Evidence and Implicatiions of Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production

Prévia do material em texto

Evidence and Implications of
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting
Knowledge Production
JOANNE LOCKE� AND ALAN LOWE��
�Waikato Management School, New Zealand and � �Aston Business School, UK
ABSTRACT This paper uses evidence gathered in two perception studies of Australasian and
British accounting academics to reflect on aspects of the knowledge production systemwithin
accounting academe. We provide evidence of the representation of multiple paradigms in
many journals that are scored by participants as being of high quality. Indeed most of the
journals we surveyed are perceived by accounting academics as incorporating research
from more than one paradigm. It is argued that this ‘catholic’ approach by journal editors
and the willingness of many respondents in our surveys to score journals highly on
material they publish from both paradigm categories reflects a balanced acceptance of the
multi-paradigmatic state of accounting research. Our analysis is set within an
understanding of systems of accounting knowledge production as socially constructed and
as playing an important role in the distribution of power and reward in the academy. We
explore the impact of our results on concerns emerging from the work of a number of
authors who carefully expose localised ‘elites’. The possibilities for a closer relationship
between research emerging from a multi-paradigm discipline and policy setting and
practice are also discussed. The analysis provides a sense of optimism that the broad
constituency of accounting academics operates within an environment conducive for the
exchange of ideas. That optimism is dampened by concerns about the impact of local
‘elites’ and the need for more research on their impact on accounting academe.
1. Introduction
This paper is premised on an understanding that the process of accounting knowl-
edge production is a social construction (Arrington and Schweiker, 1992; Lee,
1995; Lukka and Kasanen, 1996). Understanding the underlying fabrications of
European Accounting Review
Vol. 17, No. 1, 161–191, 2008
Correspondence Address: Alan Lowe, Aston Business School, Aston Street, Birmingham B4 7ET,
UK. E-mail: a.d.lowe@aston.ac.uk
0963-8180 Print/1468-4497 Online/08/010161–31 # 2008 European Accounting Association
DOI: 10.1080/09638180701819881
Published by Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd on behalf of the EAA.
knowledge production is important since it provides the means to examine fun-
damental aspects that determine many of the features of the academy and its insti-
tutions. The system of knowledge production in accounting reproduces elements
common to most academic disciplines (Hopwood, 1976; Whitley, 1984; Lee,
1995; see also Collins, 1982; Smolin, 2006). It relies on individual and groups
of academics to write research papers and subject them to peer consideration
through conferences, electronic fora such as SSRN and ultimately through sub-
mission and review at academic journals.
Acceptance in an internationally recognised refereed journal connotes accep-
tance of the researchers’ output as making a contribution to knowledge in the
field (Zeff, 1996; Hopwood, 2002; Everett et al., 2003; Swanson, 2004; Clark
and Wright, 2007; Macdonald and Kam, 2007). Publication of journal articles
affords researchers with prestige and a basis for claims for promotion and power
over their colleagues (Zeff, 1996; Lee, 2004; Bonner et al., 2006; Macdonald and
Kam, 2007). The pivotal importance of acceptance in journals creates a contentious
environment inwhich their status and the basis of rejection or acceptance of particu-
lar research works may be opened to debate and becomes a research topic itself.
Given that our understandings of research quality are fundamentally socially
constructed the perceptions of academics about key elements in the production
of accounting knowledge are apposite. This paper provides evidence, based on
survey research methods, of a critical aspect of the knowledge production
process in accounting – namely academicians’ views of the paradigm orientation
and ranking of international accounting journals.
In the early years of accounting research the approaches adopted were largely
normative (Watts and Zimmerman, 1979; Gaffikin, 1987; Tinker and Puxty,
1995). During the 1970s this emphasis was challenged by a positivist school
that sought to introduce a reliance on a particular methodology and a requirement
for generalisable results as an epistemological basis (Watts and Zimmerman,
1979, 1986; Christenson, 1983; Sterling, 1990). Over a similar period other
schools of thought from the social sciences began to make an increasing
impact in accounting, so that a rich array of what may be broadly described as
interpretive and critical methodologies are now represented in accounting
research1 (Gaffikin, 1988; Bricker, 1989; Bricker and Previts, 1990; Belkaoui,
1991; Mouck, 1992, 1993; Morgan and Willmott, 1993; Zeff, 1996). Effectively
the normative theorising of the pre-1970s has been displaced by positive
accounting, on the one hand, and broadly interpretative and critical theory
approaches on the other. The paradigm shifts were so significant as to make
communication across boundaries improbable (Arrington and Schweiker,
1992; Mouck, 1992, 1993; Czarniawska, 1998; Kaghan and Phillips, 1998).
Given that publication in international refereed journals is a key to promotion
and recognition in accounting academia, the question is then whether or
not journals that are highly regarded by academics are also perceived as publish-
ing a range of materials from different methodological backgrounds or
‘paradigms’.
162 J. Locke & A. Lowe
Our surveys of accounting academics sought to address this question by asking
them to indicate whether the journals with which they are familiar publish
material that was restricted to a single paradigm or work that spanned multiple
paradigms. By analysing their responses to this question and how they score
the journals for quality, we are able to provide some insights on perceptions of
the acceptance of research from different paradigms within the academic
community.
The broad, international nature of our survey data means that the results do not
reflect the particular conditions in all countries or institutions, and therefore
cannot speak to the individual experiences of academics. To add some balance
to this breadth of our evidence we discuss it in the context of other research
that seeks to expose the institutionalisation of localised elites that act to
promote their favoured research philosophy or paradigm. This research is
limited in its scope, however, and we identify the potential contribution of
further research into this area.
Similarly, while our data does provide evidence of perceptions of the journals
that play a key role in producing knowledge in an academic setting, it does not
address the means by which such knowledge can or should be seen as having a
role in shaping policy and practice. We outline the potential implications of
our analysis of the paradigmatic state of the accounting academy for its possible
role in other networks and decision-making environments.
The next section of the paper provides a brief discussion of the way in which
our analysis is based on a perspective of accounting academe as socially con-
structed. A brief literature review of studies of journal quality follows. We
then describe the surveys we conducted and the data-sets and their characteristics.
The fifth section presents the insights gained in the different jurisdictions. The
analysis in this section is presented partly in graphical form to aid comparisons
across the two data-sets. Section 6 is concerned with relating our findings
to research on localised academic settings. The next section changes the focus
of attention to the non-academic environments of policy setting and practice.
Conclusions about the implications of our survey findings in the context of theParadigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 187
SSCI. At least two further editors acknowledged that they were in their third application to gain
admission.
References
Abbott, A. (1988) The System of Professions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Ahrens, T., Becker, A., Burns, J., Chapman, C., Granlund, M., Habersam, M., Hansen, A., Khalifa, R.,
Malmi, T., Mennicken, A., Mikes, A., Panozza, F., Piber, M., Quattrone, P. and Scheyn, T. (in
press) The future of interpretive research – a polyphonic debate, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting.
Armstrong, P. (in press) Calling out for more: comment on the future of interpretive accounting
research, Critical Perspectives on Accounting.
Arrington, C. E. and Schweiker, W. (1992) The rhetoric and rationality of accounting research,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), pp. 511–533.
Ballas, A. and Theoharakis, V. (2003) Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal
perceptions, Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(4), pp. 619–644.
Baxter, J., Boedker, C. and Chua, W. F. (in press) The future(s) of interpretive accounting research – a
polyphonic response from beyond the metropolis, Critical Perspectives on Accounting.
Beattie, V. and Goodacre, A. (2004) Publishing patterns within the UK accounting and finance
academic community, British Accounting Review, 36(1), pp. 7–44.
Beattie, V. A. and Goodacre, A. (2006) A new method for ranking academic journals in accounting
and finance, Accounting and Business Research, 36(2), pp. 65–91.
Beattie, V. A. and Ryan, R. J. (1989) Performance indices and related measures of journal reputation
in accounting, British Accounting Review, 21, pp. 267–278.
Belkaoui, A. (1991) The Coming Crisis (New York: Quoram Books).
Bonner, S. E., Hesford, J. W., Van der Stede, W. A. and Young, S. M. (2006) The most influential
journals in academic accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7), pp. 663–685.
