Thirty Years of Accounting
Thirty Years of Accounting
Thirty Years of Accounting
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2017-2915
Downloaded on: 21 June 2018, At: 02:54 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 131 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:420734 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
AAAJ
31,5 Thirty years of
Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal
1510 A critical study of the journal’s
most cited articles
John Dumay
Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance,
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Charl de Villiers
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand and
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the highly cited articles published in Accounting, Auditing
and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), since its inception, to answer three research questions: first, how have
scholarly articles published in AAAJ developed? second, what are the focus areas and characteristics of
articles in AAAJ, and who are the influential authors? third, who are the emerging next generation scholars
and what are the emerging research themes in AAAJ?
Design/methodology/approach – A structured literature review (SLR) was used to analyse 126 most cited
classic AAAJ articles and 21 additional emerging articles published between 1988 and 2016. Traditional
literature reviews can have varied results because of a lack of rigour. The SLR method allows for an
examination in detail of the articles, authors, focus areas and pattern of AAAJ publishing over three decades.
Findings – The findings show increased diversity in more recent years in theories, methods, origins, focus
areas, and where AAAJ articles are cited, which highlights that the interdisciplinary accounting research
project is maturing and remaining true to the ideal of being inclusive.
Research limitations/implications – Within this diversity, the analyses show that AAAJ remains
focussed on and presents opportunities for impactful accounting research related to social issues, including
non-financial corporate reporting/disclosure, public sector accounting, corporate governance and alternative
forms of accounting, audit and accountability. Additionally, there is a need for more practice-based research
to address the “wicked” problems at the intersection between accounting and society.
Originality/value – This paper presents accounting researchers with an opportunity to develop insightful
and publishable studies. Also, it serves as a basis for developing future research agendas in the interdisciplinary
accounting field.
Keywords Citations, Structured literature review, AAAJ, Classic AAAJ papers
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal Celebrating its 30th year of publishing, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
Vol. 31 No. 5, 2018
pp. 1510-1541
(AAAJ) has become firmly established as one of the leading journals in interdisciplinary
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-3574
accounting research. This milestone is an appropriate time to reflect on the key articles that
DOI 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2017-2915 are at the foundation of AAAJ’s success, and to consider the characteristics of contemporary
articles that are fast becoming the articles scholars will cite in the future. This paper Thirty years
presents a critical analysis of the articles published in AAAJ that have had the most impact of AAAJ
on scholars, measured by citations, since the journal’s inception. Drawing on this analysis
can help us gain insight into AAAJ’s impact – the way in which the paths taken by
accounting scholars and researchers have shaped the interdisciplinary accounting project
and the paths available for future accounting research in AAAJ and beyond. We measure
impact using Google Scholar to identify total citations and citations per year (CPY). In total, 1511
we analyse 147 of the 917 scholarly articles published between 1988 and 2016 to ensure the
sample is representative of the body of work that makes AAAJ one of the leading
interdisciplinary accounting journals.
The first words in the first volume of AAAJ, written by its Editors, Guthrie and Parker
(1988, p. 3) were:
Welcome to the inaugural issue of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, an international research
journal that will publish studies of accounting and auditing regarding concepts, practice and policy.
We plan to encourage research which focuses on the interaction between the accounting and
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
auditing disciplines and their regulatory, institutional, economic, political and social environments.
Our journal is intended to deepen our understanding of the development, current and potential state
of our discipline, both as a product of its environment and as a powerful influence which shapes its
environment as well.
Reflecting in their recent commentary, Guthrie and Parker (2017, p. 3) wrote:
We now reflect on our first editorial. It contains important signposts as to the type of journal AAAJ
has now become. For instance, the journal supports various methodological approaches, is
international in nature, and publishes articles on a wide variety of subject areas. The Journal began
very much as it has continued, with the four articles in the first issue providing examples of the
diverse range of subjects and approaches to accounting, auditing and accountability research
published over AAAJ’s 30 years.
It will be interesting and informative to understand more about these signposts, and how they
point to future research directions for authors wishing to publish in AAAJ. To identify the
signposts, this paper analyses both classic and emerging AAAJ articles using a structured
literature review (SLR) methodology (Massaro et al., 2016). The SLR methodology advocates
adopting three standard research questions and modifying them to suit the literature review’s
purpose. Therefore, to examine articles published in AAAJ from 1988 to 2016, we propose
three fundamental questions:
RQ1. How have scholarly articles published in AAAJ developed?
RQ2. What are the focus areas and characteristics of articles in AAAJ, and who are the
influential authors?
RQ3. Who are the emerging next generation scholars and what are the emerging
research themes in AAAJ?
By establishing AAAJ’s signposts, the findings and implications help researchers to recognise
how interdisciplinary research continues to evolve and to identify several areas in need of
attention. Specifically, the analyses highlight increased diversity lately in theories, methods,
origins and focus areas, which show that the interdisciplinary accounting research project, as
represented by AAAJ, remains true to the ideal of inclusivity as it matures. Within this
diversity, the analyses show that AAAJ continues to focus on accounting research related to
social issues, including non-financial corporate reporting/disclosure, public sector accounting,
corporate governance and alternative forms of accounting, auditing and accountability.
To present the study, we divide the paper into the following sections. Section 2 offers
a discussion of why citations are an insightful way of investigating the impact of
AAAJ academic accounting research to answer our research questions. Section 3 then details the
31,5 research methodology before Section 4 presents the detailed findings alongside further
meta-analysis. Section 5 provides a discussion and conclusions.
From an accounting perspective, ours is not the first study to use citations to analyse the
impact of accounting research. For example, Rosenstreich and Wooliscroft (2009, p. 227) use
Google Scholar to measure the impact of accounting journals to address the UK’s proposed
Research Excellence Framework to promote “a move towards citation analysis for assessing
research performance”. Ranking journals based on their citations is arguably more
insightful than peer review-based ranking. As Rosenstreich and Wooliscroft (2009, p. 227)
find, several journals are highly ranked regardless of the methodology used and are an
indicator that the journal is of a high quality. However, their study showed significant
variation in rankings across different rankings sources with five of the eight sources being
opinion-based surveys, suggesting that journal rankings depend on “who is being surveyed,
when and how”.
