aspect of AIS on both the preparation and user side. The drawback to this argument is that it implies
that ethics is pervasive in all areas of human activity, be it accounting or ballroom dancing. That is not meant as a sarcastic
comment, simply an observation that the argument made for the alleged pervasiveness of ethics in AIS is both an over-
generalization and reverses causality. To put it another way, every ethical dilemma involves people, but not every setting
with people results in an ethical dilemma.
The CFP goes on to explain that it is the increasing sophistication of AIS systems that makes ethics of particular concern
today: ‘‘Due to rapid advances in technology, however, today’s AIS are powerful and far-reaching, and create opportunities for indi-
viduals who design, implement, and interact with them to intentionally and unintentionally cause harm to individuals, organiza-
tions, and societies. Because of this, AIS is at a crossroad with ethics.” In other words, as technology makes AIS more capable the
greater the potential it has to create ethical problems. That is an empirically testable hypothesis, and it certainly seems to
correspond to the case with other technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition.3
As mentioned in the introduction, what makes the JIS CFP unusual, perhaps even unique, is the following (emphasis
added), ‘‘Authors are encouraged to read a literature review on ‘‘Accounting Information Systems and Ethics,” available
online at SSRN (http://tinyurl.com/jis-ethics-ssrn) for context and additional research ideas.”4 The link is to a working paper ver-
sion of what was subsequently published in the JIS themed issue as Guragai et al. (2017; hereafter GHNT). The editors also offer
a list of suggested topics for submissions:
Ethics awareness and impact in the various stages of AIS design, development, and implementation
Privacy issues related to data collection, quality, storage, security, management, and use
Ethics and use of AIS to manage and control employees
How regulatory, individual, organizational, and technological factors influence ethical awareness and decisions
AIS-related framework intersections with ethics
The impact of AIS on ethics in financial and nonfinancial reporting, and as related to fraud
While this is a very broad set of topics it is notable that the second and fourth do not refer to accounting, while the first
and the fifth are simply restating that AIS-ethics arises from the interaction between ethics and AIS. As to the third bullet
point, the technology used to ‘‘manage and control employees” include surveillance cameras and monitoring software on
their computers.5 Accounting is not usually thought of as fulfilling such a role. Presumably, the editors have in mind the man-
agerial accounting topic of control systems. Only with the last topic of financial reporting do we have an area that is unambigu-
ously and uniquely accounting related.
2
Available at http://aaahq.org/Portals/0/documents/segments/AIS/JIS_AIS_and_Ethics_2015_Nov.pdf. Last accessed 6/27/2019 2:41:51 PM.
3
Consider these two articles from New York Times, appearing within days of each other: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/opinion/weapons-artificial-
intelligence.html last accessed 5/13/2020 12:11:29 AM PM. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/opinion/police-cam-facial-recognition.html last accessed
5/13/2020 12:11:39 AM.
4
The link is still active, but the paper is no longer available for download. Of course, the published version of GHNT is downloadable from the JIS website.
Last accessed 5/13/2020 12:10:41 AM.
5
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/technology/china-surveillance.html?searchResultPosition=1. Last accessed 5/13/2020 12:11:09 AM.
6
To understand better the intentions of the editors of the themed issue, Professors Eileen Taylor and Ronald Daigle, we
have to turn to GHNT, which is written by the first of those editors along with three of her then doctoral students, now
all faculty in their own right. GHNT define AIS in the same functional terms that Taylor and Daigle (2017)/Romney and
Steinbart (2015) do, which is hardly surprising given the author in common. But in contrast to the themed issue introduction,
GHNT emphasize that AIS concerns itself specifically with accounting data (page 65, emphasis added): ‘‘AIS, a critical com-
ponent of business operations, comprise many interrelated elements (i.e., people, procedures, data, software, hardware, and con-
trols) that identify, collect, store, manage, and communicate accounting data.” GHNT define AIS-ethics in virtually the same
words as in Fig. 2, writing (emphasis added): ‘‘this paper [i.e. GHNT] examines the intersection of accounting information sys-
tems (AIS) and ethics.”
Given the presence of an editor as coauthor, it is also not surprising that GHNT begins by repeating the claim in the CFP
that ‘‘virtually every aspect of AIS has ethical implications.” GHNT go on to identify the factors that underlie the ethical
aspects of AIS, which they label as ETHOs for ‘‘environmental, technological, human, and organizational”. GHNT’s conceptu-
alization of the domain of AIS-ethics is illustrated in Fig. 3 in which they overlay their ETHOs factors onto their definition of
AIS in order to visually demonstrate that every aspect of AIS has ethical implications. Note that while the term accounting is
oddly missing from Fig. 3, the components of the three columns correspond to the GHNT definition of AIS:
The hypothesis illustrated by Fig. 3 is critical to GHNT when they undertake their review of papers that they feel fit into
the AIS-Ethics domain. They group the papers into the three categories of AIS shown in Fig. 3: recordkeeping, reporting, con-
trol, and their individual subcategories (not all shown on Fig. 3, for some reason), such as data identification and collection,
communication, presentation format and fraud.
As with any literature review, the first step is to identify papers in the chosen area. GHNT do so by undertaking a keyword
search for papers published in JIS on AIS-ethics (page 69, emphasis added): ‘‘We began by reviewing all Journal of Information
Systems (JIS) articles from January 2000 to December 2013 and categorizing these into general areas of AIS research. We then used
these areas to develop a list of keywords to categorize the research streams and searched each of these terms in conjunction
with the keyword ‘‘ethics.’’” GHNT do not disclose what the outcome of this initial procedure is. However, when I replicated
this search using the keyword ‘‘ethics” across all JIS articles, the only articles I found were the ones from the themed issue.6 In
other words, the implication is that this procedure by GHNT yielded no articles whatsoever to review.
In this regard, I note that searching the title, keywords and abstract of all journals published by the American Accounting
Association (AAA) for ‘‘ethics” and ‘‘AIS” results in only one hit (again, other than those papers in the JIS themed issue). That
exception, Bain, Blankley and Smith (2002), is an educational article that examines the topics included in first year AIS
courses, and it makes passing mention of ethics in its abstract. Ironically, Bain et al (2002) is not included in GHNT’s liter-
ature review. Similarly, the terms ‘‘AIS” plus ‘‘ethics” fails to generate any hits with the Journal of Accounting and Economics
(JAE), and perhaps more surprisingly, also not at Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) or even the International Journal
of Accounting Information Systems (IJAIS). There are also no papers with those terms in the Journal of Accounting Research
(JAR), Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) or Review of Accounting Studies (RAST).
Obviously, using ‘‘AIS” as a keyword is not sufficient for a comprehensive literature search since authors may choose not
to use that as a keyword even while analyzing technologies that fall into the AIS field. They may instead spell out the term
‘‘accounting information systems” rather than use the abbreviation, or just list the particular technology that they are exam-
ining, such as cloud computing or expert systems. Moreover, authors may feel it redundant to use AIS as a keyword if they
are publishing their paper in a journal that is in the AIS field, such as JIS or JETA. In any case, I do not pursue my own keyword
search any further since my objective in this paper is not to duplicate the AIS-ethics literature review already undertaken by
GHNT.
GHNT’s objective, on the other hand, is to present potential authors for the themed issue with exemplars of the kind of
research the editors are seeking. Hence, they have to find a literature to review. GHNT consider all the papers they discuss as
belonging to the AIS-ethics domain and my only purpose in examining their paper is to understand how they found those
papers. The process they went through to populate the AIS-ethics domain is revealing about how these authors conceive of
their role as gatekeepers.
Because the GHNT approach is so unusual, I quote their search methodology in full (page 69, emphasis added): ‘‘One lim-
itation of this approach is that not all ethics-related research explicitly uses the word ‘‘ethics.’’ In fact, throughout our
search, ethics is often an implicit, rather than explicit motivation for AIS research. That is, researchers state that they have
identified a process, decision, policy, or behavior that is unfair, unjust, biased, obfuscates results, and/or manipulates or takes
advantage of individuals, but they do not use the word ‘‘ethics.’’ While not all research is ethics related, (some identifies ways
to improve efficiency or effectiveness), much research has some underlying motive to reduce harm to others. One early rec-
ommendation of this project is that researchers explicitly identify and explain how their research relates to ethics. This
action (uncovering and explicating the ethics connection) will make ethics a more salient aspect in AIS research and, like Dorothy
realized at the end of her stay in Oz, we will be reminded of something that was there the whole time.
Since AIS research is often interdisciplinary, we expanded the literature search beyond JIS, and following Webster and Watson
(2002), used online search tools (including Google Scholar and university library search engines) to capture relevant studies. We
6
Last checked 7/16/2019 2:10:28 PM.
7
Fig. 3. Guragai et al. (2017) framework of the domain of AIS-ethics.
comprehensively searched the last 14 years of literature from specific journals expected to include a large amount of AIS-related
research (e.g., JIS, MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, and International Journal of Accounting Information Systems)
and ethics-related research (e.g., Journal of Business Ethics, Ethics and Information Technology). We then developed an under-
standing (see Fig. 3) of what AIS are and do using the elements of AIS described by Romney and Steinbart (2015), set under
the ethics umbrella. Using this understanding, we established an overall structure for the review and created subheadings related
to the major concepts or themes identified within each element of AIS.”
It is one thing to include as part of the AIS-ethics literature papers that do not mention AIS in combination with ethics. It
is quite another to include papers that don’t mention ethics at all. GHNT are arguing that whatever the original intention of
the authors of these papers, they can identify reasons why the paper ‘‘should” have ethics as a keyword. This is analogous to
how writers of the New Testament reframed statements made by Old Testament prophets as predicting the arrival of Christ.
One may question whether it is ethical for GHNT to undertake this kind of ex-post reclassification of papers into AIS-ethics
without attempting to reach out to the original authors to seek their opinions on doing so. The bottom line, however, is that
GHNT did not have any choice in the matter: without this unorthodox procedure, they would not have had any papers to
include in their literature review of AIS-ethics.
It is not my place to judge whether GHNT are adopting a correct definition of ethics, or appropriately using that definition
to find papers for their literature review. Alles (2020) has undertaken a detailed review of the way in which GHNT define
ethics and the papers they include in their survey. He concludes (Alles 2020, page 1) as to the GHNT results: ‘‘there is a need
to be more specific as to where exactly ethical issues arise in AIS, and most critical of all, why they do so. Too often, the existence of
ethical problems in AIS is presumed to be so self-evident that no further explanation is needed—or provided—about what those eth-
ical issues are, or what the circumstances are that give rise to them.”
The reason I examine GHNT is to draw attention to the actions deemed necessary by GHNT to produce a literature review
of AIS-ethics. Those actions take on particular significance given that GHNT is both the first paper in the JIS themed issue and
because it motivates all the other papers in the issue too. The unusual role of GHNT in the CFP gives us a unique perspective
on the role of the JIS themed issue editors/gatekeepers. GHNT (2002) cite Webster and Watson (2002) as their guide for how
to conduct a literature review. Webster and Watson (2002, page xiv) explain why a literature review should be written: ‘‘two
types of reviews exist. First, authors could deal with a mature topic where an accumulated body of research exists that needs anal-
ysis and synthesis. In this case, they would conduct a thorough literature review and then propose a conceptual model that syn-
thesizes and extends existing research. Second, authors could tackle an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to
potential theoretical foundations. Here, the review of current literature on the emerging topic would, of necessity, be shorter.
The author’s contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model.”
GHNT falls into the second category of literature reviews. What they fail to accomplish is what Webster and Watson
(2002, page xix) state quite explicitly is the rationale for doing a literature review of a non-mature topic, which is using
the review to develop new theories or frameworks to guide future research: ‘‘A review should identify critical knowledge gaps
and thus motivate researchers to close this breach. That is, writing a review not only requires an examination of past research, but
means making a chart for future research. . . Highlighting the discrepancy between what we know and what we need to know alerts
other scholars to opportunities for a key contribution. Usually, this roadmap is accomplished by developing a conceptual model
with supporting propositions.”
8
The ETHOs framework in GHNT was not an output of their literature review, but in input designed to help classify papers.
In terms of making a chart for future research, it is unclear what to make of the fact that as Alles (2020) points out, almost all
the papers reviewed are outside of accounting, or IS, or ethics, or of all three, and the ETHOs model does not add much
beyond the underlying hypothesis that ‘‘virtually every aspect of AIS has ethical implications”.
The reason for writing their paper and essentially requiring respondents to the JIS CFP to read it is summed up in the con-
clusion by GHNT (page 77): ‘‘We discuss the current state of research in each of the AIS functional areas, summarizing findings and
linking them to ETHOs factor categories, and suggest future research within each category.” In short, their objective is to encour-
age potential respondents to the JIS CFP to undertake research into AIS-ethics by giving them the ETHOs framework to work
with and offer suggestions for gaps in the literature that they can fill. As GHNT (page 77) conclude their paper: ‘‘In the process
of preparing this review, we were encouraged by the attention a small contingent of AIS researchers has paid to ethics. However,
there are significant gaps in the literature. While much AIS research has ethical implications, researchers rarely explicitly tie their
research questions and motivations underlying ethical goals. Preventing harm to others is a noble endeavor, and we recommend
researchers acknowledge this as a purpose of their research when appropriate.
Accounting is a moral discipline; people designed, developed, and control it for the benefit of themselves and others. There are no
scientific laws of accounting, thus we are ultimately responsible for its development and for its effects on society. Universal ethics
demand that professionals and academics alike take on the responsibility of understanding how AIS not only help, but also poten-
tially harm others. It is a challenge we are fully capable of meeting.”
Let us now see how GHNT influenced the papers accepted for the JIS themed issue.
4. Summaries of papers published in the JIS themed issue on AIS-ethics
Four papers apart from GHNT appeared in the JIS themed issue that was published in the summer of 2017. The editors
provide a succinct summary of each paper in Taylor and Daigle (2017, page 2) and they conclude their introduction by stat-
ing that, ‘‘The purpose of this special section is to call attention to the unique intersection of AIS and ethics; an area that has
received little attention by AIS researchers to date (Guragai et al., 2017). As professionals, accountants have an obligation to serve
the public interest, and a focus on ethics is a key foundation of this obligation. The articles in this issue represent a variety of
approaches for studying the various ETHOs factors of interest when examining AIS and ethics. We not only encourage further
research in the areas explored in this issue, but also see potential for AIS and ethics research related to other areas, such as social
media and Big Data.”
In other words, GHNT and its ETHOs framework is presented as the central organizing framework for AIS-ethics, and it is
the first paper that is mentioned by Taylor and Daigle (2017) in their overview of the themed issue. The actual submitted and
accepted papers are, in the order discussed by Taylor and Daigle (2017): Burney, Radtke, and Widener (2017), Holt, Lang, and
Sutton (2017), Crossler, Long, Loraas, and Trinkle (2017), and Brown, Marcum, and Stuebs (2017).7
As mentioned previously, my methodology with respect to these papers is to do a content analysis in order to answer the
following three questions:

3. How do the authors of the accepted papers adapt to the expressed preferences of the editors/gatekeepers of the confer-
ence or themed issue?
The first criteria emphasizes that the paper has to have ethics as one of its main research focuses rather than have ethics
arise on the periphery of research into some other topic (or not be mentioned at all, even implicitly). The second question
may seem redundant given that all these papers are published in an AIS journal, but I think that it is important to know the
‘‘hook” by which the authors link their ethical analysis to accounting information systems, as opposed to IS in general. AIS-
ethics is the intersection of three distinct fields of accounting, ethics and information systems and I see the main insights to
be gained from this literature review arising from understanding how authors go about combining and delineating the
boundaries across all three in their papers. The third criteria is usually per forma and not of much interest, but it is in this
instance because of the ‘‘required reading” of the JIS CFP.
I repeat what I wrote in the introduction, that I recognize that the papers in the themed issues are a joint outcome of the
decisions of both authors and the editors/gatekeepers. In an ideal world we would also know what papers were not chosen
for the special issue, as that would be even more informative about the preferences of the editors/gatekeepers, but that infor-
mation is obviously not available. The contribution that the referees made in selecting and shaping the version of the papers
that we see is not public either. Finally, it would also be helpful—especially in this case, given the unusual role played by the
GHNT paper—to know how the authors of submitted papers altered their research to conform to the CFP. In other words, did
7
The contents of the summer 2017 JIS also lists a fifth paper, Hamilton and Stekelberg (2017), as part of the themed issue. I believe that this inclusion is a
publishing error, however, since Hamilton and Stekelberg (2017) goes entirely unmentioned by Taylor and Daigle (2017) in their introduction and overview. In
addition, a different editor accepted Hamilton and Stekelberg (2017) for publication and the paper makes no mention of ethics whatsoever. Hence, I shall not
analyze it here.
9
they submit research already underway that had some vague connection to the CFP, or was that research fundamentally
shaped by the CFP—as the editors presumably intended it to be in this instance?8 As we shall see, the impact of GHNT varies
in the themed issue papers, with part of that variance possibly due to the seniority of the authors. But ultimately, all that I can
analyze is the final version of the accepted papers. That is what makes this a natural experiment rather than a constructed one: I
have to accept the outcome as it is and not as I would have liked it to be. Obviously, the same caveats apply to my analysis of the
JBE conference papers.
The first paper that I examine from the JIS themed issue is Burney et al. (2017), a paper titled ‘‘The intersection of ‘‘bad
apples,’’ ‘‘bad barrels,’’ and the enabling use of performance measurement systems”. It undertakes a survey of recent business
school graduates to ascertain how their behavior is affected by the presence of performance measurement systems (PMS). In
particular, they show that the presence of a PMS may result in counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB) as employees
feel constrained and controlled.
The paper (Burney et al., 2017, page 27) repeatedly mentions GHNT and the ETHOs framework, as well of the terms ethics
and AIS: ‘‘AIS not only include financial information obtained from transactional accounting information, but also include financial
and nonfinancial information useful in the control function of AIS. Guragai et al. (2015) extend these design elements of AIS to
include a focus on their use, especially with regard to the control purpose of AIS. Guragai et al. (2015, 6–7) state, ‘‘Organizations
also use AIS and the processes embedded within them to control both people and assets’’ (emphasis added). Further, Guragai et al.
(2015) propose an ETHOs model that highlights the factors that influence the outcomes that arise from the intersection of ethics
and three primary AIS functions, one of which is control. The model holds that environmental, technological, human, and organi-
zational factors impact the usefulness of AIS in serving their purpose of controlling behaviors. Our examination builds on this dis-
cussion by examining the joint use of a PMS (organizational factor) and two ethical characteristics that capture both the human
and organizational elements of the ETHOs framework.”
Clearly, Burney et al. (2017) have wholeheartedly embraced the guidance provided to them by GHNT. Unfortunately,
what the paper does lack is any reliance on, or examination of, the technological aspects of the PMS, the authors being con-
tent with asserting (Burney et al., 2017, page 27), ‘‘a PMS is embedded within the broader accounting information system (AIS).”
In their survey, the authors ask respondents about the consequences of working under a PMS in generic terms that do not
specify any technological component. For example, one survey question is (Burney et al., 2017, page 33), ‘‘How do employees
in your work unit address behaviors that deviate from those aligned with critical performance measures?”
Since there is no mention or role for technology at all in the paper, it is more akin to accounting-ethics (since PMS is
widely studied by management accounting researchers) than AIS-ethics. AIS researchers also examine PMS, but it would
be a stretch to include this paper in that literature given that there is no role for any kind of technology dependent informa-
tion system. The editors of the themed issue clearly felt otherwise and accepted Burney et al. (2017) as a contribution to AIS-
ethics, which suggests that as GHNT demonstrated, there is some flexibility, at least at this stage in the development of the
literature, as to how tightly drawn the links have to be between the components of AIS-ethics.
Holt et al. (2017), which is titled ‘‘Potential employees’ ethical perceptions of active monitoring: The dark side of data
analytics”, also examines how employees react to monitoring. However, this is not the classic PMS examined by Burney
et al. (2017) that evaluates employees based on accounting metrics of outputs, such as profits. Instead, Holt et al. (2017,
page 114) manipulate in their first experiment whether or not employees are subject to ‘‘active monitoring” which includes
‘‘video analysis capturing arrival, departure, time spent away from their desk or on the phone, and mood based on facial analysis
software; computer monitoring that generates activity logs on web use and time spent in various software packages as well as anal-
ysis of email content and tone; and vocal monitoring via microphones to analyze tone for measures of attitude.” Hence, in contrast
to Burney et al. (2017), this paper heavily emphasizes the technology of monitoring, such as software, video cameras and
physical access controls. In their results, the authors show that respondents dislike this level of monitoring and that higher
pay does not overcome the negative perceptions of a company that exhibits such little trust in its employees.
While this paper has a well-developed model of ethics and an explicit focus on technology, it is notable that the words
accounting only arise in relation to the fact that the experimental subjects were accounting undergraduate students. There is
no mention of AIS and no attempt made to argue that the technologies highlighted are part of any accounting system. Given
the lack of any ‘‘hook” to accounting, I categorize Holt et al. (2017) as being IS-ethics rather than AIS-ethics.
Concerning the third of my evaluation questions, Holt et al. (2017) fails to reference GHNT at all, and so, obviously, it has
no place for its ETHOs model. Some of the authors of this paper are very senior professors and that may have given them the
freedom to respond to the CFP on their own terms. Alternatively, perhaps they intentionally omitted reference to the ETHOs
model because they don’t see any relevance of it to their work.
The paper by Crossler et al. (2017) is titled ‘‘The impact of moral intensity and ethical tone consistency on policy com-
pliance”. They conduct an online experiment on a company’s ‘‘bring your own device” (BYOD) policies, which are explicitly
labelled as ‘‘an important cornerstone of ethical behavior”. While that makes the link to ethics what is the paper’s hook to
AIS? The authors rely on the definition provided by GHNT, writing (Crossler et al., 2017, page 50), ‘‘Research that examines the
effectiveness of BYOD policies is of particular interest to accounting information systems (AIS) researchers because a BYOD policy
8
To give a counterexample, the American Accounting Association annual meeting usually has a theme (in 2020 it is ‘‘Stronger Together”; see https://aaahq.
org/Meetings/2020/Annual-Meeting last accessed 11/10/2020 4:01:24 PM) but I have never heard of anyone framing their annual meeting submissions to that
year’s theme.
10
allows a firm to implement a proactive solution to secure data assets that may reside outside the organizational firewall (Krueger
2014). Thus, a BYOD policy is part of an organization’s system of internal controls that protects organizational assets by describing
appropriate behavior for individuals who have access to them (Guragai, Hunt, Neri, and Taylor 2017). AIS are comprised of ‘‘many
interrelated elements (i.e., people, procedures, data, software, hardware, and controls) that identify, collect, store, manage, and
communicate accounting data’’ (Guragai et al., 2017). Research that focuses on BYOD policy compliance primarily addresses the
human component of the AIS, because the extent to which a BYOD policy effectively mitigates risks is largely dependent upon
employee compliance.” While Crossler et al. (2017) do not mention the ETHOs framework of GHNT, the last sentence above
alludes to it.
However, I question how BYOD policies ‘‘hook” into accounting, or even AIS. The same authors do have a prior BYOD pub-
lication, also in JIS (Crossler et al., 2014), providing some support for this view. On other hand, there is clearly nothing
accounting specific about BYOD, and it is unlikely that accountants inside businesses are involved with either the formula-
tion or implementation of such policies. On this basis, I classify Crossler et al. (2017) also as IS-ethics rather than AIS-ethics.
This illustrates the concern that the definition of AIS chosen by the editors of the themed issue is so generic that they
encompass any IS system, not just those IS systems directed at accounting practice. By way of comparison, Google Scholar
shows that there are 4030 results when searching for the keywords ‘‘BYOD” plus ‘‘ethics”.9 BYOD by itself has 26,300
entries.10 That is not to say that accounting researchers should not examine BYOD or any other IS-related issue; only that it
is not obvious what their comparative advantage is when doing so (Alles et al., 2008a). In other words, what can they say about
BYOD that hasn’t already been said in non-accounting settings?
Brown et al. (2017), titled ‘‘Professional virtue reinforcements: A necessary complement to technological and policy
reforms”, is a conceptual paper putting forward a ‘‘systems trust model” to inculcate ‘‘professional virtue” in AIS personnel.
Their motivation is the need to safeguard data better (Brown et al., 2017, page 5), ‘‘Rapid advances in technology within
accounting information systems (AIS) accompanied by an increase in information accessibility render organizations vulnerable
to the misuse of confidential data. AIS professionals are uniquely equipped and positioned to address these information security
risks and to strengthen the trust stakeholders and the public place in the AIS function.”
The authors make mention of the ETHOs model of GHNT. The link of this paper to accounting is obvious and their model is
‘‘rooted in Aristotelian virtue ethics theory”. It is interesting, however, to see the authors’ definition of who comprises an AIS
professional (Brown et al., 2017, page 7, emphasis added): ‘‘AIS professionals may have degree concentrations in management
information systems or other IT-related fields, in addition to their accounting coursework. AIS professionals often possess specialty
designations instead of or in addition to a CPA certification (e.g., Certified Information Technology Professional [CITP], Certified
Information Systems Auditor [CISA], Certified Information Systems Manager [CISM]).”
Reading their paper, it becomes apparent that Brown et al. (2017) foresee AIS as becoming a profession in its own right
rather than remaining a part of accounting. Indeed, they envision AIS as encompassing far more than providing accounting
information or maintaining accounting related IS systems (Brown et al., 2017, page 7, emphasis in original): ‘‘Within acade-
mia, computer science and information technology focus on the technology and produce technicians, while information systems
focus on the client and produces professionals (Gowan and Reichgelt, 2010; Armstrong et al., 2015). An AIS professional, inter-
acting with the AIS and with accounting and IT professionals, is uniquely equipped to direct both the transaction processing aspect
of the AIS as well as the internal control and security components of the system. In particular, AIS professionals serve a critical role
in assisting organizations in managing the ongoing battle against cyber threats by delivering and, oftentimes, implementing the
needed controls to address the diverse risks driven by new and emerging technologies. The above description also recognizes the
AIS professional as being distinct from a general accounting or auditing professional, as well as from an IT professional, because
computerized AIS require a specialized skillset (Curtis et al., 2009).”
The AICPA is also pushing auditors to play a bigger role in cybersecurity, though other IS actors may well compete for that
same role.11 A broader point is that by making AIS distinct from accounting—in terms of education, work tasks and professional
standards, including those for ethics—the characterization of AIS as arising from the intersection of accounting and IS, as shown
in Fig. 1, will alter. AIS will become a part of IS, in much the same way that cybersecurity itself is, and lose the connection to
accounting. Whether that happens or not, Brown et al. (2017) is clearly in the AIS-ethics domain as it stands now, with its con-
tent encompassing all three fields of accounting, IS and ethics.
In summary, the JIS themed issue consists of a commissioned paper and four submissions. Of the latter, only one is unam-
biguously in the AIS-domain, meaning that it focuses on ethical issues in a setting that is both clearly relevant to accounting
and which emphasizes accounting information systems. By contrast, each of the other three papers fails in this regard; one
looks at performance measurement systems in way that completely excludes any role for technology, while the other two
look at technology without any accounting specialization. Fig. 4 below, positions the four submitted papers in the JIS themed
issue publications into the characterization of AIS-ethics from Fig. 2:
I have made the classifications of papers into their domains in Fig. 4 based on what I believe a reader would do if they
encountered these papers in a regular rather than themed issue, and so were not primed to view them as being part of
AIS-ethics.
9
As of 7/3/2019 4:49:12 PM.
10
As of 7/3/2019 4:50:04 PM.
11
https://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/frc/assuranceadvisoryservices/aicpacybersecurityinitiative.html. Last accessed 7/3/2019 6:09:31 PM.
11
Fig. 4. Classification of the domain of the submitted JIS Themed Issue papers.
The content analysis undertaken of the themed issue papers also demonstrates the shortcomings of searching keywords.
Despite its lacks of technology, Burney et al. (2017) lists AIS (as ‘‘Accounting Information Systems”) and ethics (as ‘‘ethical
work”). Crossler et al. (2017) repeatedly mentions ethics (as ‘‘ethical decisions”, ‘‘ethical tone consistency” and ‘‘inconsistent
ethical tone”, as well as ‘‘moral intensity”), but has no keywords at all relating to accounting, let alone AIS. Similarly, Holt
et al. (2017) makes no mention of either accounting or AIS in its list of keywords, but does mention ethics (as ‘‘ethics and
IT”). Fortunately, the only clearly AIS-ethics paper, Brown et al. (2017) does list both ethics and AIS in those very terms. Over-
all, the authors do not seem to see their papers as addressing similar issues or falling into a clear category that encompasses
AIS and ethics.
The fact that only one of the papers submitted to a journal issue specifically calling for research into ‘‘Accounting Infor-
mation Systems and Ethics” actually falls into the AIS-ethics category raises questions about the sustainability of the field.
Having the JIS themed issue closely followed by the JBE conference allows us to repeat the experiment to see whether the
results of the former are representative or an anomaly.
5. The JBE conference on accounting technology and ethics
The setting for the JBE conference was the 4th Biennial Symposium on Accounting Ethics run by Centre for Accounting Ethics
at the University of Waterloo.12 The themes of the previous three conferences were outside the AIS-ethics domain, namely,
‘‘tone at the top”, ‘‘accounting professionalism” and ‘‘accounting ethics and regulation: SOX 15 years later”.
The theme of the 2019 conference was broader than the explicit ‘‘Accounting Information Systems and Ethics” of the JIS
themed issue. However, the emphasis on technology is clear as a driver of the impact on aspects of accounting: ‘‘The Impact of
Technology on Ethics, Professionalism and Judgement in Accounting”. In other words, the title of this conference includes all
three of the foundational fields shown in the characterization of AIS-ethics in Fig. 2 and examines their interaction with each
other. The section in the call for papers on the ‘‘prospective themes of the thematic symposium” are more explicit about the
centrality of technology and accounting:
‘‘The Thematic Symposium will focus on how technology influences accounting ethics and professionalism including evaluating
what ethical choices the accounting profession should consider in deploying these technologies. How does the accounting profession
identify, consider, value, constrain and govern technology? Research questions and themes explored by potential contributions to
this Thematic Symposium include, but are not limited to, the following:
Ethical bounds to data privacy used in data analytics by auditors/accountants.