Boyer, K. K., Olson, J. R. and Jackson, E. C. (2001) Electronic surveys: advantages and disadvantages
over traditional print surveys, Decision Line, 32(4), pp. 4–7.
Bricker, R. J. (1989) An empirical investigation of the structure of accounting research, Journal of
Accounting Research, 27(2), pp. 246–262.
Bricker, R. J. and Previts, G. J. (1990) The sociology of accountancy: a study of academic and practice
community schisms, Accounting Horizons, 4(1), pp. 1–14.
Brinn, T., Jones, M. J. and Pendlebury, M. (1996) UK accountants’ perceptions of research journal
quality, Accounting and Business Research, 26(3), pp. 265–278.
Brinn, T., Jones, M. J. and Pendlebury, M. (2001) Why do UK accounting and finance academics not
publish in top US journals?, British Accounting Review, 33(2), pp. 223–232.
Brown, L. D. (1996) Influential accounting articles, individuals, Ph.D. granting institutions and fac-
ulties: a citational analysis, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(7/8), pp. 723–754.
Brown, L. D. (2003) Ranking journals using social science research network downloads, Review of
Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 20(3), pp. 291–307.
Brown, L. D. (2005) The importance of circulating and presenting manuscripts: evidence from the
accounting literature, The Accounting Review, 80(1), pp. 55–84.
Brown, L. D. and Gardner, J. C. (1985) Using citation analysis to assess the impact of journals
and articles on contemporary accounting research, Journal of Accounting Research, 23(1),
pp. 84–109.
Brown, L. D. and Huefner, R. J. (1994) The familiarity with and perceived quality of accounting jour-
nals: views of senior accounting faculty in leading U.S. MBA programmes, Contemporary
Accounting Research, 11(1), pp. 223–250.
Cassar, G. and Holmes, S. (1999) The refereed accounting journals valued by Australian gatekeepers,
Accounting, Accountability and Performance, 5(3), pp. 1–18.
188 J. Locke & A. Lowe
Christenson, C. (1983) The methodology of positive accounting, The Accounting Review, 58(1),
pp. 1–22.
Chua, W. F. (1986) Radical developments in accounting thought, The Accounting Review, 61(4),
pp. 601–632.
Clark, T. and Wright, M. (2007) Reviewing journal rankings and revisiting peer reviews: editorial
perspectives, Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), pp. 612–621.
Clarke, F. L., Craig, R. J. and Amernic, J. H. (1999) Theatre and intolerance in financial accounting
research, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10, pp. 65–88.
Collins, H. M. (1982) Tacit knowledge and scientific networks, in: B. Barnes and D. Edge (Eds)
Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science, pp. 44–64 (Milton Keynes: The
Open University Press).
Czarniawska, B. (1998) A Narrative Approach in Organization Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage).
Dillard, J. F. (in press) A political base of a polyphonic debate, Critical Perspectives on Accounting.
Everett, J., Neu, D. and Green, D. L. (2003) Research productivity measurement and the field of aca-
demic accounting, Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 2(2), pp. 153–175.
Gaffikin, M. J. R. (1987) The methodology of early accounting theorists, Abacus, 23(1), pp. 17–30.
Gaffikin, M. J. R. (1988) Legacy of the golden age: recent developments in the methodology of
accounting, Abacus, 24(1), pp. 16–36.
Geary, J., Marriott, L. and Rowlinson, M. (2004) Journal rankings in business and management and
the 2001 research assessment exercise in the UK, British Journal of Management, 15(2),
pp. 95–141.
Gray, R., Guthrie, J. and Parker, L. (2002) Rites of passage and the self-immolation of academic
accounting labour: an essay exploring exclusivity versus mutuality in accounting, Accounting
Forum, 26(1), pp. 1–30.
Hacking, I. (1999) The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Hasselback, J. R. and Reinstein, A. (1995) A proposal for measuring scholarly productivity of
accounting faculty, Issues in Accounting Education, 10(2), pp. 269–306.
Hasselback, J. R., Reinstein, A. and Schwan, E. S. (2000) Benchmarks for evaluating the performance
of accounting faculty, Journal of Accounting Education, 18, pp. 79–97.
Hasselback, J. R., Reinstein, A. and Schwan, E. S. (2003) Prolific authors of accounting literature,
Advances in Accounting, 20, pp. 95–125.
Hopwood, A. G. (1976) Editorial: the path ahead, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1(1),
pp. 1–4.
Hopwood, A. G. (2002) If only there were simple solutions, but there aren’t: some reflections on
Zimmerman’s critique of empirical management accounting research, European Accounting
Review, 11(4), pp. 777–785.
Hull, R. P. and Wright, G. B. (1990) Faculty perceptions of journal quality: an update, Accounting
Horizons, 4(1), pp. 77–98.
Ittner, C. D. and Larcker, D. F. (2002) Empirical managerial accounting research: are we just describ-
ing management consulting practice?, European Accounting Review, 11(4), pp. 787–794.
Kaghan, W. and Phillips, N. (1998) Building the tower of Babel: communities of practice and para-
digmatic pluralism in organization studies, Organization, 5(2), pp. 191–216.
Knorr Cetina, K. D. (1999) Epistemic Cultures (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Krugman, P. (2007) Who was Milton Friedman?, The New York Review of Books, 15 February. Avail-
able at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857?email
Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
Lee, T. A. (1995) Shaping the U.S. academic accounting profession: the American Accounting
Association and the social construction of a professional elite, Critical Perspectives on Account-
ing, 6(3), pp. 241–261.
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 189
Lee, T. A. (1997) The editorial gatekeepers of the accounting academy, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 10(1), pp. 11–30.
Lee, T. A. (2004) Accounting and auditing research in the United States, in: C. Humphrey andB. Lee
(Eds) The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research: A Behind-the-Scenes View of Using Quali-
tative Research Methods, pp. 57–71 (San Diego, CA: Elsevier).
Lee, T. A. and Williams, P. F. (1999) Accounting from the inside: legitimizing the accounting aca-
demic elite, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10, pp. 867–895.
Locke, J. and Lowe, A. (2002) Problematising the construction of journal quality: an engagement with
the mainstream, Accounting Forum, 26(1), pp. 45–71.
Lowe, A. and Locke, J. (2002) A paradigm sensitive perspective on the ranking of accounting jour-
nals: a web-based survey approach, The University of Waikato, Department of Accounting,
Working Paper Series.
Lowe, A. and Locke, J. (2005) Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: results of a web-
based survey of British accounting academics, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1),
pp. 81–98.
Lowe, A. and Locke, J. (2006) Constructing an ‘efficient frontier’ of accounting journal quality,
British Accounting Review, 38(3), pp. 267–278.
Luft, J. and Shields, M. D. (2002) Zimmerman’s contentious conjectures: describing the present and
prescribing the future of empirical management accounting research, European Accounting
Review, 11(4), pp. 795–803.
Lukka, K. and Kasanen, E. (1996) Is accounting a global or a local discipline? Evidence from major
research journals, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(7/8), pp. 755–773.
Lukka, K. and Mouritsen, J. (2002) Homogeneity or heterogeneity of research in management
accounting?, European Accounting Review, 11(4), pp. 805–811.
Macdonald, S. and Kam, J. (2007) Ring a ring o’ roses: quality journals and gamesmanship in manage-
ment studies, Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), pp. 640–655.
Macintosh, N. B. (2004) A ghostly CAR ride, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(4/5),
pp. 675–695.
Merino, B. D., Mayper, A. G. and Tolleson, T. D. (2007) Neoliberalism, deregulation and financial
reporting abuses during the last two decades in the United States, in: American Accounting
Association Regional Meeting, Washington, DC.
Milne, M. J. (2000) Toward the end of academic freedom, diversity, judgement and accountability:
a critique of Cassar and Holmes’ (1999) journal yardsticks, Accounting, Accountability and
Performance, 6(1), pp. 99–116.
Mingers, J. and Harzing, A.-W. (2006) Ranking journals in business and management: a
statistical analysis of the Harzing dataset, Working Paper No. 85, Kent Business School,
Canterbury.
Morgan, G. and Willmott, H. (1993) The ‘new’ accounting research: on making accounting more
visible, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 6(4), pp. 3–36.