Other forms of peer review are the Australian Business Deans’ Council (ABDC) ranking in
Australia and the Chartered Association of Business Schools ranking in Europe (Broadbent
and Guthrie, 2008). Guthrie and Parker (2014) highlight several serious concerns relating to
these peer reviews, focussing on AAAJ, which is not ranked as highly in some peer-reviewed
systems when compared with those based on citations. One possible reason for this and other
journals’ lower ranking is that the subjective peer ranking systems display a bias towards
US-based journals that publish capital markets research (Andrikopoulos and Kostaris, 2017).
However, interdisciplinary journals like AAAJ continue to be sought-after publishing outlets
with AAAJ receiving over 500 submissions in 2016.
In the global higher education sector, national research performance reporting systems
have been introduced over the past three decades to measure the results of research brought
about by universities (Broadbent, 2010, 2016), and the importance placed on them by
university management and governments is growing (Hicks, 2012). Several governments
have developed national research performance reporting systems for research activities,
such as the Research Excellence Framework in the UK, the Performance-based Research
Fund in New Zealand and Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) (Martin-Sardesai
et al., 2017a). Interestingly, these studies are based on peer review of Business School
research, including accounting and in the Australian case little government funding is
attached to the results.
While these are ranking systems for institutional purposes, they do have an impact on
research as they construct a framework around research quality and individual author
impact, which influences a researcher’s topic and journal choice (Agyemang and Broadbent,
2015). In one study, the ERA ranking system was found to have a significant effect on
Australian university accounting schools and their staff with heads of schools predicting
that the operationalisation of ERA would be problematic because the metrics and reporting
requirements would lead to “gaming” (De Lange et al., 2010). The implementation of ERA as Thirty years
a formal research assessment exercise has increasingly influenced performance reviews and of AAAJ
appointments at the university and department levels (Martin-Sardesai et al., 2017a) and
gaming by universities, faculties and individuals (Martin-Sardesai et al., 2017b).
Another form of quality evaluation is international journal quality metrics. Several of
these are commercial products that are used to rate and rank journals. For example, the
SCImago Journal and Country Ranking (SJR), ISI, Google Scholar metrics and the recent 1513
SCOPUS CiteScore™ index. Each of these ranking systems competes to provide scholars,
and their assessors, with various measures of scholarly impact.
A more granular issue is how to measure the impact of individual authors and their
articles using citation theories. For example, some normative citation studies theorise that
researchers acknowledge the contribution or impact of scholarly work by citing it in their
works (Small, 2004). Thus, the number of citations a publication receives is a measure of its
acceptance and utility. However, a social constructivist theory of citations theorises citation
behaviour as the consequence of a political process, resources and rhetoric, which results in
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
authors favouring the citation of well-known articles and authors over other, perhaps more
suitable, articles (Serenko and Dumay, 2015a).
More recently, Benson et al. (2015) published a review of accounting research in the
Asia-Pacific region relying on Google Scholar data and the ABDC journal rankings to
measure the impact of accounting articles. In their research, Benson et al. (2015, p. 49) use
Google Scholar for citation counts because most of the journals in their sample “are not
currently listed in the Social Science Citation Index and none of the journals has been
covered by SSCI and Scopus throughout their entire history”. Additionally, Dumay
and Cai (2014, 2015) use Google Scholar citations to rank articles because these are the
most current and wide reaching citation analysis available and because Google Scholar
data are freely available, while SSCI and SCOPUS are commercial services, thus
restricting the data from use by many scholars. Additionally, SCOPUS only contains data
from 1996 onwards for journals originally listed in SCOPUS, is still in the process of
updating data back to 1970, and is thus a limited data set. For AAAJ, the SCOPUS data are
recent data collected only from 2005[1].
As an example of citation behaviour, the most cited article in the world is the “Lowry
paper” (Lowry et al., 1951)[2], which outlines a procedure for measuring proteins
(Pendlebury, 1988). When asked why scholars cite the article highly, Lowry answered that
“It filled a need in the beginning – and many people measure proteins. Once it became
established […], other people may have thought it was the method to use, or at least checked
the procedure they were using against it” (Pendlebury, 1988). While methods have
improved since Lowry et al. (1951) wrote their article (see, Bradford, 1976),
the article continues to gain citations with more than 5,000 Google Scholar citations in
2015 alone. It seems the authors’ fame has made this paper a “must cite” despite subsequent
advances in the field.
In accounting, a cited article is Ball and Brown (1968), which introduced the capital
market efficiency hypothesis and has over 7,000 Google Scholar citations, with over 500 of
these occurring in 2015. In comparison to the Lowry paper, and to other disciplines,
accounting articles are not cited as much, most likely because there are few accounting
journals and it is a relatively modern discipline. Also, it is a much narrower discipline than
medicine and other physical sciences. However, articles on issues such as accounting for
social and environmental performance are now increasingly cited. For example, Gray et al.’s
(1995b) article, “Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and
a longitudinal study of UK disclosure”, has nearly 2,500 citations and was cited over
250 times in 2015. Thus, in accounting, the classic articles also have an enduring history and
continue to garner citations long after publication.
AAAJ Compounding the problem of citing popular articles is the advent of technology that
31,5 makes access to older articles easier. As Verstak et al. (2014, p. 1) find in their analysis of
articles published in 2013, 36 per cent of citations were to articles at least ten years old and
this has grown by 28 per cent since 1990. In support of Verstak et al. (2014), Serenko and
Dumay (2015b, p. 1349) studied the citation patterns of knowledge management citation
classics and outline what they term the “Google Scholar Effect”, which occurs:
1514 […] when older classic works continue being cited because they appear in the top ranking results of
Google Scholar, and some authors assume that reviewers and editors may consider such
publications important and expect to see them in the submitted manuscript, regardless of their
actual fit and contribution to the line of research.