The impact of technology on honesty in budgeting; i.e., is it used to obfuscate or add transparency to the budgeting process?
The ethicality of internet service providers and social media companies disclosing suspected malfeasance by their users to
authorities.
12
https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-accounting-ethics/symposium/call-papers/information-call-papers. Last accessed 7/8/2019 11:20:32 AM.
12
The impact of technology on whistle blowing, including the ability to identify individual whistle blowers who might otherwise
report anonymously.
Does the use of robotics devalue the role of humans in production and creation of wealth? Is this an issue that an ethical prac-
titioner should be incorporating within decision making models?
Does/can automation of professional training provide sound development of auditors’ and accountants’ professional judgment;
i.e., can programmed instruction materials raise trainees’ awareness about ethical considerations in what appear to be technical
tasks?
How does audit automation interact with personality traits of audit professionals such as risk taking propensity, professional
skepticism, the Dark Triad, and others?
AI can be used to replace or augment human judgment, but does its focus on a rational perspective to problem solving and deci-
sion making omit considering ethics?
AI can be used to make decisions based on machine learning but does it limit practitioners’ ability to review the quality and
acceptability of the work done? Does it exclude the requisite degree of skepticism or ethical reasoning needed throughout
the process?
How are ethical considerations built into the use of technology in fraud detection and forensic work?
How does the use of virtual teams affect ethical decision making of accountants and auditors (i.e., does the fact that they are
connected over a network or that they may be located in different jurisdictions affect their ethical judgments)?
Has the use of technology altered tax evasion and avoidance decisions, both domestically and internationally?
Auditors’ will uncover unethical uses of technology or data in the course of their work. Are they ethically/professionally bound to
report these?
New technology will enhance the ability of the auditor and accountant to conduct surveillance of a client. What are the ethical
bounds to these practices?”
As with the JIS CFP, the list of possible topics cover both accounting and non-accounting issues, though admittedly, the
term AIS does not appear in the conference title or in its CFP. Nonetheless, I have few concerns about placing this conference
into the AIS-ethics domain given the accounting related questions asked in the CFP.
A major contrast between the JIS themed issue and the JBE conference is the lack of a ‘‘required reading”. Being a confer-
ence rather than a themed issue also has the benefit of not only allowing authors to present their work, but of having dis-
cussants. I attended the conference and the summaries of the papers presented are based on the papers themselves, as well
as the presentations. Four papers were accepted for the conference and, presumably, all will be considered for subsequent
publication in JBE.13
Hence, I now discuss the papers in the order in which they appeared in the conference program. As before, my content
analysis is aimed at answering the questions:

3. How do the authors of the accepted papers adapt to the expressed preferences of the editors/gatekeepers of the confer-
ence or themed issue?
The first paper presented was Commerford et al. (2019), which is titled ‘‘Complex Estimates and Auditor Reliance on Arti-
ficial Intelligence”. The paper included no keywords. Its focus is on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to aid auditors in
developing expectations, and whether they exhibit ‘‘algorithm aversion” to such aids. The methodology used is a 2X2 exper-
iment, where the subjects (170 Big-4 senior auditors) are given the task of adjusting a banking client’s allowance for loan
losses.
When the management estimate is based on the judgment of loan officers, it is labelled ‘‘lower structure”, and ‘‘higher
structure when it is based on detailed statistical market analysis. The other manipulation is whether a human specialist
or an AI system provides the audit firm’s own contradictory guidance that the loan loss provision is understated. If there
is algorithm aversion, the auditors using the AI system information will make a smaller upward adjustment of the loan loss
provision than when the contradictory information comes from a human specialist. Another hypothesis is that the auditor
will place less weight on the audit firm’s own information when the client’s estimate is higher structured.
Commerford et al. (2019, page 24) report their results: ‘‘we find that auditors are more likely to discount contradictory evi-
dence from a firm source when that source is a specialist system instead of a human specialist. That said, we only find evidence of
this effect when management employs a relatively more structured estimation process.”
Clearly, this paper satisfies the criteria of being in the AIS domain. However, this is an ethics conference, and what is strik-
ing about Commerford et al. (2019) is that despite being the lead paper in the conference, neither the paper nor the presen-
tation mention the word ‘‘ethics” even once (or ‘‘morality” or any other synonym). The discussant did not raise this anomaly,
nor did any of the audience in the question and answer section of the presentation. I shall discuss the meaning of this
13
As of 5/18/2020 5:47:21 PM there is no mention of these papers on the JIS website. Since this current paper is unlikely to be made public before the JBE
editors make their final publication decision on the conference papers, I do not feel that anything that I say here will interfere in that process.
13
remarkable fact after the content analysis of the remaining three papers presented at the conference. In any case, we can
safely classify this paper as AIS and not AIS-ethics.
The second paper presented was Kipp et al. (2019), which is titled ‘‘How do Intelligent Agents Impact Managers’ Aggres-
sive Reporting and Ownership of Responsibility?” This is also an experiment, administered online using Amazon Mechanical
Turk, to 160 subjects. Participants play the role of a manager who has to determine the level of allowances for uncollectible
accounts, inventory obsolescence and warranty expense. As these allowances increase, divisional income decreases, even as
the manager faces pressure from superiors to show higher earnings.
This is a similar situation to Commerford et al. (2019), and as with that paper, one manipulation is to have background
information provided either by a human specialist (known as ‘‘Bob”) or an AI-type system (known as ‘‘B.O.B.) that statisti-
cally forecast the allowances. A major difference is that instead of the information provided by Bob or B.O.B. being totally
independent, the manager in this case asks them to find support for their preferred level of allowances. This is where the
second manipulation comes in. In the non-autonomous manipulation, both types of agents will support the manager’s
choice. In the autonomous case, they might not.
The authors rely on social identity theory and the theory of the mind as determinants of how much distance the manager
feels from the human specialist versus the IA, with distance also mediated by the degree of autonomy of the agents. This
analysis leads to hypotheses about how aggressive the manager will be in seeking accruals that boost earnings (Kipp
et al., 2019, page 13): ‘‘we propose that managers will engage in the most aggressive accounting estimates when the agent is
human and autonomous, and that managers’ accounting estimates will be positively mediated by managers’ perceptions of social
distance from their agent (i.e., lower social distance will be associated with more aggressive accounting estimates).”
What was tested in the paper was whether (Kipp et al., 2019, page 3): ‘‘social distance from and trust in the agent mediate
the relationship between these two agent characteristics on the nature of the guidance (i.e., accounting estimate aggressiveness)
given to the agent and ownership of responsibility for the outcome of the agent’s actions.” Kipp et al. (2019, page 4) conclude,
‘‘Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that managers direct autonomous human agents to complete the most aggressive
accounting estimates and that managers take the most responsibility for the outcomes of the accounting estimates when directing
non-autonomous intelligent agents. . . Kipp et al. (2019, page 15) we propose that managers’ will assume the most responsibility
for the outcome of the accounting estimates when working with a nonautonomous intelligent agent, and that social distance will
mediate the effect of agent type and autonomy on ownership of responsibility.”
It appears that the underlying mechanism behind the paper’s results is that a manager wishing to make a highly aggres-
sive accounting estimate ‘‘passes the buck” when they work with an autonomous human agent in a way that they obviously
cannot do with an AI system, however autonomous. Kipp et al. (2019, page 28) report, ‘‘we find that managers have autono-
mous human agents work to defend the most aggressive accounting estimates, but that managers do not assume responsibility for
these aggressive estimates with autonomous human agents, instead assuming the most responsibility for the actions of non-
autonomous intelligent agents.”
The accounting ‘‘hook” of this paper is obvious. The authors also make frequent and appropriate references to ethical
behavior, and moral choices, though—oddly, given the nature of both the paper and the conference—the word ‘‘ethics” is
not used as a keyword, though ‘‘accounting”, and ‘‘trust” and ‘‘responsibility taking” are. In summary, Kipp et al. (2019)
clearly falls into the AIS-ethics category. It should be noted, though, that a result not discussed by the authors in either their
paper or in the conference was that respondents on the whole behaved ethically, in that on average they increased accruals
and decreased earnings. In other words, though this is an AIS-ethics paper, respondents don’t actually behave unethically.
The third paper presented at the conference was ‘‘Black Box Analytics and Ethical Decision Making” by Davern et al.
(2019). This is yet another 2X2 experiment concerning forecasts, sales in this instance. In contrast to the two previous
papers, the instrument was not provided to the conference audience, thus making it difficult to follow the nature of the
experimental procedure. The manipulations are transparency and accountability, the hypothesis being that decision makers
will act least ethically in opaque settings with low sense of accountability.
A total of 180 participants were recruited using an online system and asked to make a sales forecast knowing that beating
that forecast will result in a bonus. In other words, they have an incentive to lowball the forecast, even though they have
private information from overhearing at a conference that a competitor will have to temporarily reduce its own production
by 10,000 units. Presumably this will enable their own sales to increase, and what is being examined in the experiment is
whether all or only some of that 10,000 will be added to the sales forecast provided to senior management.
A major difference with the two previous papers is that the manager is aided by a ‘‘machine learning (regression mod-
elling approach)” sales forecasting system in all circumstances, the manipulation only affecting whether or not the manager
understands how the AI system generates its forecast. The accountability manipulation takes place when half the partici-
pants are questioned as to whether or not they will share their private information about the competitor with their manager
before they make their sales forecast decision. The presumption is that this prompt will make managers feel more account-
able about transmitting their private information to their superior.
Their results show that accountability has a much larger affect than transparency. Of greater relevance from an AIS per-
spective is that in the high accountability state there is little difference between opaqueness and transparency. Davern et al.
(2019, page 23) conclude, ‘‘participants make more ethical decisions when the forecasting system is transparent than when it is
opaque. Further, we find that when participants feel more accountable they make more ethical decisions. The effect of accountabil-
14
ity is highest for participants in the opaque condition, consistent with an interaction effect, evidencing that felt accountability can
mitigate the negative effects of having an opaque system.”
Given that the forecasting system is non-human in all cases, it is not clear what lessons this experiment provides from an
AIS perspective. Davern et al. (2019, page 23) write that ‘‘the findings demonstrate the potential risks involved in using inher-
ently opaque algorithms in data analytics systems”, but that conclusion is really all about opaqueness and nothing about data
analytics systems. With no variation in the AIS system across conditions (recall that what does vary is the user’s understand-
ing of the system), it could just as well have been a human expert. Hence, I would classify this paper as accounting-ethics and
not AIS-ethics. The paper’s keywords are ‘‘ethical decision making, IT, machine learning, moral disengagement theory,
accountability theory”, though the paper has little to say about either IT or machine learning.
The final paper in the conference is ‘‘Are Individuals More Willing to Lie to a Computer or a Human? Evidence from a Tax
Compliance Setting” by LaMothe and Bobek (2019). Like all the other papers, this is also an experiment, this one conducted
using 211 Amazon Mechanical Turk respondents.
It is a single manipulation experiment where subjects are asked to imagine doing their federal income taxes using either
tax software or a human tax preparer. In both cases the participant has an undeclared $5,000 in foreign income that would
result in an additional $1,000 in taxes they would have to pay if the income was reported. The human preparer as well as the
tax software communicates with the subject pointing out that gross income has fallen over the last year and prompting them
to disclose any additional income. What interests the authors is the willingness of the experiment participants to lie, and
whether that tendency depends on whether taxes are being prepared by software or by an actual accountant.
The paper’s hypothesis is that participants are more likely to lie when their taxes are being prepared by software rather
than a human accountant. LaMothe and Bobek (2019, page 26) summarizes the results of their paper: ‘‘the results from this
study suggest individuals who use software to prepare their tax returns are more willing to lie about their taxes. Specifically, indi-
viduals believe lies are less likely to be detected by tax software than by a tax professional and tax software has less social presence
than a tax professional. In turn, enhanced feelings of social presence and perceptions of detectability lead to lower willingness to
lie.”
Tax preparation is clearly in the accounting domain, as tax software is to AIS. What about ethics? The paper’s keywords
don’t mention ethics: ‘‘human–computer interactions, willingness to lie, social presence, tax compliance”. The only mention