Morris, J. L., Cudd, R. M. and Crain, J. L. (1990) A study of the potential bias in accounting journal
ratings: implications for promotion and tenure decisions, Accounting Educators’ Journal, 3(1),
pp. 46–55.
Mouck, T. (1992) The rhetoric of science and the rhetoric of revolt in the ‘story’ of positive accounting
theory, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 5(4), pp. 35–56.
Mouck, T. (1993) The ‘revolution’ in financial reporting theory: a Kuhnian interpretation, Accounting
Historians’ Journal, 20(1), pp. 33–58.
Parker, L., Guthrie, J. and Gray, R. (1998) Accounting and management research: passwords from the
gatekeepers, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 11(4), pp. 371–402.
Reinstein, A. and Hasselback, J. R. (1997) A literature review of articles assessing the productivity of
accounting faculty members, Journal of Accounting Education, 15(3), pp. 425–455.
Reiter, S. A. and Williams, P. F. (2002) The structure and progressivity of accounting research: the
crisis in the academy revisited, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, pp. 575–607.
190 J. Locke & A. Lowe
Smolin, L. (2006) The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and what
Comes Next (London: Penguin).
Sterling, R. R. (1990) Positive accounting: an assessment, Abacus, 26(2), pp. 97–135.
Swanson, E. P. (2004) Publishing in the majors: a comparison of accounting, finance, management
and marketing, Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(1), pp. 223–255.
Tinker, T. and Puxty, T. (1995) Policing Accounting Knowledge: The Market for Excuses Affair
(London: Paul Chapman).
Vehovar, V. and Manfreda, K. L. (2000) Sensitivity of e-commerce measurement to survey instru-
ment, in: 13th International Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia.
Watts, R. L. and Zimmerman, J. L. (1979) The demand for and supply of accounting theories: the
market for excuses, The Accounting Review, 54(2), pp. 273–305.
Watts, R. L. and Zimmerman, J. L. (1986) Positive Accounting Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall).
Whitley, R. (1977) The sociology of scientific work and the history of scientific developments, in:
S. S. Blume (Ed.) Perspectives in the Sociology of Science (Chichester: John Wiley).
Whitley, R. (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Oxford: Clarendon
Press).
Wilkinson, B. R. and Durden, C. H. (1998) A study of accounting faculty publishing productivity in
New Zealand, Pacific Accounting Review, 10(2), pp. 75–94.
Williams, P. (1985) A descriptive analysis of authorship in The Accounting Review, The Accounting
Review, 60(2), pp. 300–313.
Williams, P. and Rodgers, J. L. (1995) The accounting review and the production of accounting
knowledge, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6, pp. 263–287.
Williams, P. J., Jenkins, G. and Ingraham, L. (2006) The winnowing away of behavioral accounting
research in the US: the process for anointing academic elites, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 31(8), pp. 783–818.
Willmott, H. (1995) Managing the academics: commodification and control in the development of
university education in the UK, Human Relations, 48(9), pp. 933–1025.
Willmott, H. (in press) Listening, interpreting, commending: a commentary on the future of interpre-
tive accounting research, Critical Perspectives on Accounting.
Zeff, S. A. (1996) A study of academic research journals in accounting, Accounting Horizons, 10(3),
pp. 158–177.
Zimmerman, J. L. (2001) Conjectures regarding empirical managerial accounting research, Journal of
Accounting and Economics, 32, pp. 411–427.
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 191previous research in localised and policy settings complete the paper.
2. The Social Construction of Accounting Academe
It has long been recognised that academics and other professional groups construct
their own knowledge and reputational systems and administrative and power hier-
archies (Kuhn, 1970; Collins, 1982; Whitley, 1984; Abbott, 1988; Knorr Cetina,
1999; see also Smolin, 2006). Latour (2005) would describe these distinct fabrica-
tions as both ‘constructed’ and real. This feature of Latour’s philosophy of knowl-
edge systems is predicated on his understanding of the way in which knowledge
and facts are produced. All facts are unstable and malleable. They are revealed
and made durable only by the fabrications of experimental situations by dedicated
and conscientious scientists. This applies in the ‘social’ sciences just as it does in
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 163
the ‘hard’ sciences. Fabrication in this context according to Latour is not at all the
same as social construction which he argues has been poorly construed by many
scientists of the social. Latour suggests that constructivism,2 as it is used in actor
network theory (ANT), means that ‘facts were facts – meaning exact – because
they were fabricated – meaning that they emerged out of artificial situations’.
This is in opposition to an alternative notion that ‘either something was real and
not constructed, or it was constructed and artificial, contrived and invented,
made up and false’ (Latour, 2005, p. 90).
The structuring, reputation, prestige and power of the academy, its individual
members and its institutional bodies is a subject on which many accounting
academicians have strong views. More often than not the fiercest controversies
surrounding the status of specific articles, individuals, journals and institutions
are performed in conversations among groups of academics rather than in
published fora. There are examples of published academic contributions that
involve questions about the relative ranking of journals (Geary et al., 2004;
Beattie and Goodacre, 2006; see also the counterpoint debate in the Journal of
Management Studies including Clark and Wright, 2007; Macdonald and Kam,
2007), individual publications and individual academicians (Parker et al.,
1998; Wilkinson and Durden, 1998; Cassar and Holmes, 1999), and occasionally
about the publication process itself (Tinker and Puxty, 1995; Macintosh, 2004).
There is now a good deal of literature that seeks to contribute to our understand-
ing of the academy and in particular the quality and prestige of the academic
accounting journals. A number of writers acknowledge explicitly the strong inter-
dependencies among the hierarchy of the academy and the reputational effects of
publishing in highly rated academic journals (Williams and Rogers, 1995; Brown,
1996, 2005; Lowe and Locke, 2005; Bonner et al., 2006). The socially constructed
nature of the academy and its institutions, including journal outlets, has been taken
up by a number of writers (Reiter and Williams, 2002; Lee, 2004; Williams et al.,
2006). In this context, Everett et al. (2003) in a discussion of a study by Brown
(2003) which used article downloads to rank journals, describe the research assess-
ment process as self-referential and self-replicating:
The process becomes self-replicating: business school deans complete a list
of top journals for use in research productivity measurement . . . faculty are
compelled to stay on top of the literature found in the top journals; faculty
download this literature; and the journals in which this literature appears, as
a result of Brown’s system, are rated as top journals. Similarly, the exclu-
sion of historical, critical, or alternative work, or work based on case
research, is reproduced.
(ibid., p. 159)
Everett et al. demonstrate in their description here the manner in which social
construction affects or reinforces our perceptions of what constitutes quality.
Rules or institutions are established by people. In this case the business school
164 J. Locke & A. Lowe
deans in concert with the ranking providers, such as the Financial Times or
Business Week. These ranking services then come to structure the landscape of
the academic in relation to tenure, promotion and prestige.
The suggestion that reproducing the academic hierarchy is a largely political
process in which publication and control of the academic journals and therefore
the knowledge production process is central has been reported much more
broadly both in the social and the ‘hard’ sciences (Whitley, 1977, 1984; Collins,
1982; Smolin, 2006). Writers in the social sciences suggest that control of the pro-
duction of knowledge and consequently the reputational system is especially
strong. What counts as knowledge in these disciplines and how it might be ‘discov-
ered’ and represented is largely determined by the editors and editorial boards of
the elite journals.
In this context, it is unsurprising that there is a diverse literature in accounting
that addresses the issue of journal quality and ranking. We provide a brief intro-
duction to its nature and scope in the next section.
3. Constructing Journal Ranking in Accounting
The literature on journal quality has received considerable attention from a variety
of perspectives. Ranking studies have largely been based on surveys or citation
analysis (Brown and Gardner, 1985; Beattie and Ryan, 1989; Brown and
Huefner, 1994; Lee, 1995, 2004; Brinn et al., 1996, 2001; Hasselback et al.,
2000). Other approaches have included combining existing journal rankings
(Hasselback and Reinstein, 1995; Hasselback et al., 2000; Bonner et al., 2006;
Mingers and Harzing, 2006), using research assessment rankings (Beattie and
Goodacre, 2006) and analysing library holdings (Zeff, 1996; Locke and Lowe,
2002). A detailed review of this literature is provided by Bonner et al. (2006;
see also Reinstein and Hasselback, 1997). Perception studies have taken a
number of forms but have until very recently relied on a mailed-out survey instru-
ment (Ballas and Theoharakis, 2003; Lowe and Locke, 2005). Important features
include: the selection of participants, the method of establishing a basis for
ranking (e.g. using a Likert scale), how to establish the population of journals to
be included in the survey, and the type of ranking attempted (e.g. ordinal ranked
lists or bands of broad quality). Lowe and Locke (2005) and Beattie and Goodacre
(2006) discuss the possible impact of these research design choices.