Additionally, because of the Google Scholar Effect, almost all the articles analysed in
Serenko and Dumay’s (2015b, p. 1349) study experienced bimodal citation peaks, which is in
contrast to normative citation theory (see, Levitt and Thelwall, 2008, 2009). Therefore, it
seems increasingly likely that classic articles will have a more enduring impact on
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
3. Research methodology
This section discusses the SLR methodology for selecting and reviewing the most influential
articles in AAAJ (Massaro et al., 2016). The SLR methodology and classification system
employed is similar to that found in published articles such as Guthrie et al. (2012), Dumay Thirty years
(2014) and Serenko and Dumay (2015a). The period under study runs from 1988 to 2016, of AAAJ
covering articles published in Volume 1, Issue 1 to Volume 29, Issue 8. This study focusses on
research articles, so the data set does not include publications such as book reviews, calls for
papers, dedications, tributes and creative pieces, such as poems, songs and stories. However,
the data set includes commentaries and editorials because these articles provide researchers
with the motivation and ideas for further research and can be highly cited (Dumay, 2014). 1515
Articles are ranked using Google Scholar citation counts using Harzing’s Publish or
Perish software to retrieve the citation data and to identify the most influential articles
according to the number of citations and CPY[4]. Similar to Benson et al. (2015), Google
Scholar citations are used because it is the only data source that collates citations for all of
AAAJ’s articles. It is not possible to use the SSCI, because AAAJ has only been included in
the SSCI in 2014. Similarly, SCOPUS only lists articles for AAAJ from 2005. Additionally,
Google Scholar data along with SSCI and SCOPUS provide a “sufficient stability of coverage
to be used for more detailed cross-disciplinary comparisons” (Harzing and Alakangas, 2016,
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
p. 787). Thus, if the data had been available, SSCI and SCOPUS data would likely provide
similar results to those obtained using Google Scholar.
All citation counts are as at 16 February 2017. As there are occasional duplicates and
errors in Google Scholar, the data set was manually reviewed and adjusted where
appropriate. The cut-off point for the citation classic analysis was the union of the top 100
most cited AAAJ articles and the top 100 CPY, resulting in 126 articles in total.
This sample we label as our AAAJ citation classics. We argue that 126 articles are needed
for the analysis because the purpose of a literature review is to ensure that the analysis
incorporates a “corpus of scholarly literature, to develop insights, critical reflections,
future research paths and research questions” (Massaro et al., 2016). This is rather than a
narrower selection of say the top 50 most cited articles because the narrower the selection,
the greater the chance that the selection is skewed in some way, for example, the Google
Scholar Effect. Including more articles diminishes the chance of a skewed sample and
represents a core corpus of articles.
Figure 1 is a citation decay chart, with the x-axis showing articles listed in order of
diminishing number of citations, while the y-axis represents the number of citations for
each articles. Figure 1 shows how a relatively small number of articles receive a huge
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100
Note: The tail is longer than the 927 articles we included in our data set because the Publish or Figure 1.
Citation decay for
Perish data also includes references to published poems and other references which we exclude AAAJ articles
Source: Google Scholar data as reported using Harzing’s Publish or Perish software
AAAJ number of citations, while the majority of articles receive fewer citations. This kind of
31,5 distribution is common to all journals. By only concentrating our research on a relatively
select few articles, such as the top 50 cited articles, it is not possible to get a comprehensive
picture of the range of articles AAAJ publishes. Therefore, the 126 classic articles ensure
we have enough articles over 30 years to make adequate comparisons of their
contributions over time, while at the same time filtering out articles that have not had the
1516 same level of impact.
In addition to the 126 articles selected based on total number of citations and CPY, the
top cited five articles from each year from 2013 onwards were selected to reflect emerging
articles because an article published in the last few years has had little opportunity to garner
citations and could not compete with articles published long ago (Dumay, 2014). As there
was a tie for fifth in 2016, an additional article is included, resulting in a total of 21 articles
identified in this way as emerging articles. The 147 selected classic and emerging articles
have been cited 46,155 times out of 78,836 for all AAAJ articles, thus being responsible for
58.5 per cent of all citations. Thus, we argue that these articles represent a corpus of articles
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
4 2.5
C3. Private – others 8 5.0
C4. Public sector 17 10.6
C5. Not for profit 13 8.1
C6. Undeterminable 4 2.5
C7. Not applicable 58 36.3
Total 160 100
D. Country of research or first author
D1. Asia 10 6.6
D2. Australasia 41 27.2
D3. Continental Europe 26 17.2
D4. North America 22 14.6
D5. United Kingdom 52 34.4
Total 151 100
E. Accounting focus
E1. Accountability 12 7.4
E2. Accounting 64 39.5
E3. Audit 5 3.1
E4. Corporate disclosures (reporting) 72 44.4
E5. Others 9 5.6
Total 162 100
F. Research methods
F1. Case/field study/interviews/action research 36 22.2
F2. Content analysis/historical analysis/other textual analysis 50 30.8
F3. Survey/questionnaire/other empirical 17 10.5
F4. Theoretical/normative/policy 28 17.3
F5. Literature review 15 9.3
F6. Viewpoint/commentary 16 9.9
Total 162 100
G. Theory applied
G1. Theory not applied 67 45.6
G2. Theory applied 80 54.4
Total 147 100
G2. Theory applied
G2.1. Agency theory 10 10.3
G2.2. Critical theory 8 8.2
G2.3. Institutional theory 11 11.3 Table I.
G2.4. Legitimacy theory 42 43.4 Analytical
G2.5. Other theories 26 26.8 framework and
Total 97 100 results (1988-2016)
AAAJ insights we develop from our results. Also, rather than taking an overly granular approach,
31,5 we present our findings in five-year blocks for citation classic articles and a final four-year
block (2013-2016) for the emerging articles as shown in Figure 2.
As Figure 2 shows, the highest number of citation class articles appears in the period
from 2003 to 2007. However, this also coincides with a period of increasing number of
articles. The citations for articles for 2008-2012 and 2013-2016 are lower despite the
1518 increased number of articles published in AAAJ because it takes considerable time for
articles to garner a high number of citations (Dumay, 2014; Serenko and Dumay, 2015a).
More importantly, there are proportionately more citation classic articles published in the
first period from 1988 to 1992. While this may be because these articles have had more time
to garner citations, it is also evidence that articles in the early years of AAAJ are highly
relevant to interdisciplinary accounting scholars from the journal’s beginnings.
Table II highlights the top 10 articles by total citations. The analysis using citations is
useful because it helps us identify the AAAJ articles and authors whose work has the most
academic impact.
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
Table III highlights the top 10 articles by CPY over AAAJ’s history. While Gray et al.
(1995b) is the most cited article (2,512), Deegan’s (2002) article has the most CPY (131.4).
