Investigación En Contabilidad: Una Visión Crítica De La Situación Actual Y Perspectivas
Accounting Research: A Critical View Of The Present Situation And Prospects
Resumen
En este estudio hacemos una revisión crítica de los procedimientos vigentes en la comunidad académica contable para la generación de conocimiento y su publicación. Exponemos que hay pocas revistas académicas para publicar la investigación contable, que éstas publican pocos artículos, aplican elevadas tasas de rechazo y el proceso de revisión es lento y costoso. Además, hay un predominio de una elite académica sin precedentes en otras disciplinas de empresa, lo cual se refleja en un mayor porcentaje de artículos pertenecientes a autores afiliados a un pequeño número de instituciones académicas, y el predominio de ciertos temas y metodologías. La disciplina no presenta los rasgos de colaboración, interactividad y flexibilidad propios de las comunidades dinámicas e innovadoras en la producción de conocimiento. El funcionamiento de la disciplina está más orientado al control que al avance del conocimiento. Los procedimientos seguidos en la disciplina no son los más apropiados para favorecer el éxito en la investigación. En consecuencia, los académicos contables presentan poca producción investigadora y tienen dificultades para desarrollar con éxito una carrera investigadora. Lo que es aún más importante, la disciplina ofrece pocas posibilidades de generar investigación crítica en cuestiones sociales y medioambientales. Este trabajo analiza también la situación institucional en España, aduciendo que los requisitos exigidos para alcanzar posiciones de estabilidad académica son difíciles de conseguir para los académicos que se dedican a la contabilidad. Ponemos de relieve la necesidad de tomar conciencia del problema, como primer paso para cambiar el funcionamiento de la disciplina.
Descargas
Citas
[Abdel-Khalik and Ajinkya, 1979] A.R. Abdel-Khalik, B.B. Ajinkya. Empirical research in accounting: a methodological viewpoint. American Accounting Association, (1979)
[ACAPDT, (2007)] ACAPDT.(2007) Accounting faculty in the U.S. Colleges and Universitues: status and trends, 1993-2004 (available at: http://www.treasury.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/12032007/Leslie120307.pdf
[Adair, 1982] R.K. Adair. A physics editor comments on Peters and Cecis peer-review study. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (1982), pp. 196
[Adams and Whelan, 2009] C.A. Adams, G. Whelan. Conceptualising fuure changes in corporate sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22 (2009), pp. 118-143
[Anderson et al., 1997] J.R. Anderson, L.M. Reder, H.A. Simon. Situative versus cognitive perspectives: form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26 (1997), pp. 18-21
[AN Programa et al., 2008] ANECA Programa Academia. (2008). Principios y orientaciones para la aplicación de los criterios de evaluación. V.1.0 9/01/2008.
[Arnold, 2009] P.J. Arnold. Global financial crisis: the challenge to accounting research. Accounting. Organizations and Society, 34 (2009), pp. 803-809
[Baker and Bettner, 1997] C.R. Baker, M.S. Bettner. Interpretative and critical research in accounting: a commentary on its absence from mainstream accounting research. Critical perspectives on Accounting, 8 (1997), pp. 293-310
[Baldwin et al., 2010] A.A. Baldwin, C.E. Brown, B.S. Trinkle. Accounting doctoral programs: a multidimensional description. Advances in Accounting Education, 11 (2010), pp. 101-128
[Ballas and Theodorakis, 2003] A. Ballas, V. Theodorakis. Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal perceptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20 (2003), pp. 619-644
[Beard et al., 1985] L.H. Beard, F.A. Jacobs, A.L. Hartgraves. Publications: a valid measure of faculty contribution?. Journal of Acounting education, 3 (1985), pp. 155-161
[Beattie, 2004] V. Beattie. Tradiciones de investigación en contabilidad financiera. Metodología de la investigación en finanzas y contabilidad, pp. 129-154
[Bereiter, 2002] C. Bereiter. Education and mind in the knowledge age. Lawrence Erlbaum, (2002)