of ethics in LaMothe and Bobek (2019, page 2) is in their first footnote: ‘‘In this study, we consider lies motivated by economic
gains (e.g., cheating on taxes, committing fraud) as clear examples of unethical behavior while lies told to avoid negative condem-
nation or embarrassment may be ethically ambiguous. Since prior research focuses specifically on lying (as opposed to more gen-
erally on ethical behavior), we examine ‘‘willingness to lie.” However, we believe our study specifically speaks to unethical lies
because our focus is on lies motivated by economic gains.”
Would this footnote even have been included if the paper was not being submitted to an ethics conference? More gen-
erally, does the fact that the paper is about lying mean that it is, therefore, inherently also a paper on ethics? There is a long
debate about whether lying is unethical by definition (if so, what about ‘‘Yes, Virginia. There is a Santa Claus”?).14 Moreover,
the topic of this paper is not just lying, but the performance of an illegal act of tax evasion. In my opinion, ethics as a concept
loses its distinct character if it encompasses such illegal acts. To put it another way, there is no underlying ethical dilemma in
LaMothe and Bobek (2019) since there is no counterargument to declaring the $5,000 as taxable income other than the desire to
get away with not paying the tax that is legally required.
The takeaway from this example is that if ethics is not defined, its domain can be stretched to cover many topics that
would otherwise not be considered obvious cases of it. In particular, if the threshold for an ethics paper was the presence
of ‘‘lies motivated by economic gains” then every paper on fraud or earnings management would be categorized as an ethics
papers even if the word never appears in it. For this reason, I classify LaMothe and Bobek (2019) as an AIS paper, and not one
on AIS-ethics. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that readers may reasonably differ about whether or not LaMothe and Bobek
(2019) is in the AIS-ethics domain. By contrast, I believe that the other classifications I have made are fairly unambiguous.15
In summary, the JBE conference saw the presentation of four papers. All the papers were experiments, with the first two
examining the differential effects on relying for forecasts on an AI system versus a human specialist. While both these papers
are in the AIS domain, only one of them has any mention of ethics. The third paper features an AIS system also, but unlike in
the other papers, it remains unchanged across the experimental conditions, meaning that the paper cannot say anything
about the effect of technology on behavior. Hence, this is a paper in accounting-ethics and not AIS-ethics. As for the final
paper, assuming that tax evasion is not an ethical issue, it is classifiable as AIS and not ethics.
In short, as we found with the JIS themed issue, only one paper in the JBE conference falls unambiguously into the AIS-
ethics space, albeit, it fails to show any unethical behavior. Fig. 5 positions the four JBE conference papers into the charac-
terization of AIS-ethics from Fig. 2:
14
See https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-deception/201906/is-it-always-wrong-lie for a discussion of the ethicality of lying. Last
accessed 11/10/2020 4:01:24 PM.
15
I readily admit that a limitation of my methodology is that the content analysis of the papers is made entirely by me and not replicated by independent
third parties. On the other hand, with the limited number of papers, which enables me to read them in depth, I don’t consider this limitation to be especially
binding. Most of the papers really do self-classify themselves with little ambiguity.
15
Fig. 5. Classification of the domain of the JBE conference papers.
6. Analyzing the results of the two natural experiments
Having analyzed the contents of both the JIS themed issue and JBE conference, what conclusions can be drawn from them
about AIS-ethics? If one leaves aside GHNT—a paper commissioned and written by those who wished to encourage partic-
ipation in AIS-ethics in the first place—there are eight papers across the two initiatives. Of these, only two are in the AIS-
ethics domain, with two in accounting-ethics, two in IS-ethics, and two in AIS alone, lacking any ethics component. Even
if one disagrees about the classification of one or two of these papers, the result of this set of experiments does not suggest
a deep well of AIS-ethics papers.
Returning to my earlier discussion of Commerford et al. (2019), what was most telling to me personally was the total lack
of notice paid by either the audience or the discussant to the fact that that the very first paper presented at the JBE confer-
ence made no mention of ethics whatsoever. No questions were asked, no comment made, no interest shown.16 While I can-
not be sure what was going through the mind of each member of the audience, I suspect the reason was that the topic of the
paper—algorithm aversion—was mainstream in the IS literature and that fact was sufficient for the audience to accept the paper
as suitable for the conference. In other words, not having an ethics dimension did not disqualify the paper in their mind.
That fact is less surprising than it seems given that the conference title ‘‘The Impact of Technology on Ethics, Profession-
alism and Judgement in Accounting” was not as specific about AIS-ethics as that of the JIS themed issue CFP. Judgment is one
of the main areas of auditing research and while according to the CFP it was supposed to be mediated by technology, the
theme was evidently ambiguous enough to encompass the familiar judgment literature even without technology.
Regardless of how one classifies these eight paper, the caveat made earlier needs to be kept in mind, that being in the AIS-
ethics space is only a necessary and not sufficient condition for that paper to contribute to the overall research literature.
There is still the danger of reinventing the wheel if the authors do not explicitly demonstrate the value added that the paper
provides over similar research from outside the AIS or accounting domains. For example, the only clearly AIS-ethics paper in
the JBE conference is Kipp et al. (2019), and they begin their discussion of the distancing effect of using technology versus
humans with an example drawn not from accounting, but instead on the crash of a driverless Uber car in Colorado.
They continue by discussing the objective of their paper (Kipp et al., 2019, page 2) emphasis added): ‘‘In deflecting blame,
the question arises as to whether some aspect of the human-technology interface, as compared to the human–human interface,
appears to decrease feelings of responsibility for the problems IAs may create. It is possible that perception of fault from poor out-
comes and assignment of blame differ when the agent is human from when the agent is automated. Given the novelty of this tech-
nology, little is known as to how managers perceive IAs, as compared to equivalent human agents, when engaging in
morally ambiguous activities.” With respect, the authors’ last sentence is incorrect. There already exists a vast literature
on the ethical implications of relying on AI or intelligent agents (IAs), and the distancing effect of technology has been stud-
ied for decades. For example, there is a widespread debate on the ethics of developing and deploying fully autonomous
weapons, with a google scholar search on those keywords returning 2640 entries.17
16
However, the author of a well-known AIS textbook made it clear to me at the coffee break that he had also noticed the omission and found it humorous.
17
As of 7/16/2019 4:47:41 PM.
16
For that matter, GHNT also note that (page 66), ‘‘Systems, especially computer-based systems, may precipitate unethical out-
comes by allowing individuals to distance themselves from their actions, obfuscating ethical aspects and enabling unjust rational-
izations for unethical actions. The more technology evolves, the farther the actor is removed ‘‘from the consequences of
organizationally sanctioned’’ actions (Dillard, 2003, 13), reducing personal responsibility and enabling neutralizations. In other
words, systems legitimize individual wrongdoing by allowing people to focus on their duties within the system, without consider-
ation of the moral impact of their actions (Adams and Balfour, 1998).”
Kipp et al. (2019), however, do not cite GHNT, or any of the primary sources in the quote above. Why not? For the good
reason that one of the most striking aspects of the JBE conference papers is that not one of them references a single one of the
papers from the JIS themed issue. This despite the fact that the themed issue was published almost 18 months before the
submission deadline for the JBE conference, with GHNT having been on SSRN as a working paper for at least three years prior
to that. Literature reviews are often the most heavily cited of papers, so it is extraordinary that even GHNT is not cited by any
of the JBE conference papers.
If the purpose of a literature review is to show how research advances systematically by building on prior work, the com-
plete failure of the second set of AIS-ethics papers to cite the first set raises difficult questions. One explanation for this out-
come is that the field is so diverse that it encompasses topics that are highly specialized even while having broad
commonalities. For example, capital market research includes research into the market impact of accounting statements
as well as research into firm valuation, and one would not expect much overlap between papers in these two areas.
On the other hand, the impact of technology on ethics in accounting is not as mature a field as capital market research,
and if the AIS-ethics literature has already splintered into non-overlapping research domains, that calls into question
whether there is indeed an overarching commonality in the first place. The other, more probable explanation is that the
authors of the JBE conference papers simply did not see in the JIS themed issue papers anything that was relevant or insight-
ful to their work (or they were unaware of them, which is equivalent, since that means that they did not bother to look for
them in one of the leading AIS journals).
The JIS themed issue and JBE conference are, by construction, demand-focused initiatives, with their aim being to induce
authors to enter the AIS-ethics field. This strategy assumes that with enough exogenous encouragement—whether the incen-
tive are publications in a special issue or an appearance at a conference—authors will want to write papers in this topical
area. Given the limited success of these events in generating AIS-specific papers on ethics (with success defined as a majority,
if not all, papers falling clearly into the AIS–ethics area), what conclusions can be drawn?
Whether a distinct AIS-ethics literature is either necessary or feasible are open questions, and in my opinion it is prema-
ture to draw conclusions just yet. What I can conclude, though, is that when it comes to maturing a field it may be best to
allow supply-side forces to work, meaning letting papers arise endogenously that adopt a new approach to tackle emerging
problems in practice or gaps arising in the literature.
Demand-side is a hothouse tactic exemplified by the use of GHNT as a sort of ‘‘fertilizer” for the emerging field, while the
supply-side approach is analogous to the ‘‘organic growth” of revenue. A mature field advances through a push–pull com-
bination of both these approaches. An exogenous approach of inducing demand for papers in the absence of a clear problem
for which they are meant to be a solution can instead lead to an outcome where the papers address topics that end up being
outside the desired domain.
In the case of AIS-ethics, the fundamental problem is the absence, thus far, in either the practice or the research literature,
of examples of ethical problems that are specific to AIS. As a result, when AIS-ethics papers are demanded, authors may sim-
ply pay lip service to a CFP by adding one of the elements of accounting, IS or ethics (especially, ethics), as a gloss onto a