Thus, while both articles continue to be well cited on the basis of CPY, Deegan’s (2002)
article is the top AAAJ article, and if current citation trends continue, it will overtake Gray
et al.’s (1995b) article at some point in time.
250 40
34 35
200
29 30
Classics and emerging articles
25
25
150
Total articles
21
19 19 20
100
15
10
Figure 2. 50
AAAJ citation classic 5
and emerging articles
compared to total
articles (1988-2016) 0 0
1988-1992 1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 2013-2016
Author (year) Title Cites
Thirty years
of AAAJ
Gray et al. (1995b) Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature
and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure 2,512
Deegan (2002) Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental
disclosures – a theoretical foundation 1,971
Hackston and Milne (1996) Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in
New Zealand companies 1,788 1519
Deegan and Rankin (1996) Do Australian companies report the environmental news objectively?
An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted
successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority 1,044
Gray et al. (1995a) Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting
by UK companies 1,044
Milne and Adler (1999) Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content
analysis 1,012
Deegan et al. (2002) An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of
BHP from 1983-1997: a test of legitimacy theory 989
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
For example, while the Editors of this journal, Lee Parker and James Guthrie, are in the
later stages of their careers, they show no signs of a diminishing academic output. Thus,
while some noted authors have passed away (e.g. Reg Mathews), older accounting
academics, such as Jesse Dillard, remain active and build on their previous success, much
like famous rockers who remain active into their 60s and 70s.
In addition to the success of older foundational authors there are authors such as
Carol Adams and Niamh Brennan who established themselves as leading authors in AAAJ’s
second decade and who continue to publish articles. Then there are several new faces who
appear in AAAJ in the last few years as authors of classic and emerging articles, such as
articles are cited, as per the Lowry paper, because these are the seminal articles, and
not citing them would see an author rebuked by reviewers for not citing the classics.
A virtuous cycle of citations is created because accounting researchers are comfortable with
using citation classics and reviewers like to see them.
However, it is also the responsibility of AAAJ authors and reviewers to ensure that
articles engage with newer concepts and discourses in the literature, rather than the tried
and tested formulas that get published, which unfortunately have less relevance. It is also
the responsibility of researchers to ensure they critique the older articles and ensure that
new research makes a difference and explores new ground, as these are the articles that will
have impact in the future. For instance, the articles published in the 2014 special issue on
integrated reporting exemplify articles exploring new ground that are being cited now, and
predictably into the future (e.g. de Villiers et al., 2014).
4.1.2 Institutions. Understanding the impact of different institutions is also related to
discovering whether there is a Matthew or Superstar effect. To calculate institutional
productivity we use an equal credit method, with each institution receiving a score of 1/n,
with n representing the number of authors. For example, with a single-authored article, the
institution receives a 1.0 score, while an article with two authors receives 0.5, a paper with
three authors 0.33, and so on. We use the equal credit method because it is easy to use and
provides comparable results based on more complicated position ranking approaches
(Serenko and Jiao, 2012; Serenko and Dumay, 2015a). Table V lists the top ten institutions.
While the results represented in Table V show that the University of Manchester
is the most dominant institution, it is not enough to argue for the presence of a Matthew
(Tucker and Schaltegger, 2016). B1.2. Supra-national – organisational includes articles that
examine one organisation with international operations, commonly multinational enterprises
(e.g. Mouritsen et al., 2001). The same logic is applied to B2. National – general (e.g. Clatworthy
and Jones, 2001; Bebbington et al., 2009), B2.1. National – industry (e.g. Magness, 2006), and
B2.2. National – organisation (e.g. Siti‐Nabiha and Scapens, 2005), but on a national scale rather
than an international scale. B3. One organisation includes the examination of one major
organisation with a dominant base (e.g. Adams and McNicholas, 2007; Islam and Deegan,
2008), an organisation operating in multiple locations is coded under B1.2. or B2.2.
As Figure 3 shows, the majority of articles are generalised to an international setting.
The other attributes are spread out and the second largest category was National – general.
Therefore, we find that when it comes to jurisdiction, the articles do not tend to focus on
specific industries or organisations. Much academic research is critiqued for being out of
touch with practice, and the articles that make up AAAJ’s impact from an academic
perspective generally address wider accounting issues rather than practical issues.
80%
70%
B1. Supra-national/international/
comparative – general
60%
B1.1. Supra-national/international/
comparative – industry
50%
B1.2. Supra-national/international/
comparative – organisational
40%
B2. National – general
30%
B2.1. National – industry
covers all other privately owned organisational forms, inclusive of wholly owned
subsidiaries and family-owned businesses (e.g. Archel et al., 2009). C4. Public sector relates
to studies on state-owned enterprises, governmental authorities and public-private
partnerships (e.g. Cormier and Gordon, 2001; Modell, 2009). C5. Not for profit includes any
organisational form that does not operate primarily for profit, inclusive of accounting
professions, unions and non-governmental organisations (e.g. Gray et al., 2006). C6.
Undeterminable captures articles that did not provide detail of the organisation under study
due to confidentiality reasons (e.g. Adams, 2004). C7. Not applicable includes research on
organisational stakeholders (e.g. Solomon and Solomon, 2006), or articles that have a general
focus, for instance, literature reviews (e.g. Humphrey, 2008).
The dominant attribute for papers with an identifiable organisational focus is C1. Public
listed, and many of these are associated with disclosure studies of social and environmental
accounting. It is worth noting that both C4. Public sector and C5. Not for profit have low
representation while C2. Private SMEs is represented in only four articles.
Similar to other accounting review studies, the publicly listed companies bear the brunt
of academic research and citations, while they represent a minority fraction of economic
activity in most developed economies (Dumay et al., 2015). The interest is likely to extend
from a public interest perspective, because these companies are generally more visible to
academics and the public because they supply the goods and services we choose to consume
and their behaviour, especially socially and environmentally, is being challenged. It is no
longer acceptable that value creation emanates solely from an economic perspective and
publicly listed companies need to be cognisant of how they impact society and the
environment (Dumay, 2016).