Measures of journal quality are necessarily subjective just as journal quality is
socially constructed. We have no access to journal quality other than through
analysis of the construction of knowledge within the academy (we can only
ever hope to proxy this through citation analysis – since it is not possible to
objectively rate knowledge production); similarly, we can collect subjective per-
ception data from individuals or groups of academicians as to journal quality but
this is necessarily subjective, biased and open to misinterpretation (see also
Beattie and Goodacre, 2006, who examine a number of metrics based on RAE
2001, statistics and submission decisions).
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 165
Obtaining information on preferences from individual academics is problematic
(Morris et al., 1990; Brinn et al., 1996; Milne, 2000; Lowe and Locke, 2002). Indi-
viduals’ perceptions of quality are not strictly comparable so aggregation is subject
to some biasing. On the other hand, citation studies of accounting journals are
limited to those journals that are indexed in citation services such as SSCI
(Brown and Huefner, 1994). This is very restrictive in accounting where only a
handful of journals are included in SSCI (Beattie and Goodacre, 2006; Williams
et al., 2006). According to Beattie and Goodacre ‘UK accounting and finance aca-demics published in 126 different . . . academic journals in the two year period
1998–9 but only 21 of these journals (17%) are abstracted in the SSCI’ (ibid.,
p. 67) Of these 21, it is likely that only two, TAR and AOS, might be regarded
as strictly accounting journals (see also Beattie and Goodacre, 2004). Both types
of approach to eliciting a sense of the academy’s perception of the quality of jour-
nals suffer from limitations. We have chosen to survey a broad population of
accounting academics because it provides us with an opportunity to structure the
research so as to unsettle existing perceptions and gather information about the per-
ceived representation of different research methodologies across journals.
Individual academics differ in their view of journal rankings. Many see them as
unreliable and in some cases threatening (Willmott, 1995; Milne, 2000; Gray
et al., 2002; Macdonald and Kam, 2007). Others regard the publication of
journal rankings as an integral part of the fabrication of the academy and the
enactment and maintenance of its hierarchical structures (Williams et al.,
2006). Some interpretive researchers (Everett et al., 2003; see also Lowe and
Locke, 2002) appear to support research productivity measurement:
. . . few would argue, we think, that high academic productivity does not
improve the state of higher education, or that productivity should not be a
criterion in resource allocation decisions . . . academic productivity performs
an important function, and so should be viewed as an important determinant
in the decision making process of administrators and policy makers.
(Everett et al., 2003, p. 159)
Whichever view is taken, there is little doubt that rankings do impact on individual
academics and their career choices and opportunities. Particularly since the advent
of research assessment structures, journal rankings have been used to identify the
top journals in a number of countries. These rankings then play a part in assessing
the quality of research outputs for promotion purposes or funding (e.g. Brinn et al.,
2001) and provide guidance to enable researchers to target suitable publication
outlets (Locke and Lowe, 2002; Hasselback et al., 2003; Brown, 2005; Bonner
et al., 2006; see also Prestige Factor at www.prestigefactor.com).
The context for the analysis we present is the outcome of two surveys con-
ducted using a web-based instrument with accounting academics in Australia,
New Zealand and Britain. The replication of the survey across different countries
produces some interesting results. Our research while offering some degree of
166 J. Locke & A. Lowe
international comparability necessarily runs other potential risks (see Beattie and
Goodacre, 2006 for a discussion of the problems of comparability across the dif-
fering jurisdictions). There are cultural and institutional differences across the
jurisdictions we have surveyed. Some of these differences are likely to relate
to the structure of the accounting profession and education; differences in
employment and other practices relating to academic faculty and other differ-
ences at the various institutional levels. On the other hand, the literature suggests
that there is correspondence on perceptions of journal quality among accounting
academics in the countries surveyed (Ballas and Theoharakis, 2003). Our survey
results allow us to observe some remarkable consistencies as well as show some
notable differences which we discuss later in the paper, after the following brief
description of the surveys.
4. Description of the Survey Data
The data we present later in the paper has been collected during our web-based
surveys of accounting academics. The surveys cover a period from 2001 to
2003 and were broadly defined to include all university accounting departments’
members as far as we were able to identify them. The earlier survey was con-
ducted in Australasia in 2001 while the later survey was conducted in the UK
in 2003. Information about the sample size, demographics and scoring statistics
for the journals in the surveys is shown in Appendix A. Explanation of the selec-
tion of the journals for the surveys and further description of the mechanics and
design of the earlier two web surveys are provided elsewhere (Lowe and Locke,
2002, 2005, 2006; see also Zeff, 1996).
In each of the surveys all academics identified as working in university
accounting departments in the respective jurisdictions were emailed: 1,2253 indi-
viduals in the Australasian survey; 1,314 in the British. The response rates were
17% for the Australasian survey and 16% for the British. This is an acceptable
response rate for an email survey (Vehovar and Manfreda, 2000; Boyer et al.,
2001). Aspects of the reliability of the sample are discussed in the next section
of the paper when we report our analysis on the significance of some of the demo-
graphic data such as seniority and research background. We also provide data that
indicates the samples are representative of the population in terms of some of the
key variables, such as teaching area and seniority. Respondents to the surveys
were asked to classify the journals they were familiar with as including positi-
vist/functionalist papers, interpretive/critical papers, both or ‘don’t know’.4
The selected journals were then returned on a screen grouped by paradigm cat-
egory5 and participants asked to score them on a 7-point Likert scale for quality.6
5. Analysis and Discussion of Results
This section first provides an analysis of the combined results of the two surveys.
This is followed by a detailed analysis of potential demographic effects on the
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 167
results. The implications of the analysis for the context of knowledge production
in accounting are discussed in the last part of this section.
5.1. Combined Survey Results
In Figure 1 we show a selection of the survey results from the Australasian and
British surveys (see Appendix B for abbreviations of journal titles). The diagram
shows the results for 12 journals that were canvassed in both surveys.7 In addition
we have included EAR which increases the number of journals depicted in
Figure 1 to 13. These journals were chosen to provide a representative mix of
journals of differing quality, paradigm orientation and subject area. They cover
the major subject specialisms that are reflected in the leading academic account-
ing journals while also including the most highly ranked journals in these areas.
We have limited the number of journals to 13 because to go significantly beyond
this number quickly makes the graph difficult to read. The full graphs for each of
the samples are provided in Appendix C.
Figure 1. Comparison of accounting journals by survey.
1EAR [European Accounting Review] appears only once in the diagram as part of the
British survey. When the Australasian survey was undertaken EAR had a relatively low
profile in Australia and New Zealand which meant that it did not meet the criteria for
inclusion. The survey included those accounting journals most highly held in university
libraries (Locke and Lowe, 2002). EAR was ranked at 23 in the British survey (Lowe
and Locke, 2006; see Table A3 for a complete ranking of journals in both surveys).
168 J. Locke & A. Lowe
Three variables are depicted for each circle on the graph [consequently six
variables for each of the journals]; the vertical position indicates relative
quality; the horizontal position indicates the aggregated perception of the jour-
nals’ publication of material from an interpretive vs. functionalist paradigm
and the size of each circle records the number of academics scoring each
journal. This latter statistic is a measure of the ‘popularity’ of the journal. The
shaded circles that show the British survey results are relatively smaller
because individual British academics scored only about half the number of jour-nals that their counterparts in Australasia scored.