[Bornmann and Daniel, 2009] L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel. Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Research Evaluation, 18 (2009), pp. 262-272
[Brinn et al., 2001] T. Brinn, M. Jones, M. Pendlebury. Why do UK accounting and finance academics not publish in top US journals?. British Accounting Review, 33 (2001), pp. 223-232
[Broad and Wade, 1985] W. Broad, N. Wade. Betrayers of the truth. Oxford University Press, (1985)
[Brown et al., 2007] R. Brown, M. Jones, T. Steele. Still flickering at the margins of existence? Publishing patterns and themes in accounting and finance research over the last two decades. British Accounting Review, 39 (2007), pp. 125-151
[Bucheit et al., 2002] S. Bucheit, D. Collins, A. Reitenga. A cross-discipline comparison of top-tier academic publication rates: 1997-1999. Journal of Accounting Education, 20 (2002), pp. 123-130
[Campanario, 1996] J.M. Campanario. Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47 (1996), pp. 302-310
[Chan et al., 2006] K.C. Chan, C.R. Chen, L.T.W. Cheng. A ranking of accounting research output in the European region. Accounting and Business Research, 36 (2006), pp. 3-17
[Cicchetti, 1991] D.V. Cicchetti. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14 (1991), pp. 119-186
[Cole et al., 1981] S. Cole, J.R. Cole, G.A. Simon. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214 (1981), pp. 881-886
[Deckel et al., 2005] E. Deckel, J. Horowitz, D. Levine, C. Meghir, A. Postlewaite. The econometric society annual reports. Report of the editors 2003-2004. Econometrica, 1 (2005), pp. 325-328
[Dumontier and Raffournier, 2002] P. Dumontier, B. Raffournier. Accounting and capital markets: a survey or the European evidence. European Acounting Review, 11 (2002), pp. 119-151
[Fogarty and Markarian, 2007] T.J. Fogarty, G. Markarian. An empirical assessment of the rise and fall of accounting as an academic discipline. Issues in Accounting Education, 22 (2007), pp. 137-161
[Fogarty and Yu, 2010] T.J. Fogarty, W. Yu. The sustainability of success: distinguishing the lucky form the good in the stacked deck of academic accounting. The Accounting Educators Journal, XX (2010), pp. 63-89
[Gangs and Shepherd, 1994] J.S. Gangs, G.B. Shepherd. How are the mighty fallen: rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (1994), pp. 165-169
[Gray, 2010] R. Gray. A re-evaluation of social, environmental and sustainability accounting An exploratory analysis of an emerging trans-disciplinary field. Sustainability Accounting, 1 (2010), pp. 11-31
[Hargens, 1988] L.L. Hargens. Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53 (1988), pp. 139-151
[Hess, 1997] D.J. Hess. Science Studies. An advanced introduction. New York University Press, (1997)
[Hopwood, 2002] A.G. Hopwood. If only there were simple solutions, but there aren’t: some reflections on Zimmermans critique of empirical management accounting research. European Accounting Review, 11 (2002), pp. 777-785
[Hubbard and And Vetter, 1996] R. Hubbard, D.E. Vetter. An empirical comparison of published replication in accounting, economics, finance, management and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 35 (1996), pp. 153-164
[Inglis and Mejia-Ramos, 2009] M. Inglis, J.P. Mejia-Ramos. The effect of authority on the persuasiveness of mathematical arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 27 (2009), pp. 25-50
[Johnson et al., 2002] P.M. Johnson, P.M. Reckers, L. Solomon. Evolving research benchmarks. Advances in Accounting, 19 (2002), pp. 235-253
[Jones and Roberts, 2005] M.J. Jones, R. Roberts. International publishing patterns: an investigation of leading UK and US accounting and finance journals. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 32 (2005), pp. 1107-1140
[Lee, 1995] T. Lee. Shaping the US academic accounting research profession: the American Accounting Association and the social construction of a professional elite. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6 (1995), pp. 241-261
[Merchant et al., 2003] K.A. Merchant, W.A. Van der Stede, L. Zheng. Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: the case of organizational incentive systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28 (2003), pp. 251-286