From an academic research perspective it also seems much easier to gather information
from publicly listed companies as all listed companies produce annual reports through
regulated disclosures and thousands of listed companies voluntarily produce corporate
social responsibility and environmental reports (Dumay, 2016). This makes these companies
targets for accounting research because their information is easily attained, and they are
also the subject of ample press coverage through involuntary disclosures by third parties
(Dumay and Guthrie, 2017), and from financial information intermediaries (Healy and
Palepu, 2001). Thus, the AAAJ citation classic articles on social and environmental
disclosures may be cited because it would be remiss of authors not to cite those popular
works. Meanwhile, other fruitful and relevant areas of accounting research into SMEs,
public sector and third sector continue to be under represented in research and
subsequently this research is not as highly cited, because of its lack of popularity with
researchers (Figure 4).
AAAJ 60%
31,5
50% C1. Public listed
(information disguised)
Figure 4.
Organisational focus
of articles (1988-2016) 0%
1988-1992 1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 2013-2016
40%
35%
1525
30% D1. Asia
D2. Australasia
25%
D3. Continental Europe
D5. UK
15%
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
10%
Figure 5.
5%
Country of research or
first author of articles
0% (1988-2016)
1988-1992 1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 2013-2016
80%
70%
60%
E1. Accountability
50%
E2. Accounting
E4. Corporate
30%
disclosures (reporting)
E5. Others
20%
10%
Figure 6.
Accounting focus of
articles (1988-2016) 0%
1988-1992 1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 2013-2016
introduction, editorial pieces, commentaries and general discussions (e.g. Parker et al., 2011; Thirty years
de Villiers et al., 2014). of AAAJ
As Table I shows, for the criteria F. Research methods, the dominant attribute was F2.
Content analysis/historical analysis/other textual analysis, and this is represented by a third
of the articles overall. The second largest category is F1. Case/field study/interviews/action
research and these qualitative research methods are represented in a fifth of the sample
articles. The least significant attributes within these research methods criteria are F6. 1527
Viewpoint commentary (9.9 per cent), and F5. Literature reviews (9.3 per cent).
However, when examining research methods over time, Figure 7 shows how F2. Content
analysis/historical analysis/other textual analysis, peaks during the 1998-2002 period, which
is the same period when Corporate disclosures was a dominant research subject. However,
while E4. Corporate disclosures remain a dominant research subject, we observe a
significant shift in the type of highly cited articles towards F1. Case/field study/interviews/
action research. Guthrie and Parker’s various editorials have argued for the shift for some
time. For example, Guthrie and Parker (2004, p. 8) in their editorial “Diversity and AAAJ:
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
45%
40%
5%
Figure 7.
Research methods of
0% articles (1988-2016)
1988-1992 1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 2013-2016
AAAJ research that provided the basis for the 1988-1992 period has declined sharply in the
31,5 following two periods, it is making a resurgence and still finds a place among researchers
citing emerging articles in AAAJ.
We argue that normative research is continually needed as it questions current theory
and practice to propose new ways forward, and it is the subsequent role of F1. Case/field
study/interviews/action research to examine these normative prescriptions in practice.
1528 For example, AAAJ recently published a special issue on integrated reporting, from which
several papers appear in the list of emerging articles, the most cited being the introductory
article by de Villiers et al. (2014) entitled “Integrated Reporting: Insights, gaps and an
agenda for future research”. The article presents several interesting prospects for future
research into integrated reporting, and is being followed up by another AAAJ special
issue about integrated reporting practice, due to be published in 2018. Thus, we
can observe how normative research is followed by research into practice, on a topical and
controversial accounting topic that integrated reporting theory and practice currently
represents (Dumay et al., 2016).
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
60%
50%
1529
G2.1 Agency theory
20%
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
10%
Figure 8.
Theory applied in
0% articles (1988-2016)
1988-1992 1993-1997 1998-2002 2003-2007 2008-2012 2013-2016
emerging articles. While the Other attribute represents 50 per cent of the articles in the
2013-2016 period, there are no common theories used that might justify another attribute
category. Among the emerging articles, legitimacy theory is the only theory used more than
once – other theories used are agency theory, institutional theory and critical theory based
on notions from Bourdieu. Thus, emerging articles use a diverse range of theories, which
demonstrates that interdisciplinary research is open to different theoretical perspectives,
and is not wedded to traditional social theories such as legitimacy theory that have
dominated AAAJ in the past. As Carnegie and Napier (2017) outline, the diversity of AAAJ
continues to be one of its strongest features.
A point worth making here is that we are surprised by the lack of critical theory
considering there are more case studies of accounting in practice, which should not only be
described, but also need critique. As Dumay et al. (2016, p. 176) argue, we need to develop a
critical discourse about emerging accounting practices, rather than “unquestioningly
accept” new accounting practices and laud their benefits before they are put to the test.
While AAAJ is not specifically a critical accounting journal it does encourage and call for
critical submissions (Carnegie and Napier, 2017). Thus, there is an opportunity for more
critical research that has impact in other leading accounting journals such as Critical
Perspectives on Accounting.
Additionally, it is worth noting that because some articles are literature reviews, general
reviews and methodological articles, many highly cited articles are not grounded in theory.
Guthrie and Parker’s (2017, p. 12) recent commentary identifies challenges confronting
interdisciplinary researchers in a global academic community, including some members of
the academy’s obsession with “theoretical engorgement”:
Our interdisciplinary accounting research field might best be characterised as now exhibiting
“theoretical engorgement,” whereby a paper becomes littered with theoretical discussion and
contemplation from the beginning to the end, to the exclusion of a serious focus on or resolution of
the issue(s) it initially set out to address. This phenomenon has become akin to goal displacement
where the means of research have become an end in themselves. Such is the pervasiveness and
volume of theoretical introspection required within many papers that they become dominated by
AAAJ theoretical narrative and reflection from beginning to end. Their subject matter, empirics, issues
31,5 and issue-related conclusions are consequently relegated or indeed entirely buried in a concern with
theoretical insights, theory contribution and frankly, we suspect, theoretical window dressing.