Figure 1 exhibits some interesting features. AOS appears toward the critical/
interpretive end of the horizontal continuum but noticeably, above any of the
other journals in both our surveys. In the British survey it is very closely followed
by TAR. It is striking how close the remaining nine journals are on quality, the
vertical plane. There are also other interesting differences, such as the consider-
able overlap that appears to exist in relation to TAR and JAR and JAE. These
very close relationships have been the subject of a considerable amount of
research by other writers8 (Williams, 1985; Lee, 1995, 1997; Williams and
Rogers, 1995; Lee andWilliams, 1999; Williams et al., 2006) often using citation
or other data analysis, as opposed to perception-based studies.
. . . [the] citation behavior of the [elite] . . . people identified . . . indicates
that there are really only two top accounting journals – AOS and a
single journal of which JAR, TAR and JAE comprise the 10 or so annual
issues.
(Williams et al., 2006, p. 807)
Our findings as depicted in the diagram lend some support to the conclusions of
these other researchers of the closely overlapping nature of the material published
in these journals. We would agree with Williams et al. that such a lack of alterna-
tive perspectives in the US literature is of serious concern.
The other interesting feature is the equivalence, in terms of quality, of this
‘elite’ group of US journals with a broadly international/European/UK grouping
which includes AAAJ, CPA, MAR and ABR. MAR and ABR seem to be seen as
quite centrally located in terms of paradigm mix. This indicates that our respon-
dents, across both geographical jurisdictions, perceived these journals to publish
material from both of the broad paradigm perspectives identified in the survey.
These ‘non-US’ journals and CPA are all distinctly located toward the critical/
interpretive end of the paradigm continuum compared to the ‘elite’ US journals
which are overwhelmingly perceived as limited to a positive/functionalist
methodological stance.
We note that some journals are likely to have been selected by more partici-
pants because of a regional familiarity effect (e.g. JBFA in the British, AAAJ
in the Australasian) but these effects do not appear strong. Both sets of respon-
dents have scored many of the same international journals at an equivalent
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 169
level in terms of quality. Some authors (Lukka and Kasanen, 1996; Brinn et al.,
2001; see also Ballas and Theoharakis, 2003) have noted a strong regional effect
on publishing and patterns of authorship. These authors note a tendency for the
localisation of research and the close relation of author and publication outlet
by geographic location of author (Lukka and Kasanen, 1996; Brinn et al.,
2001). But as indicated earlier, the results from both our surveys of Australasian
and British respondents are often very similar in terms both of quality and meth-
odological positioning (for further discussion, see Lowe and Locke, 2006).
Nevertheless, strong local influences on the orientation of academics toward
the academic journals might be expected to result in differential perceptions of
journals across more heterogeneous geographic regions. The open question is
whether or not the emergence of a number of journals that publish critical/inter-
pretative material into a more highly ranked position in the surveys is the result of
a purely regional effect or if it is the outcome of the ‘unsettling’ provided by
introducing paradigm as an element in the study. We believe that introducing
the paradigm perspective does provide survey respondents with an opportunity
to bring methodological arguments more to the fore in their assessments of
journal quality.
Finally of note in relation to Figure 1 is the very similar placing of the journals
we surveyed according to paradigm across the two surveys. Remarkable consist-
ency is shown by respondents from both jurisdictions as to the assessment of the
type of material typically published in each of the journals we surveyed. The
graph would suggest that the degree of agreement on paradigm is rather higher
than on quality. The placing by paradigm is based on the aggregation of opinions
as to the nature of material published by each journal. So the position of each
journal on the horizontal axis indicates the balance between respondents classi-
fying the journal as publishing interpretive/critical, positive/functionalist
material or both. The paradigm axis represents a continuum of possible placings
on which we record the position of the journal as the relative balance of respon-
dents’ characterisation of the journal’s content in terms of the two paradigms. In
contrast, the quality score is based on the mean score allocated by respondents
from each jurisdiction. We were surprised to find the agreement on journals’
paradigm across the different survey samples. It might be reasonable to expect
a closer agreement on quality given the preoccupation in the academic literature
and research assessment exercises which tend to focus on journal quality but not
method or methodology. This emphasis on quality and ranking could be expected
to produce relatively standardised views of journal quality across the academy
(Williams and Rodgers, 1995), however, our study is the first to specifically
ask for a paradigm classification.
5.2. Demographic Factors
We considered a number of factors which may have influenced the results of our
surveys, including demographic and structural differences affecting accounting
170 J. Locke & A. Lowe
faculty in Australasia and Britain. In Britain it is still common to find finance
academics within accounting units. This is rarely the case now in Australasia
where finance is more often a separate unit. In the British survey it was found
that finance and capital markets academics as a group tended to significantly
favour the more highly functionalist journals, notably JBFA, JAE and JAR.
Brief details of the respondents to the surveys are provided in Appendix A. The
data include academic position, research area and number of years’ experience in
publishing as reported by participants in each geographical location. The data
indicate that respondents came from across the range of academic positions,
but the sample is dominated by those at senior levels. In the Australasian
survey, for example, senior lecturer level and above make up 55% of the respon-
dents (67% in the British survey), at professorial level the proportion of the
sample is 19% (25% in the British survey). Comparison to the populations9 indi-
cates that senior staff are somewhat more highly represented among our respon-
dents. In the Australasian case respondents at the senior level (senior lecturer and
above) account for approximately 55% of the sample as against 44% of the popu-
lation. The samples were also examined to establish the extent to which research
background of the respondents was representative of the population. Both survey
samples were found to be broadly representative of the populations in each jur-
isdiction. In the Australasian instance, in the 10 specific research areas identified
in the sample were within 2% on each category compared to the population. This
includes management accounting which approximately 25% of the sample
reported as their area of research interest. Management accounting was reported
in published sources as 24% of the population.
We further investigated the effects within our survey sample of these differ-
ences in demographics. A number of tests were run among the different sub-
populations of respondents to establish any significant effects. Most of these
tests did not indicate statistically significant differences within the sample. We
will discuss the differences that were revealed by statisticaltest in the remainder
of the section.
Mann–Whitney statistics indicate a small number of instances where
differences in seniority produce a significantly different quality score. In the
Australasian survey junior academic staff score one outlet, the Accounting
Historians’ Journal, more highly than their senior colleagues at a 10% level of
significance. Senior Australasian academics give three journals a statistically
higher average score: JAR at the 10% significance level; JAE at 5% and ABR
at the 1% level. Overall senior academics score journals more highly than their
junior colleagues, but not at a statistically significant level.
Another key characteristic of our respondents that may have influenced their
scoring on journals is their area of research interest. The tables showing research
background (see Table A2) indicate that in the Australasian survey the largest
research area represented among our respondents was management accounting
(25%) followed by accounting theory/financial reporting (13.5%) and
‘other’ (13.5%).
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 171
The influence of research background on quality scores was tested for statisti-
cal significance using Mann–Whitney as indicated above. Our tests revealed
some differences in scoring at the individual level associated with research back-
ground, but there seemed to be no consistent pattern across the journals included
in the sample. A number of tests were carried out using different groupings of
research area. The only statistically significant differences appeared when
researchers who indicated a management accounting background were compared
to the rest of the sample. Mann–Whitney tests indicated statistically significant
differences on three journals, two at the 5% and one at the 10% level. Of the
two journals which show differences at the 5% level: FAM is scored more
highly by those from management accounting while the Accounting Research
Journal is scored higher among researchers with other than a management
accounting background. There was no clear bias among management accounting
researchers toward journals that might be seen as offering outlets for their
research, such as MAR or JMAR, or away from journals which tend to publish
management accounting material less frequently.
We now turn to the results of the British survey in relation to research back-
ground. Figure 2 depicts a sample of journal results for the British survey
(Lowe and Locke, 2005). The diagram highlights some of the more significant
differences revealed in the data between the journal quality perceptions of two
groupings consisting of different research backgrounds. Figure 2 seems to
show little difference in quality score for the functionalist journals to the right
of the diagram. Reading the diagram, ‘literally’ as it were, the most striking dis-
tinction shown by the finance and capital markets academics is to regard rather
poorly the more interpretive/critical journals, AAAJ, AOS, CPA. Surprisingly,
Figure 2. Differences in scoring by research area in the British survey. Source: Lowe and
Locke (2005, p. 93). # Elsevier, reproduced by kind permission.
172 J. Locke & A. Lowe
ABR is also scored low by this group compared to their accounting colleagues.