[Moizer, 2009] P. Moizer. Publishing in accounting journals: a fair game?. Accounting Organizations and Society, 34 (2009), pp. 285-304
[Paavola et al., 2004] S. Paavola, L. Lipponen, K. Hakkarainen. Models of innovative knpwledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74 (2004), pp. 557-576
[Parker and And Guthrie, 2005] L. Parker, J. Guthrie. Managing accounting research in a orporatized university world. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18 (2005), pp. 5-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12226
[Parker et al., 1998] L. Parker, J. Guthrie, R. Gray. Accounting and management research: passwords from the gatekeepers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11 (1998), pp. 371-402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12226
[Peters and Ceci, 1982] D.P. Peters, S. Ceci. Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioural and brain Sciences, 5 (1982), pp. 187-255
[Petruska et al., 2007] Petruska, K.A., Alam, P and Pearson, M. A. (2007) The number of graduates from US accounting doctoral programs: the association with faculty attributes and institutional reputation (available at SSRN: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1078197
[Plumlee et al., 2006] R.D. Plumlee, S.J. Kachelmeier, S.A. Madeo, J.H. Pratt, G. Krull. Assessing the shortage of accounting faculty. Issues on Accounting Education, 21 (2006), pp. 113-125
[Raelin, 2008] J.A. Raelin. Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7 (2008), pp. 124-129 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.020
[Raffournier and And Schatt, 2010] B. Raffournier, A. Schatt. Is European accounting fairly reflected in academic journals?. An investigation of possible non-mainstream and language barrier biases. European Accounting Review, 19 (2010), pp. 161-190
[Reinstein and And Claderon, 2006] A. Reinstein, T.G. Claderon. Examining accounting departments’ rankings of the quality of accounting journals. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17 (2006), pp. 457-490
[Rutherford, 2010] B.A. Rutherford. The social scientific turn in K financial accounting research: a philosophical and sociological analysis. Accounting and Business Research, 40 (2010), pp. 149-171
[Singleton-Green, 2010] B. Singleton-Green. Thecommunication gap: why doesn’t accounting research make a greater contribution to debates on accounting policy?. Accounting in Europe, 7 (2010), pp. 129-145
[Stammerjohan et al., 2009] W.W. Stammerjohan, D.L. Seifert, R.P. Guidry. Factors affecting initia placement of accounting Ph.Ds. Advances in Accounting Education, 10 (2009), pp. 103-118
[Tomkins and Groves, 1983] C. Tomkins, R. Groves. The everyday accountant and researching his reality. Accounting Organizations and Society, 8 (1983), pp. 361-374
[Tsang and Frey, 2007] E.W.K. Tsang, B.S. Frey. The as-is journal review process: let the authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6 (2007), pp. 128-136 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.020
[van den Besselaar and Leydesdorff, 2009] P. van den Besselaar, L. Leydesdorff. Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences. Research Evaluation, 18 (2009), pp. 273-288
[Williams, 2004] P.F. Williams. Recovering Accounting as a worthy endeavour. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15 (2004), pp. 513-517
[Zivney et al., 1995] T.L. Zivney, W.J. Bertin, T.A. Gavin. A comprehensive examination of accounting faculty publishing. Issues in Accounting Education, 10 (1995), pp. 1-25
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia (EDITUM) y ASEPUC conservan los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional. Permite copiar, distribuir e incluir el artículo en un trabajo colectivo (por ejemplo, una antología), siempre y cuando no exista una finalidad comercial, no se altere ni modifique el artículo y se cite apropiadamente el trabajo original. Esta revista no tiene tarifa por la publicación Open Access. ASEPUC y EDITUM financian los costes de producción y publicación de los manuscritos.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente la versión publicada de sus obras, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica.