paper already written without AIS-ethics in mind.
7. Researching AIS-ethics
When the European Accounting Review (EAR) planned a special issue on literature reviews in accounting, its CFP articu-
lated what it saw as the purpose of a literature review: ‘‘they foster reflexivity, analysis and justification of different areas of
scholarly investigation, articulating their achievements, providing critical analysis of their failures and signaling areas where
new research can make substantial extensions of previous work. They invite to broaden scholarship by identifying areas that
are under-represented in accounting research. They enhance our understanding of the functioning of accounting by articulating
the relationship between different theories and by building the gap between diverse research traditions in accounting.”18
Based on this CFP, how would one ‘‘articulate the achievements” of the two natural experiments into AIS-ethics? The JIS
themed issue was launched by a literature review of its own into AIS-ethics by GHNT, whose purpose was clearly to ‘‘invite to
broaden scholarship by identifying areas that are under-represented in accounting research” in the words of the EAR CFP. GHNT
go further by asserting that ‘‘virtually every aspect of AIS has ethical implications” and that provides a standard to assess the
outcome of these two experiments.
The themed issue was indeed published and the conference held, and eight new papers were added to the literature, not
counting the commissioned GHNT. On the basis of my characterization of AIS-ethics, only two of these eight are actually
18
https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/european-accounting-review-si/?utm_source=CPB&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=JMY07371. Last accessed
7/22/2019 11:14:14 AM.
17
classifiable as AIS-ethics. Should this fact be considered a failure, or an inevitable outcome at this stage of the field? The edi-
tors would undoubtedly choose the latter explanation, perhaps augmenting their argument with the approach of GHNT that
it is permissible to claim papers from outside the AIS-ethics domain into the field ex-post. On the other hand, for the field to
stand on its own, at some point authors must choose to place their papers into the AIS-ethics domain themselves. No liter-
ature can exist if it is always piggybacking onto someone else’s.
The EAR CFP points out that new research can be encouraged by providing ‘‘a critical analysis of the failures” in the lit-
erature. By the standard set out by the editors of the JIS themed issue themselves—on the pervasiveness of ethics in AIS—the
small output of papers clearly in the AIS-ethics domain undermines that argument. Replicating the JIS themed issue natural
experiment using the JBE conference reinforces the contention that ethical dilemmas are not, in fact, ubiquitous in AIS. As
with the JIS themed issue, the JBE conference saw only one clear AIS-ethics paper. Moreover, the lack of citations from
the second set of papers to the first makes the case stronger that authors have yet to find any commonality to their vision
of ethics in AIS.
On a more positive note, examining those two AIS-ethics exceptions allows us to identify the ways in which a successful
AIS-ethics paper can be written. While, as Fig. 2 illustrates, AIS-ethics is the intersection of accounting, technology and ethics,
the key juncture is between the established fields of AIS and of ethics. I rule out of consideration papers like Burney et al.
(2017) and Davern et al. (2019) which have no place in them for technology because without technology AIS-ethics becomes
a contradiction in terms. Having an IS role is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a paper to fall into the AIS-ethics
domain, but it is the base from which I begin my analysis.
If the IS part is there, then to get to AIS-ethics, the researcher needs to add both the accounting part and the ethic’s dimen-
sion. As Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate, it is common for one or the other of these to be missing, with papers ending up devoid of
ethics and becoming straight AIS, as in Commerford et al. (2019) or LaMothe and Bobek (2019) from the JBE conference, or
lacking accounting and so ending up in IS-ethics, as in Holt et al. (2017) or Crossler et al. (2017) from the JIS themed issue.
That leaves Brown et al. (2017) and Kipp et al. (2019). These two AIS-ethics papers demonstrate two alternate strategies,
which I call ‘‘AIS-first” and ‘‘ethics-first”:
AIS-First: In this strategy, a researcher begins with an AIS setting and identifies an ethics issue in it. Brown et al. (2017) is
an example of this approach, since they argue that AIS professionals need to have a better ethical model in order to behave
virtuously around confidential data and provide it. Brown et al. (2017, page 6) view their proposed model as the basis of their
contribution to the literature, with its ethical implications being an additional benefit: ‘‘Our virtue ethics theoretical approach
for building and maintaining functionality and trust in AIS also contributes to an emerging literature on the ethical judgment and
behavior of AIS professionals (e.g., Guragai et al., 2017), and can be extended to examine the judgment and decision-making behav-
iors of AIS professionals when carrying out their AIS functions of reporting, control, and recordkeeping.”
When adopting the AIS-first strategy researchers need to decide whether their aim is to contribute to the accounting lit-
erature alone, or to the broader literature as well. The difference between these two depends on whether the ethical issue
examined in the AIS setting is unique to accounting or only one instance of a broader ethical issue. Brown et al. (2017) is
clearly unique to accounting, since they focus on AIS practitioners. In contrast, fraud detection is an important activity in
auditing, but many other professionals also undertake it, such as tax agents and insurance inspectors. Hence, it would be
difficult for accounting researchers to make the case that the ethical issues arising from fraud detection in accounting differ
materially from similar issues in other settings.
By contrast, an AIS-first approach that is unique to accounting is exploring the ethical issues that arise with the adoption
of XBRL. XBRL is clearly something that is very specific to accounting, and GHNT (page 75) suggest that ethical issues may
arise with its use: ‘‘XBRL’s complexity, along with the individuals’ inexperience auditing and interpreting XBRL filings, provides
managers an opportunity to misrepresent these disclosures with a lower chance of detection.” While they make this hypothesis
as a suggestion for future research, it is this mention of XBRL that is responsible for three out of the four citations that GHNT
have obtained since its publication in the JIS themed issue (Hoitash and Hoitash, 2018; Huang et al., 2018; Hsieh et al.,
2019).19
My own example of an AIS-first research topic in AIS-ethics is the ethical implications of technology-based audit analyt-
ics, which are far more effective than the ratio analysis of the past. For example, auditors are considering using such tech-
nologies as process mining (Jans et al., 2014) and big data (Alles and Gray, 2016). The insights from these analytics are so
powerful that they will be pressure for auditors to provide (or sell. . .) them to management. What are the ethics of changing
processes within the firm based on such audit evidence? Will it affect our concepts of auditor independence?
Ethics-First: In this alternative strategy, a researcher begins with an ethical issue and then applies it to an accounting
setting. Kipp et al. (2019) is an example of this approach, since they develop a model of how social distance impacts reliance
on human or IS agents and apply it to a setting where a manager has to choose an accounting accrual.
Transferring paradigms and methodologies from other research areas, especially finance and economics, but also sociol-
ogy and psychology, into accounting is a long established practice in accounting research, going at least as far back as Ball
and Brown (1968). Thus, Kipp et al. (2019, page 28, emphasis added) write, ‘‘this research is among the first to empirically
explore the effect of IAs on the ethical behavior of managers in an accounting setting.” The authors take as given that the appli-
cation of their ethical model to accounting constitutes a contribution to the accounting literature.
19
The fourth citation is by Chuang (2016), which mentions the GHNT working paper in passing. Citations are obtained from Google Scholar.
18
It is one thing, however, to apply event studies to accounting disclosures—a methodology few researchers outside
accounting undertake—as Ball and Brown (1968) did, and another to find moral issues that arise in accounting settings that
are clearly different from those that occur elsewhere in human behavior. For the ethics-first strategy to contribute over and
above the already existing ethics literature, the ethical issue must take a different, accounting-specific form in the accounting
context. For example, lying is a universal human activity and so if one wishes to examine willingness to lie in a tax setting, as
LaMothe and Bobek (2019) do, they have to explain why lying in this context is different to lying in any other, such as Wash-
ington’s father asking his son if he chopped down a tree.
My example of an ethics-first topic in AIS-ethics is examining whether the important discussion on the ethics of algo-
rithms (Mittelstadt et al., 2016) extends to the increasing reliance of artificial intelligence in auditing. The excitement about
combining AI with continuous monitoring using ubiquitous cameras can lead to serious injustices, as in the recent case of the
Michigan man arrested for a crime he did not commit purely on the basis of an incorrect case of facial recognition.20 Auditors
typically adapt technology developed by technology specialists, and research is needed on the ethics of doing so when as a
result they end up importing built in biases that they might be unaware of.
8. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was not to judge the quality of the papers presented at the 2019 JBE conference, or published in the
2017 JIS themed issue. The editors and referees of those initiatives have already undertaken that task and deemed that the
papers meet that threshold. Rather, my objective is to understand why those editors/gatekeepers placed these papers into
the AIS-ethics domain. AIS-ethics is a field that few AIS researchers had participated in up to now. Hence, the themed issue
and conference constitute a set of natural experiments into how research gatekeepers foster this area of ethics research.
I adopt a very broad characterization of AIS-ethics as the intersection of accounting, information systems and ethics. The
weight placed on each of these components can vary, but, in my opinion, all three must be present to a non-token degree for
a paper to fall into the AIS-ethics category. As it turns out, that is not the trivial requirement that it might appear. In their
literature review that was also meant to inspire and guide research into AIS-ethics, GHNT (page 65) place into the AIS-ethics
field papers that make no mention of ethics because their underlying hypothesis—stated as a fact—is that ‘‘virtually every
aspect of AIS has ethical implications.” 21As a direct result of this assumption, they can go on to state (GHNT, page 69) that ‘‘ethics
is often an implicit, rather than explicit motivation for AIS research.”
Reflecting on the range of papers that were produced by these two experiments, there is little support as yet for this
hypothesis, and hence, no validation either for their approach of expropriating papers into the AIS-ethics field. Of the eight
papers across the two initiatives only two are in the AIS-ethics domain, with two in accounting-ethics, two in IS-ethics, and
two in AIS alone. To me, that is not evidence that AIS-ethics is a field that has either a clear identity or an unmet demand.
Of course, it can be argued that someone else, using criteria different from mine, will characterize more of these papers as