The overall scoring of all journals by finance and capital markets academics is
lower than their accounting counterparts. As a consequence they are effectively
scoring much higher than average the two functionalist journals shown at the
right of the diagram, TAR and JAE. This group of researchers score these two
journals, in which it has recently been reported British-based researchers
almost never publish (Brinn et al., 2001; Beattie and Goodacre, 2004), very
highly. At the same time they seem to score as very low quality a number of
journals which they consider publish material influenced by more interpretive/
critical philosophies.
5.3. Implications for the Context of Knowledge Production
The differences reported above indicate the complex nature of the accounting
academy. It consists of groups of individuals with very different research inter-
ests who are located in many diverse and distant institutional locations. These
are features which along with other variables are likely to affect their percep-
tions of journal quality. Belonging to any specific institution, is likely to
impact on where an individual is expected to publish in order to maintain
status and gain promotion or tenure. These effects are likely to be magnified
in an elite institution, or one which is vying to join an elite group of insti-
tutions (Lee, 2004; Williams et al., 2006; see also Clark and Wright, 2007;
Macdonald and Kam, 2007). In a similar manner, research interests and
perhaps editorial board membership are likely to impact systematically on
attitudes about journal quality. It should be clear that there are many features
that could be used to identify groupings within the accounting academy. In this
paper we are only able to address a limited number of these. So we have con-
centrated on the areas that can be most reliably identified using survey
approaches.
Our survey evidence has shown a very high degree of consensus among the
respondents in and across both jurisdictions surveyed. Though we have
reported some differences by seniority and research background above, these
are far from systematic. We noted the correspondence, in terms of perceptions
of paradigm mix of material published by the leading journals, across the jur-
isdictions. The survey shows significant agreement among respondents as to the
philosophical nature of the journal outlets, while also indicating a broad accep-
tance of material motivated from different research traditions. Many journals
are regarded as publishing a mix of material influenced by the two broad para-
digm groupings and many of these journals are considered to be of high
quality. A smaller number of journals are seen as publishing predominantly
interpretive and critical work but again some of these journals are highly
scored for quality.
This lack of differences within the sample populations as to the ranking of
the journals indicates that the academics within each of the jurisdictions
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 173
broadly agree on the quality of the journals surveyed. This further supports our
argument that there is broad agreement across academics of differing research
background, teaching area and seniority as to the quality of publication outlets
and supports our contention that interpretive and critical work is valued by the
academy. Our evidence is of a broad international acceptance of the multi-
paradigm nature of the academy and the value placed by the academy as a
body on the contribution to knowledge of such disparate research methodologies.
In the next section we will reflect on some of the areas that lay beyond the
reach of our research approach. This includes identifying localised situations
that cannot so easily be investigated using a survey research design. In doing
this we will try to indicate how our broader setting can be used as a background
to establish what we cannot say, from our research, but what other research has
and may be able to further examine.
6. Localised Perspectives on Domination of the Academy
A consequence of survey research of academic perceptions is that it can only shed
light on aggregate aspects of the environment. Such approaches are not useful for
interrogating individual and institutional experience. Other research has exam-
ined some elements of the impact of groups of individuals and institutions on a
localised academic environment. Williams et al. (2006) analyse some of the pro-
cesses of social construction that can be traced through citation and other docu-
mentary analysis in the US accounting academy. Effectively these researchers
examine the role of an elite which they claim operatesto maintain its own pos-
ition while excluding others from positions of power and influence in the US aca-
demic hierarchy. This is an example of what we would identify as a research
approach suited to a localised study – both geographically and paradigmatically
(see also Smolin, 2006).
Williams et al.’s research (2006) is based primarily on a citation-based study
covering three decades. They provide a disturbing and depressing conclusion
about the state of the accounting academy in the USA and the demise of what
they describe as the only significant alternative theoretical voice within it.
They describe the results of their research as showing that the ‘decibel levels
of even the limited alternative voices in the US that existed are being “turned
down” by the increasingly louder monologue of orthodox economics’ (ibid.,
p. 814). They refer to ‘the winnowing away of behavioral accounting research
in the US’ (p. 783). Their message could hardly be more bleak (see also Lee,
2004). They base their conclusion about the unjustified narrowing of what
counts as knowledge in the US academy on data from the ‘top’ international jour-
nals. Though it is possible to raise concerns about the definition of these ‘top’
journals – it is less easy to dispel the concern that they may also set the
agenda for the wider international accounting academy. They analyse publi-
cations from the four ‘top’ accounting journals, three of which are North
American.
174 J. Locke & A. Lowe
Williams et al. support their choice of the ‘top’ four journals by reference to a
number of journal ranking studies which have appeared in the accounting litera-
ture over a long period (see also Brown, 1996; Lowe and Locke, 2005; Beattie
and Goodacre, 2006; Bonner et al., 2006). These studies all support the selection
used by Williams et al. and in addition a number of other studies published in the
management literature since the advent of research assessment10 (Geary et al.,
2004; Mingers and Harzing, 2006).
The conclusion drawn by Williams et al. (2006) that the conversation that con-
stitutes and circumscribes the development of academic accounting is limited to
publications in the top four journals is well constructed.
The ultimate test of any paradigm or research program is the extent to
which it defines the field [and] . . . establishes the research agenda . . .
The viability of [the research program] . . . depends on the power its prac-
titioners have to set the agenda, determine the content of accounting knowl-
edge, define the terms of success in the field, and control access to the elite
status required to do so.
(ibid., p. 784)
Williams et al. provide strong citation-based evidence to support their conclusion
that an economics/finance-inspired group within the US academy has been able
to achieve the hegemony they describe in the quote (see also Dillard, in press). So
the conclusion is a serious one which may further provoke dismay among
accounting faculty who do not adopt research methodology approved of by the
mainstream holders of power in the academy.
Much has been made of the approaches that have been developed in the
‘alternative’ accounting literature in journals such as Critical Perspectives on
Accounting. CPA and other highly ranked journals including AOS have consist-
ently and over a long period of time, provided an outlet for views counter to the
US ‘elite’. Williams et al. claim that this activity is all for nought since neither
these scholars let alone the behavioural researchers seem to have any likelihood
of affecting the direction of accounting research.
On the other hand is this claim not without flaw? Can it really be said that the
top journals and self-acclaimed top scholars really are engaged in setting the
agenda? Is there no hope that we can expect to see any change in the power
relations within the accounting academy (see Dillard, in press)? Are the elite
of the US accounting academy not perhaps just taking part in a closed and theor-
etically stale conversation (Reiter and Williams, 2002), which will eventually be
supplanted as it fails to make plausible additions to knowledge? Part of our objec-
tive in the research we report in this paper is to problematise this monochrome
view of what is to count as accounting research by providing alternative argu-
ments based on the empirics from our perception surveys. We argued earlier
that there is remarkable consistency in the perception across our international
samples that a significant number of journals are publishing high quality
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 175
interpretive/critical research. We argue that this provides an escape route from
the localised control of US-based elites. It may involve leaving an institution,
moving country or in the longer term, using such journal rankings to change
the attitude of institutions. However, there is a body of acceptance to which other-
wise isolated interpretive researchers may turn. Our research provides hope that
the closed shop perpetuated by the elite journals and the elite scholars is losing its
ability to determine the agenda for academic accounting research (see also
Dillard, in press).
There is further evidence that the elite of the US accounting academy is not
engaged in an international conversation. Beattie and Goodacre (2006) note
that in the UK a significant proportion of journals ranking highly in perception
studies were either, very significantly underrepresented in RAE 2001 or not
represented at all:
The perception studies ranked between 30 and 44 journals, of which
approximately half had less than five submissions to RAE 2001 so are
excluded from the analysis (and rankings) in the present paper.
(Beattie and Goodacre, 2006, p. 85)
The journals omitted on the basis of five or fewer RAE submissions include: The
Accounting Review; Contemporary Accounting Research and Journal of
Accounting and Economics. The Accounting Review received no submissions
in RAE 2001. Journal of Accounting Research was the only ‘elite’ North
American accounting journal to record five submissions in the 2001 RAE. The
majority of the other journals that Beattie and Goodacre’s analysis excludes
are North American based. To put this into perspective Beattie and Goodacre
report 1,577 journal papers were submitted to RAE 2001 by accounting and
finance research staff. Of these 1,577 submissions JBFA accounted for 122 fol-
lowed by ABR and AAAJ with 64 and 58, respectively.