Thus, considering that scholars increasingly cite research based on practice, now is the time
for us, as accounting scholars, to leave our academic ivory towers and concentrate on
translating theory into practice. One way to do so is through interventionist research whereby
1530 the researcher makes both a theoretical and practical contribution. It is a methodology
particularly suited to studying management accounting (Dumay and Baard, 2017).
classics will remain the most highly cited articles or whether some of the more recent articles
have the potential to reach the levels of citations seen among the all-time classics. It is
instructive that the most cited AAAJ article of all time (Grey et al., 1995b) was cited
265 times during 2015, while the most cited article since 2013 (de Villiers et al., 2014) only
garnered 39 citations during 2015. Of course, articles with a high number of existing
citations appear high up in Google Scholar searches, a popular way for scholars to identify
relevant articles. Will these earlier articles always remain popular, or will they eventually
“fall off the radar” because they are considered too old when scholars specify a cut-off date
when conducting searches?
The rest of this section progresses under three sub-headings that discuss how the
research published in AAAJ has progressed; critiques the published research; and identifies
implications for prospective AAAJ authors. However, note that there is a significant amount
of overlap among these sub-headings.
publications from AAAJ, while the remainder consider articles from other journals.
Therefore, what we represent below is not an exact matching of the seven categories, but a
blend of the categories we analysed in different categories, because not all papers can be
classified using these categories, and the categories are not mutually exclusive (e.g. public
sector and management accounting research).
The purpose of this discussion is to compare the topics that were identified as being of
interest to AAAJ readers a decade ago with the articles identified in this study to establish
whether these topics can be seen as important based on citations. Table VI shows that, with
the exception of “Accounting history”, there is continued interest in the topics identified.
However, what is evident when looking at the number of papers and citations, and average
citations, is that the core academic impact of AAAJ comes from articles on social and
environmental accounting. However, a large number and percentage of the highly cited
articles in our sample do not fall into any of the categories identified ten years ago.
In essence, AAAJ continues its role as an outlet for social and environmental accounting,
while at the same time it continues to publish classic articles on a diverse range of topics.
We argue the interest in social and environmental accounting is important for society and
the future of the planet.
5.4 Critique
Interdisciplinary accounting scholars often feel under-appreciated by their North American
colleagues and those in other countries who follow economics-based research methodologies
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
and theories that have remained largely unchanged for decades. However, the community of
interdisciplinary scholars should take pride in their supportive, all-inclusive attitude, and
their refusal to be constrained by forms of enquiry that had been predetermined by
intellectual elites. Arguably, the only form of exclusion that is evident from an analysis of
AAAJ articles is an under-representation of economics-based accounting research.
Nevertheless, the authors of this paper believe it is important for the interdisciplinary
accounting project and AAAJ to remain vigilant to the identification and eradication of
subtle forms of exclusion, that is, to remain open to alternative approaches and not to
exclude these approaches under the pretence that they do not meet certain quality standards
or are not sufficiently critical in nature.
The analyses in this paper shows that AAAJ citation classics articles are not only cited
by other accounting journals such as Critical Perspectives on Accounting, but are
increasingly noticed by, and cited in, the management and sustainability literature, for
example, in Journal of Business Ethics and Journal of Cleaner Production. From an
interdisciplinary perspective, this is a significant trend. There are opportunities to cooperate
with colleagues in management, marketing, engineering and sustainability, to mention but a
few fields, thereby strengthening our interdisciplinarity and enabling the examination of
new research questions that relate to the accounting/society nexus, but require the expertise
of colleagues from outside accounting. In addition to broadening our horizons,
interdisciplinary researchers should support interdisciplinary research by way of
citations. Citation counts remain an important, and arguably the only objective, way to
demonstrate the relevance and impact of research, including interdisciplinary research.
AAAJ’s publisher, Emerald, reports that the journal continues to grow in terms of
downloads, with over 350,000 for 2016. In terms of the top 10 countries by downloads, the
UK and Australia dominate. AAAJ special issues continued to be strongly downloaded
during 2016 with the top 3 by download being the 2002 special issue on Social and
Environmental Reporting and its role in maintaining or creating organisational legitimacy,
the 2014 special issue on Integrated Reporting and the 2016 special issue entitled Social
Accounting for Human Rights. Even though this human rights special issue was only
published early in 2016, it had, by January 2017, already been downloaded over 6,000 times.
Since 2013, overall citations of AAAJ articles have increased by 28 per cent, the impact
factor has increased by around 30 per cent, and the impact factor prediction for 2016
estimates a further 30 per cent increase.
Several contemporary issues are bringing significant change to the journal publishing
world, including the increasing importance of journal rankings, open access, Google Scholar,
ResearchGate, social media and big data (Guthrie et al., 2015). However, AAAJ’s
foundational core values remain to fully embrace the interdisciplinary accounting project Thirty years
and to support and publish research aimed at promoting equality and fairness in society. of AAAJ
A review of the Appendix provides insights into emerging and new focus areas that will be
published in AAAJ. In addition, AAAJ remains committed to publishing research related,
and accessible, to all four parts of the accounting profession – accounting educators and
researchers, professional bodies, policy makers and practitioners (see, Laughlin, 2011;
Venter and De Villiers, 2013). 1533
5.5 Implications for prospective AAAJ authors
Amongst the recent most cited AAAJ articles, 40 per cent provided a synthesis of research
ideas. This kind of overview article is often the lead article in an AAAJ special issue, and
gives a “big picture” view of the state of the research field as well as pointing towards
research opportunities. To the extent that these opportunities are taken up by the research
community, these articles can provide the catalyst for combined efforts within the
interdisciplinary research community. Prospective authors could use these agenda-setting
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
5.6 Limitations
This study’s main limitation relates to critique based on using citations as an equal measure of
an article’s quality. As outlined in our discussion of citations, we recognise that a citation from
a well-recognised scholar from a highly ranked peer-reviewed journal is not the same as
citation from a postgraduate student in a thesis. However, we argue that AAAJ citations are of
an above average quality because AAAJ has above average CiteScore, SJR and SNIP scores.
AAAJ Thus, we do not provide a detailed source analysis of the citations associated with our articles
31,5 because such an analysis is beyond the scope of our study, and we recognise this as a
limitation of our findings. Additionally, other researchers, given the same data, may not draw
the same conclusions we do, and this is a further limitation.
Notes
1534 1. See www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=130105&tip=sid&clean=0 (accessed 13 August 2017).
2. As at 27 February 2016 the Lowry article has 195,373 and 325,412 citations in Google Scholar and
Web of Science, respectively.