falling into AIS-ethics. Indeed, the editors may argue that they all do by definition of being selected. That is an obvious lim-
itation of my research methodology, but I am confident that my characterization is robust, if for no other reason that there
does not appear to be a burgeoning AIS-ethics literature inspired by the JIS themed issue and JBE conference. Since the papers
analyzed in this paper appeared, only one other paper with the keyword ‘‘ethics” has been published in JIS (Shoemaker et al.,
2019).22 No such papers have appeared in the Journal of Emerging Technologies (JETA) or the International Journal of Accounting
Information Systems (IJAIS), the two other main AIS journals.
One of the objectives in writing this paper was to understand the role of the editors/gatekeepers in AIS-ethics. So what
conclusions can be drawn? That in the JIS themed issue and JBE conference they adopted a very broad perspective on what
papers to accept. Alles (2018) found a similar result with respect to AIS and cloud computing which suggests that editors are
flexible when dealing with an emerging research area. That hypothesis can be tested by both looking backward at the genesis
of established topics in AIS—for example, XBRL—and by replicating this analysis with newly emerging fields—such as AIS and
blockchain. It would also be worthwhile to research whether editors become more discriminating as a field matures:
whether a period of ‘‘letting a thousand flowers bloom” is needed to establish the type of research topics and methodologies
that will characterize the standard operating practices of a field. Perhaps only then will editors/gatekeepers have the tools to
enforce standardization on the field.
The problem is that as a field does mature it becomes increasingly hard to encompass the entire literature. Because of an
embarrassment of riches, general literature reviews are more common at that stage than analyses of the role of gatekeepers.
That is why I advocate the use of my methodology of exploiting natural experiments in the form of special issues and con-
ferences as a way of focusing attention on specific inflection points in the literature. This approach gains in the specificity on
the role of editors/gatekeepers what it loses in generality, and that is a tradeoff worth making from time to time in order to
better understand the forces that shape a research area.
Overall, this particular set of natural experiments provides an answer, in the case of AIS-ethics, to Sutton’s (2010) ques-
tions. As he suggested, and as Alles (2018) confirmed with respect to AIS and cloud computing, I find that AIS-ethics is
20
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.html. Last accessed 11/10/2020 4:01:24 PM.
21
See Alles (2020) for further discussion of this point.
22
By the methodology used in this paper, I would classify Shoemaker et al., 2019 as an ethics-first contribution to the IS-ethics domain.
19
marked by an absence of identity and with too many scholars researching in areas other than what was intended. A research
literature that combines AIS and ethics cannot be produced on demand. Instead, as with any other type of research, it must
be allowed to develop in its own way and in its own good time in response to the underlying problems facing accountants
when trying to deal ethically with emerging technologies.
Acknowledgement
Support from the Von Minden Summer Salary Support for Research Active Senior Faculty from Rutgers Business School
Department of Accounting and Information Systems is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix 1. Call for paper for Journal of Information Systems Themed Issue on AIS and Ethics
20
References
Adams, G.B., Balfour, D.L., 1998. Unmasking Administrative Evil. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Alles, M., 2018. Examining the role of the AIS research literature using the natural experiment of the 2018 JIS conference on cloud computing. Int. J. Account.
Inf. Syst. 31 (C), 58–74.
Alles, M., 2020. AIS-ethics as an ethical domain: a Response to Guragai, Hunt, Neri and Taylor (2017) and Dillard and Yuthas (2002). Int. J. Digital Account.
Res. 20, 1–29.
Alles, M., Gray, G., 2016. Incorporating big data in audits: Identifying inhibitors and a research agenda to address those inhibitors. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst.
22, 44–59.
Alles, M., Gray, G., 2020. ‘‘The First Mile Problem”: deriving an endogenous demand for auditing in blockchain-based business processes. Int. J. Account. Inf.
Syst. 38, 100465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2020.100465.
Alles, M., Kogan, A., Vasarhelyi, M., 2008a. Exploiting comparative advantage: A paradigm for value added research in accounting information systems. Int. J.
Account. Inf. Syst. 9, 202–215.
Alles, M., Kogan, A., Vasarhelyi, M., 2008b. Putting continuous auditing theory into practice: Lessons from two pilot implementations. J. Inf. Syst. 22 (2), 195–
214.
Armstrong, D., Brooks, N., Riemenschneider, C., 2015. Exhaustion from information system career experience: Implications for turn-away intention. Manage.
Inf. Syst. Q.. 39 (3), 713–727.
Bain, C.A., Blankley, Smith, M., 2002. An examination of topical coverage for the first accounting information systems course. J. Inf. Syst. Fall 16 (2), 143–164.
Ball, R., Brown, P., 1968. An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers. J. Account. Res. 6 (2), 159–178.
Brown, J.O., Marcum, J.A., Stuebs, M.T. Jr. 2017. Professional virtue reinforcements: A necessary complement to technological and policy reforms. J. Inf. Syst.
31 (2); 5–23.
Burney, L., Radtke, R., Widener, S. 2017. The intersection of ‘‘bad apples,” ‘‘bad barrels,” and the enabling use of performance measurement systems. J. Inf.
Syst. 31 (2); 25–48.
Crossler, R., Long, J., Loraas, T., Trinkle, B., 2014. Understanding compliance with bring your own device policies utilizing protection motivation theory:
bridging the intention-behavior gap. J. Inf. Syst. 28 (1), 209–226.
Crossler, R., Long, J., Loraas, T., Trinkle, B. 2017. The impact of moral intensity and ethical tone consistency on policy compliance. J. Inf. Syst. 31 (2); 49–64.
Commerford, B., Dennis, S., Joe, J., Wang, J., 2019. Complex estimates and auditor reliance on artificial intelligence. Presented at the 4th Waterloo Biennial
Symposium on Accounting Ethics. University of Kentucky. Unpublished working paper.
Curtis, M.B., Jenkins, J.G., Bedard, J.C., Deis, D.R., 2009. Auditors’ training and proficiency in information systems: A research synthesis. J. Inf. Syst. 23 (1), 79–
96. https://doi.org/10.2308/jis.2009.23.1.79.
Davern, M., Gondowijoyo, P., Murphy, P., 2019. Black box analytics and ethical decision making. Presented at the 4th Waterloo Biennial Symposium on
Accounting Ethics. University of Melbourne. Unpublished working paper.
Dillard, J., 2003. Professional Services, IBM, and the Holocaust. J. Inf. Syst. Fall. 17 (2), 1–16.
Frey, B., 2003. Publishing as prostitution? – Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice 116, 205–223.
Gowan, A., Reichgelt, H., 2010. Emergence of the information technology discipline. Computer 43 (7), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC. 2010.199.
Grabski, S., Leech, S., Schmidt, P., 2011. A review of ERP research: a future agenda for accounting information systems. J. Inf. Syst. 25 (1), 37–78.
Guragai B., Hunt N., Neri M., Taylor E. 2015. Accounting Information Systems and Ethics Research: Review, Synthesis, and the Future. J. Inf. Syst. 31(2). 65-
81.
Hamilton, R., James Stekelberg, 2017. The effect of high-quality information technology on corporate tax avoidance and tax risk. J. Inf. Syst.: 31(2); 83–106.
Hoitash, R., Hoitash, U. 2018. Measuring accounting reporting complexity with XBRL. Account. Rev., 93(1), 259–287.
Holt, M., Lang, B., Sutton S.G., 2017. Potential employees’ ethical perceptions of active monitoring: The dark side of data analytics. J. Inf. Syst. 31 (2); 107–
124.
Hopwood, A., 2007. Whither accounting research? Account. Rev. 82 (5), 1365–1374.
Hsieh, T., Wang, Z., Abdolmohammadi, M., 2019. Does XBRL disclosure management solution influence earnings release efficiency and earnings
management? Int. J. Account. Inf. Manage. 27 (1), 74–95.
Huang, F., No, W., Vasarhelyi, M., 2018. Do managers use extension elements strategically in the SEC’s tagged data for financial statements? Evidence from
XBRL complexity. J. Inf. Syst.In-Press.
ICMA. 2008. The financial crisis and the collapse of ethical behavior. White paper No. 44. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/301680_WhitePaper044-
FinancialCrisis.pdf. Last accessed 5/13/2020 2:04:04 PM.
Jans, M., Alles, M., Vasarhelyi, M., 2014. A field study on the use of process mining of event logs as an analytical procedure in auditing. Account. Rev. 89 (5),
1751–1773.
Kipp, P., Curtis, M., Li, Z., 2019. How do intelligent agents impact managers’ aggressive reporting and ownership of responsibility? Presented at the 4th
Waterloo Biennial Symposium on Accounting Ethics. University of North Texas. Unpublished working paper.
Klein, G., 2015. Ethics in Accounting: A Decision-Making Approach. Wiley.
Krueger, T.L., 2014. Defensive security policies are not enough: How to protect your data assets proactively. SAPinsider 15 (2).
LaMothe, E., Bobek, D., 2019. Are Individuals More Willing to Lie to a Computer or a Human? Evidence from a Tax Compliance Setting. University of South
Carolina. Unpublished working paper.
Lee, T., 1997. The EDITORIAL gatekeepers of the accounting academy. Account. Audit. Accountabil. J., 11–30
Lee, T., Williams, P., 1999. Accounting from the inside: legitimizing the accounting academic elite. Crit. Perspect. Account. 10, 867–895.
McCarthy, W., 1990. The Journal of Information Systems editorial guidelines–1990 (editorial). J. Inf. Syst. 4, iv–xi.
Mittelstadt, B.D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., Floridi, L., 2016. The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2053951716679679.
Nicolaou, A., 2004. Firm performance effects in relation to the implementation and use of enterprise resource planning systems. J. Inf. Syst. 18, 79–105.
https://doi.org/10.2308/jis.2004.18.2.79.
Poston, R., Grabski, S., 2000. Accounting information systems research: is it another QWERTY? Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 1, 9–53.
Reynolds, G., 2014. Ethics in Information Technology. Cengage Learning.
Romney, M., Steinbart, P., 2015. Accounting Information Systems. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Schoen, E., 2017. The 2007–2009 financial crisis: an erosion of ethics: A case study. J. Bus. Ethics 146, 805–830.
Shaw, W., 2016. Business Ethics: A Textbook with Cases. Cengage Learning.
Shoemaker, N., Curtis, M., Fayard, L., Kelly, M., 2019. What Happens When Formal and Informal Norms Conflict? J. Inf. Syst. In print. https://doi.org/10.2308/
isys-52616.
Simon, R. and J. Fyfe. 1994. Editors as Gatekeepers. Editors. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lanham, MD.
Sparks, S. 2014. From Gatekeepers to Facilitators: Understanding the Role of the Journal Editor from Gatekeepers to Facilitators: Understanding the Role of
the Journal Editor. College English. Vol. 77. No. 2. November. Pp. 154-157.
Starr, M. (Ed.), 2011. Consequences of Economic Downturn: Beyond the Usual Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Sutton, S., 1992. Can we research a field we cannot define? Toward an understanding of the A1S discipline. Adv. Account. Inf. Syst. Vo.1, 1–3.
Sutton, S., 2004. Editors comments: Rediscovering our IS roots. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 5, 1–4.
Sutton, S., 2010. A research discipline with no boundaries: Reflections on 20 years of defining AIS research. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 11, 289–296.
Taylor, E. and R. Daigle. 2017. Editorial: Special Section of JIS on AIS and Ethics. Journal of Information Systems. Vol. 31. No. 2. Summer. Pp. 1–3.
21
Vasarhelyi, M., Chan, D., Krahel, J., 2012. Consequences of XBRL standardization on financial statement data. J. Inf. Syst. 26, 155–167. https://doi.org/
10.2308/isys-10258.
Webster, J., Watson, R.T., 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Manage. Inf. Syst. Q. 26 (2), 3.
22