While a number of ‘elite’ accounting journals are excluded on the basis of
insufficient submissions, a number of highly ranked organisation theory and
organisation behaviour journals are represented in Beattie and Goodacre’s
RAE 2001 rankings. These include British Journal of Management, Organiz-
ation, Organization Studies and Human Relations. Moreover, while the elite
North American accounting journals hardly figure in UK publishing figures
over the 1996/2001 RAE period, North American organisation theory journals
do. The American Academy of Management Journal records as many RAE sub-
missions as the three elite US accounting journals combined over the five-year
period.
It is clear from this discussion that UK accounting academics do not contribute
to the academic conversation in the ‘elite’ North American accounting journals.
Is this a matter of choice or is it a matter of exclusion? Does it matter? The lack
of UK-based academics publishing in these journals does not mean that they lack
outlets for their work or that they are not part of constructive conversations.
176 J. Locke & A. Lowe
On the other hand, we accept that it might not be appropriate to conclude that
all is well in the accounting academy. We will address a key aspect of why it
might be appropriate to worry about the construction of a right-wing elite,
even if limited to the USA, in relation to concerns over accounting practice
and policy setting in the nextsection. We will also examine briefly a limited
number of local examples of the concern of accounting academics to make an
impact.
7. Links to Policy and Practice
Another way to frame concerns over the role of the academy is to examine its
broad impact on policy setting11 and practice. These are legitimate areas which
individual academics and the institutions of the academy might wish to affect.
Such effects are hard to discern in practical terms and hard to produce definitive
research evidence on. A number of questions could be posed. In any consider-
ation of these issues the extent to which there is evidence of the capture and
control of the academic accounting agenda, even if short-term or localised,
becomes significant.
What effect do the ideas developed in academe have on practice? To what
extent do accounting academics want to impact the world of professional
accounting and policy determination? It is clear that some academics do wish
to be involved in this area, whether they hold to functionalist or broadly interpre-
tivist views (Zimmerman, 2001; Lukka and Mouritsen, 2002; see also Critical
Perspectives on Accounting special issue, in press). In the ‘polyphonic debate’
in the special issue of Critical Perspectives on Accounting there is a degree of
concern expressed over ‘making a difference’ (Ahrens et al., in press; Willmott,
in press). These writers broadly worry about the lack of impact of Interpretive
Accounting Research (IAR). Other contributors to the debate take a different
view expressing concerns over the dangers of moving toward more functionalist
research in order to achieve this perhaps elusive and mythical effect on practice
(Armstrong, in press; Baxter et al., in press). Baxter et al. write of
. . . the ‘threat’ to IAR may come not from the North American mainstream
but from a desire within IAR to build legitimacy by seeking engagement
with practice that is both more ‘applied’ and ‘functional’ . . . undermining
the intellectual autonomy of IAR.
(ibid., p. 7)
These authors go on to suggest that a concern with ‘making a difference’ might in
itself be illusory and is evidence of a preoccupation that should be peripheral
rather than central to the aims of IAR:
We may find that many of our current concerns with the disinterest of main-
stream accounting and practitioners preoccupy us just that little less in a
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 177
more expansive domain that challenges our self-erected limitations . . . this
ability to function as a loosely organized assembly of IAR will occur only
when we can acknowledge that our self/social identity has emerged from
‘small’ achievements.
(ibid., p. 7)
Another example of the debates about different knowledges within the account-
ing academy can be observed in the exchanges that took place involving a
number of senior European and US academics (Hopwood, 2002; Ittner and
Larcker, 2002; Luft and Shields, 2002; Lukka and Mouritsen, 2002) and Jerold
Zimmerman (2001). This exchange drew attention to a very clear difference of
opinion about what constituted research and how knowledge might be advanced
in empirical management accounting research. Zimmerman’s critique attracted a
number of pointed responses:
It is unfortunate that Zimmerman does not have a greater familiarity with
the extensive and diverse body of literature capable of being reviewed by
Ittner and Larcker. But he does not.
(Hopwood, 2002, p. 778)
Zimmerman’s discussion of research emphases on control or decision-
making forms of explanation is far too simplistic.
(Hopwood, 2002, p. 783)
Although Zimmerman argues that the practice-oriented nature of much
managerial accounting research has led researchers to focus on describing
(consulting) practice rather than developing and testing theories, this
characterization is simply inconsistent with the mass of managerial
accounting studies published in academic journals.
(Ittner and Larcker, 2002, p. 788)
Much has been written about the impact of right-wing economists, notably
Friedman (Krugman, 2007), on economic theory and economic policy in
various countries. It is widely accepted that Friedman’s views and the views of
other free market supporters have not only influenced economic theory and prac-
tice very significantly but have also played a role in the reorientation of the
accounting academy. As Williams et al. (2006) demonstrate two of the four
top journals are closely associated with the pre-eminently free market universities
associated with Friedman and his supporters – Chicago and Rochester. Chicago
is the editorial home to the Journal of Accounting Research and Rochester, the
Journal of Accounting and Economics.
Attitudes to the role of the academy and of research clearly play an important
part in the concerns expressed above and in the worries academicians have about
178 J. Locke & A. Lowe
the conversations in which they engage. These concerns affect our attitudes to the
construction of an elite and the importance of being able to ‘make a difference’
(Clarke et al., 1999; Merino et al., 2007; Dillard, in press). Merino et al. argue
that ‘accounting academics could have an important role in reshaping public
opinion’ (p. 21) and they continue to express their concerns about the power of
neoliberals who use:
. . . rhetoric to frame issues to defuse criticism [of the status quo] . . . they
have think tanks and have developed a media infrastructure to propagate
the free market ‘faith.’ They also have an impact on higher education,
through endowed chairs . . .
(Merino et al., 2007, p. 21)
The above discussions while being focused on ‘local’ concerns about ‘making a
difference’ are also a manifest example of the paradigm diversity that we have
argued is supported by our research on academic accounting journals. The
claims for the relevance of accounting research and the debates we report in
this section reflect the arguments we have made about the acceptance by the
broad academy of the place of and need for diverse conversations in order to
reflect and add to accounting knowledge.
The desire of academicians to affect policy or influence business or the pro-
fession – in the widest sense can be seen to ‘play out’ in the decision choices
that individual academics make about the nature of the research they do and
the publication outlets they choose to make submissions to. For some academics
there is much more involved here than can be accounted for in terms of journal
quality and the search for elite journal publications or the accumulation of
cultural capital (Everett et al., 2003; see also Baxter et al., in press).
8. Concluding Comments
This paper contributes an alternative understanding of the quality of academic
accounting journals. In this way the construction of accounting as a single para-
digm field and the related domination of the ‘elite’ in constructions of journal
quality may be challenged.
We believe that the results of our perception surveys support a view of the
accounting literature as a disjoint collection of accounting journals, many of
which are clearly perceived to be open to the publication of material motivated
from diverse research approaches and methodologies. We would argue that
accounting academicians in the jurisdictions we have surveyed show, in the
aggregate, a significant degree of respect for the quality of journals publishing
research from across a broad spectrum of social science methodologies. Only
in the British sample did we find strong evidence of a significant bias/preference
among an identifiable research group toward journals of a definably functionalist
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 179
orientation and against journals publishing material from a broader range of
philosophical perspectives, including critical and interpretive. Even in this case
it could be argued that these differences are unsurprising given the strikinglydifferent traditions in respect of what constitutes knowledge and legitimate
research in finance vs. that in accounting more generally. We would argue that
such differences could be said to reflect differences in intellectual tradition and
training rather than an outright bias against particular journals.
It is interesting to note that in our Australasian survey it was not possible to
discern such an identifiable academic grouping with a strong functionalist
‘bias’. This is likely to reflect the institutional arrangements among British
and Australasian business schools. It is not common to find finance academics
within accounting units in Australasian universities where the accepted arrange-
ment is for finance to be a separate academic unit or in some instances to
combine it, perhaps with economics. The result of this is that while capital
markets researchers may be found in accounting units in both jurisdictions it
is much more common to find finance researchers in British accounting and
finance departments. In one respect then this difference between the results
we obtain for Britain as compared to Australasia is an artefact of our
surveys. Alternatively it does reflect the institutional arrangements in the
three countries surveyed.