3. See www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=1400&category=1402 (accessed 13 August 2017).
4. Citations per year are calculated as follows (2016−Year of publication)/Total citations.
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
References
Abeydeera, S., Tregidga, H. and Kearins, K. (2016), “Sustainability reporting – more global than local?”,
Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 478-504.
Adams, C.A. (2002), “Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting:
beyond current theorising”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 223-250.
Adams, C.A. (2004), “The ethical, social and environmental reporting – performance portrayal gap”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 731-757.
Adams, C.A. and McNicholas, P. (2007), “Making a difference: sustainability reporting, accountability
and organisational change”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 382-402.
Agyemang, G. and Broadbent, J. (2015), “Management control systems and research management in
universities: an empirical and conceptual exploration”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1018-1046.
Andrikopoulos, A. and Kostaris, K. (2017), “Collaboration networks in accounting research”, Journal of
International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Vol. 28, pp. 1-9.
Archel, P., Husillos, J., Larrinaga, C. and Spence, C. (2009), “Social disclosure, legitimacy theory and the
role of the state”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1284-1307.
Ball, R. and Brown, P. (1968), “An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers”, Journal of
Accounting Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 159-178.
Beattie, V. and Emmanuel, C. (2008), “The British Accounting Review review process – evidence from
1997 to 2006”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 199-206.
Bebbington, J., Higgins, C. and Frame, B. (2009), “Initiating sustainable development reporting:
evidence from New Zealand”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 588-625.
Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C. and Moneva, J.M. (2008), “Corporate social reporting and reputation risk
management”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 337-361.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B. and Thomson, I. (2007), “Theorizing engagement: the potential
of a critical dialogic approach”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 356-381.
Belal, A.R. and Owen, D.L. (2007), “The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future
prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh: an engagement‐based study”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 472-494.
Benson, K., Clarkson, P.M., Smith, T. and Tutticci, I. (2015), “A review of accounting research in the
Asia Pacific region”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 36-88.
Boesso, G. and Kumar, K. (2007), “Drivers of corporate voluntary disclosure: a framework and Thirty years
empirical evidence from Italy and the United States”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability of AAAJ
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 269-296.
Boiral, O. (2013), “Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1036-1071.
Bradford, M.M. (1976), “A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of
protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding”, Analytical Biochemistry, Vol. 72 Nos 1-2,
pp. 248-254.
1535
Brennan, N.M. and Solomon, J. (2008), “Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of
accountability: an overview”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 7,
pp. 885-906.
Broadbent, J. (2010), “The UK research assessment exercise: performance measurement and resource
allocation”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 14-23.
Broadbent, J. (2016), “The ‘real’ impact factor: reflections on the impact of the research excellence
framework”, Financial Reporting, Vol. 2016 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
Broadbent, J. and Guthrie, J. (2008), “Public sector to public services: 20 years of ‘contextual’ accounting
research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-169.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2003), “Public private partnerships: an introduction”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 332-341.
Bukh, P.N., Nielsen, C., Gormsen, P. and Mouritsen, J. (2005), “Disclosure of information on intellectual
capital in Danish IPO prospectuses”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18
No. 6, pp. 713-732.
Burns, J. (2000), “The dynamics of accounting change inter‐play between new practices, routines,
institutions, power and politics”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 566-596.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (2017), “The Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal community
in its 30th year”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 1642-1676.
Clatworthy, M. and Jones, M.J. (2001), “The effect of thematic structure on the variability of annual
report readability”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 311-326.
Cooper, C. (1992a), “M[othering] view on: ‘some feminisms and their implications for accounting
practice’ ”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 71-75.
Cooper, C. (1992b), “The non and nom of accounting for (m)other nature”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 16-39.
Cormier, D. and Gordon, I.M. (2001), “An examination of social and environmental reporting
strategies”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 587-617.
De Lange, P., O’Connell, B., Mathews, M.R. and Sangster, A. (2010), “The ERA: a brave new world of
accountability for Australian university accounting schools”, Australian Accounting Review,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 24-37.
de Villiers, C. and Dumay, J. (2013), “Construction of research articles in the leading interdisciplinary
accounting journals”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 876-910.
de Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L. and Unerman, J. (2014), “Integrated reporting: insights, gaps and an agenda
for future research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1042-1067.
Deegan, C. (2002), “Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a
theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 282-311.
Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1996), “Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively?:
an analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the environmental
protection authority”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 50-67.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Tobin, J. (2002), “An examination of the corporate social and environmental
disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: a test of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 312-343.
AAAJ Dillard, J.F., Rigsby, J.T. and Goodman, C. (2004), “The making and remaking of organization context:
31,5 duality and the institutionalization process”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 506-542.
Dumay, J. (2014), “15 years of the Journal of Intellectual Capital and counting: a manifesto for
transformational IC research”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 2-37.
Dumay, J. (2016), “A critical reflection on the future of intellectual capital: from reporting to disclosure”,
1536 Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 168-184.
Dumay, J. and Baard, V. (2017), “An introduction to interventionist research in accounting”, in Hoque, Z.,
Parker, L.D., Covaleski, M. and Haynes, K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative
Accounting Research Methods, Routledge, Taylor and Francis, Oxfordshire, pp. 265-283.
Dumay, J. and Cai, L. (2014), “A review and critique of content analysis as a methodology for inquiring
into IC disclosure”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 264-290.
Dumay, J. and Cai, L. (2015), “Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating
intellectual capital disclosure”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 121-155.
Dumay, J. and Guthrie, J. (2017), “Involuntary disclosure of intellectual capital: is it relevant?”, Journal
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
Healy, P.M. and Palepu, K.G. (2001), “Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital
markets: a review of the empirical disclosure literature”, Journal of Accounting and Economics,
Vol. 31 Nos 1-3, pp. 405-440.
Hicks, D. (2012), “Performance-based university research funding systems”, Research Policy, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 251-261.
Hopwood, A.G. (1990), “Accounting and organisation change”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 7-17.
Hoque, Z., Covaleski, M.A. and Gooneratne, T.N. (2013), “Theoretical triangulation and pluralism in
research methods in organizational and accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1170-1198.
Humphrey, C. (2008), “Auditing research: a review across the disciplinary divide”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 170-203.
Humphrey, C., Miller, P. and Scapens, R.W. (1993), “Accountability and accountable management in the
UK public sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 7-29.