Alles 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alles 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 39 (2020) 100489

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/accinf

2. A framework for analyzing AIS-ethics

Fig. 1. Characterizing AIS as the intersection of Accounting and Information Systems.

1. In what way does this paper conduct research into ethics?

The first subject of analysis is the JIS themed issue.

3. The JIS themed issue on AIS-ethics and the suggested reading

Fig. 3. Guragai et al. (2017) framework of the domain of AIS-ethics.

4. Summaries of papers published in the JIS themed issue on AIS-ethics

1. In what way does this paper conduct research into ethics?

5. The JBE conference on accounting technology and ethics

Ethical bounds to data privacy used in data analytics by auditors/accountants.

1. In what way does this paper conduct research into ethics?

Fig. 5. Classification of the domain of the JBE conference papers.

6. Analyzing the results of the two natural experiments

You might also like

Alles 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alles 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 39 (2020) 100489

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/accinf

2. A framework for analyzing AIS-ethics

Fig. 1. Characterizing AIS as the intersection of Accounting and Information Systems.

1. In what way does this paper conduct research into ethics?

The first subject of analysis is the JIS themed issue.

3. The JIS themed issue on AIS-ethics and the suggested reading

Fig. 3. Guragai et al. (2017) framework of the domain of AIS-ethics.

4. Summaries of papers published in the JIS themed issue on AIS-ethics

1. In what way does this paper conduct research into ethics?

5. The JBE conference on accounting technology and ethics

 Ethical bounds to data privacy used in data analytics by auditors/accountants.

1. In what way does this paper conduct research into ethics?

Fig. 5. Classification of the domain of the JBE conference papers.

6. Analyzing the results of the two natural experiments

You might also like

Ethical bounds to data privacy used in data analytics by auditors/accountants.