Islam, M.A. and Deegan, C. (2008), “Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to
report social responsibility information: evidence from Bangladesh”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 850-874.
Jacobs, K. and Cuganesan, S. (2014), “Interdisciplinary accounting research in the public sector:
dissolving boundaries to tackle wicked problems”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1250-1256.
Justesen, L. and Mouritsen, J. (2011), “Effects of actor-network theory in accounting research”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 161-193.
Langfield‐Smith, K. (2008), “Strategic management accounting: how far have we come in 25 years?”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 204-228.
Laughlin, R. (1995), “Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for ‘middle-
range’ thinking”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 63-87.
Laughlin, R. (2011), “Accounting research, policy and practice: worlds together or worlds apart?”,
in Evans, E., Burritt, R. and Guthrie, J. (Eds), Bridging the Gap Between Academic Accounting
Research and Professional Practice, The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia,
Sydney, pp. 21-32.
Levitt, J. and Thelwall, M. (2008), “Patterns of annual citation of highly cited articles and the prediction
of their citation ranking: a comparison across subjects”, Scientometrics, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Levitt, J. and Thelwall, M. (2009), “The most highly cited library and information science articles:
interdisciplinarity, first authors and citation patterns”, Scientometrics, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 45-67.
AAAJ Lowry, O.H., Rosebrough, N.J., Farr, A.L. and Randall, R.J. (1951), “Protein measurement with the Folin
31,5 phenol reagent”, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 193 No. 1, pp. 265-275.
Luther, R.G., Matatko, J. and Corner, D.C. (1992), “The investment performance of UK ‘ethical’ unit
trusts”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 57-70.
McKinnon, J. (1988), “Reliability and validity in field research: some strategies and tactics”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 34-54.
1538 Magness, V. (2006), “Strategic posture, financial performance and environmental disclosure: an
empirical test of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 540-563.
Martin-Sardesai, A., Irvine, H., Tooley, S. and Guthrie, J. (2017a), “Accounting for research: academic
responses to research performance demands in an Australian university”, Australian
Accounting Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 329-343.
Martin-Sardesai, A., Irvine, H., Tooley, S. and Guthrie, J. (2017b), “Government research evaluations
and academic freedom: a UK and Australian comparison”, Higher Education Research &
Development, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 372-385.
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
Massaro, M., Dumay, J. and Guthrie, J. (2016), “On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a structured
literature review in accounting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 767-801.
Mathews, M.R. (1997), “Twenty‐five years of social and environmental accounting research: is
there a silver jubilee to celebrate?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 481-531.
Maunders, K.T. and Burritt, R.L. (1991), “Accounting and ecological crisis”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 9-26.
Meer‐Kooistra, J.V.D. and Zijlstra, S.M. (2001), “Reporting on intellectual capital”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 456-476.
Meho, L.I. and Yang, K. (2007), “Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty:
Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar”, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58 No. 13, pp. 2105-2125.
Merkl‐Davies, D.M., Brennan, N.M. and McLeay, S.J. (2011), “Impression management and retrospective
sense‐making in corporate narratives: a social psychology perspective”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 315-344.
Merton, R.K. (1968), “The Matthew effect in science”, Science, Vol. 159 No. 3810, pp. 56-63.
Merton, R.K. (1988), “The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of
intellectual property”, Isis, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 606-623.
Milne, M., Guthrie, J. and Parker, L. (2008), “Into the light and engagement: two decades of
interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting, auditing and accountability research”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 117-128.
Milne, M.J. and Adler, R.W. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures
content analysis”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 237-256.
Milne, M.J., Tregidga, H. and Walton, S. (2009), “Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable
development reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8,
pp. 1211-1257.
Mir, M.Z. and Rahaman, A.S. (2005), “The adoption of international accounting standards in
Bangladesh: an exploration of rationale and process”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 816-841.
Modell, S. (2009), “Bundling management control innovations: a field study of organisational
experimenting with total quality management and the balanced scorecard”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 59-90.
Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H.T. and Bukh, P.N. (2001), “Valuing the future: intellectual capital supplements
at Skandia”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 399-422.
Murray, A., Sinclair, D., Power, D. and Gray, R. (2006), “Do financial markets care about social and Thirty years
environmental disclosure?: further evidence and exploration from the UK”, Accounting, Auditing of AAAJ
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 228-255.
O’Donovan, G. (2002), “Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability and
predictive power of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 344-371.
O’Dwyer, B. (2003), “Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture”, 1539
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 523-557.
Orij, R. (2010), “Corporate social disclosures in the context of national cultures and stakeholder theory”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 868-889.
Owen, D. (2008), “Chronicles of wasted time?: a personal reflection on the current state of, and future
prospects for, social and environmental accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 240-267.
Parker, L.D. and Roffey, B.H. (1997), “Methodological themes: back to the drawing board: revisiting
grounded theory and the everyday accountant’s and manager’s reality”, Accounting, Auditing &
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
banking, food and beverages and hotel industries”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 624-635.
Tucker, B.P. and Schaltegger, S. (2016), “Comparing the research-practice gap in management
accounting: a view from professional accounting bodies in Australia and Germany”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 362-400.
Turley, S. and Zaman, M. (2007), “Audit committee effectiveness: informal processes and behavioural
effects”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 765-788.
Unerman, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (2006), “On James Bond and the importance of NGO accountability”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 305-318.
Venter, E. and De Villiers, C. (2013), “The accounting profession’s influence on academe: South African
evidence”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1246-1278.
Verbeeten, F.H.M. (2008), “Performance management practices in public sector organizations: impact
on performance”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 427-454.
Verstak, A., Acharya, A., Suzuki, H., Henderson, S., Iakhiaev, M., Lin, C.C.Y. and Shetty, N. (2014), “On
the shoulders of giants: the growing impact of older articles”, available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/
1411.027 (accessed 16 November 2014).
Walker, S.P. (2008), “Innovation, convergence and argument without end in accounting history”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 296-322.
Zeghal, D. and Ahmed, S.A. (1990), “Comparison of social responsibility information disclosure media
used by Canadian firms”, Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 38-53.
Corresponding author
John Dumay can be contacted at: john.dumay@mq.edu.au
Downloaded by Nagoya University At 02:54 21 June 2018 (PT)
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com