These differences in academic constituencies are likely to have an impact on
the development of the academy in the different jurisdictions (see also Everett
et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2006). Notably one would expect the role of
finance-inspired research to have an increasing influence on British accounting
research relative to that in Australasia. In practice this would be very hard to
demonstrate. Our suggestion is based simply on the likelihood of a greater
degree of contact among finance and accounting academics where they are
treated as part of the same academic unit for teaching and administrative pur-
poses and/or are physically located together.
In theAustralasian survey academics with their reported research interest inman-
agement accounting do exhibit some statistically significant differences in quality
perceptions but they do not seem to fit what might be described as a self-interested,
methodological or subject bias. This would lead us to conclude that the academy
itself in these jurisdictions displays a balanced acceptance of multiple paradigms
and that the body of academics in our samples show a willingness to recognise
and perhaps engage in multiple and diverse academic conversations (Reiter and
Williams, 2002; Lee, 2004). In this sense we believe that there is evidence of diver-
sity in the academy and of good quality outlets which publish material from differ-
ent methodological perspectives, though this does not address directly the argument
that a small US elite sets the agenda and correspondingly influences policy
(Williams et al., 2006; Merino et al., 2007; Dillard, in press).
‘Localised’ concerns remain of importance. The diversity and the acceptance
of multiple paradigms by the academy which we suggest above do not eliminate
problems in localised settings. We have drawn on the considerable research
180 J. Locke & A. Lowe
focusing on the USA (e.g. Lee, 1997, 2004; Reiter and Williams, 2002; Williams
et al., 2006). However, our research suggests that there is significant diversity
that may harbour ‘elites’ within different geographical and paradigmatic settings.
Further research into the effect on the academy of other such localised ‘elites’ is
necessary to bring them to light and increase awareness of issues beyond
the USA.
While we interpret our respondents as identifying the leading journals as pro-
viding a broad range of potential publication outlets that we believe reflects well
on the constitution of the academy it does not dispel concerns about a lack of
voice in influencing both the so-called elite accounting establishment and
accounting policy makers (Lee, 2004; Merino et al., 2007; see also Dillard, in
press). This is a much more difficult problem to resolve, even if we can agree
that this is what we want to do. While there is evidence among some members
of the accounting academy of dissatisfaction with the nature of elite research
there is a diversity of view here also about how this should be approached.
While some researchers have called for a radically different accounting and
different approaches to accounting research (Gaffikin, 1987; Arrington and
Schweiker, 1992; Tinker and Puxty, 1995; Armstrong, in press) over a long
period of time this does not suit all those academics who consider themselves
to be following alternative research perspectives.
We agree with Reiter and Williams (2002) who describe a stale and closed
conversation taking place among the ‘elite’ US scholars in ‘elite’ US journals,
but we think there are grounds to be optimistic. If no-one is listening to the
conversation this ‘elite’ is fabricating then why do we need to be so anxious
about it (Baxter et al., in press)? Surely it is not reasonable or sensible to conclude
that the conversation is unhelpful and informing so few but then to agonise over
it. Where is the power of the ‘elite’ if we don’t choose to succumb to it? On the
other hand, there is worrying evidence of a further commodification of the major
international accounting journals as they move to gain entry into commercial
citation systems.12
In contrast to Williams et al.’s rather bleak conclusion (2006) about the
squeezing out from the academy of alternative perspectives we provide evidence
that indicates divergent views are accommodated within the academy. Though
the AAA-based elite may be promoting itself it may also be talking to itself –
a closed conversation which is hardly an appropriate way to direct the research
effort internationally or even perhaps in the USA. Multiple conversations are
an appropriate fit in circumstances where the accounting discipline is shown to
be multi-paradigmatic. Nevertheless, we would not suggest too much optimism.
The conclusions that Williams et al. (2006) reach are pertinent. If we do not
ensure a place for alternative views in high quality outlets then it is possible
that the multi-vocal conversations we value may disappear. Such a result is evi-
denced by Williams et al. who report that behavioural accounting research has
been squeezed out of the elite US journals. In the light of our results, their pessi-
mism is overdone but we should not be complacent.
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 181
Acknowledgements
The authorswish to thank the participants at the 2006BritishAccountingAssociation
Conference. Special thanks are also due to the two anonymous reviewers for the care
they took in the review of the paper and the contribution their comments made to the
rewriting of the paper. Any remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors.
Appendix A: Demographic Information
Table A1. Seniority of respondents
Job title Number in sample % of respondents
Australasian survey
Professor 37 19
Associate Professor 18 9
Senior Lecturer 52 27
Lecturer 59 31
Assistant Lecturer 12 6
Senior Tutor 7 4
Tutor 8 4
Total 193
British survey
Professor/Dept Chair 37 25
Reader/Fellow 12 8
Senior/Principal Lecturer 51 34
Lecturer 49 33
Total 149
182 J. Locke & A. Lowe
Table A2. Research area and average years of publishing
Research
area
Number of
respondents
% of
respondents
Average
years
publishing
Australasian survey
Accounting and capital markets 13 7 9
Accounting and info systems 9 5 2
Accounting history 6 3 9
Accounting theory/fin reporting 26 13 11
Auditing 17 9 11
Finance/economics and related 22 11 11
International accounting 10 5 11
Management accounting 48 25 10
Public/non-profit accounting 10 5 11
Taxation 5 3 2
Other 26 13 7
Do not do research 1 1 0
Total 193 100.0
British survey
Accounting and capital markets 12 8 9
Accounting and info systems 1 1 10
Accounting history 4 3 17
Accounting theory/fin reporting 10 7 9
Auditing 16 11 6Finance/economics and related 33 22 10
International accounting 3 2 7
Management accounting 20 13 11
Public/non-profit accounting 10 7 9
Taxation 4 3 8
Othera 16 11 11
CSR, sustainability and ethics 9 6 11
Accounting education 7 5 6
Corporate governance 4 3 11
Total 149 100.0
aIn the British survey we extended our response categories based on prior experience in the
Australasian survey. We introduced more categories. Those created by respondents are shown
in the last three rows of the table. Respondents were asked to provide an estimate of the number of
years they had been publishing. The average shown is across all respondents in each category.
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 183
Table A3. Journal mean scores and rankinga
Australasian British
Journal
Average of
score
No. of
respondents
scoring Rank
Average of
score
No. of
respondents
scoring Rank
Abacus 2.67 97 9 2.93 57 19
ABR 2.97 81 13 2.36 76 7
A & F 3.15 102 16 3.21 26 26
ABFH 2.77 23 16¼
AEd 3.28 36 28
A/C Forum 3.89 84 30 3.50 24 30
A Horizons 3.16 92 17 2.99 53 21
ARJ 3.78 77 28
AAAJ 2.62 92 7 2.52 66 9
AOS 2.01 103 1 1.74 75 1
A:JPT 3.09 49 15 2.32 19 6
AAR 3.56 81 27
ATF 3.50 12 26
ATR 3.33 14 24
BRA 2.77 11 16¼
CAR 2.42 68 2¼ 2.09 27 5
CPA 2.58 91 6 2.65 66 13¼
FAM 3.19 47 18¼ 2.97 36 20
IAE 3.29 75 23 3.24 27 27
JAE 2.70 87 10 2.00 41 4
JAPP 2.86 55 12 2.65 32 13¼
JofAEd 3.36 59 25 3.18 24 25
JAlit 3.19 56 18¼ 2.70 26 15
JAR 2.57 85 5 1.96 49 3
JAAF 3.23 52 21 3.08 18 22
JBFA 2.78 62 11 2.47 64 8
JIFMA 2.80 8 18
JMAR 2.63 54 8 2.54 35 10
MAR 2.47 53 4 2.57 44 11¼
PAR 3.81 78 29
RAS 2.57 12 11¼
A/C History 3.28 44 22
TAR 2.42 93 2¼ 1.77 56 2
BAR 3.01 87 14 3.13 83 24
EAR 3.12 65 23
IJA 3.19 42 18¼ 3.28 27 29
Note: The blank spaces in the table arise because the journals differed between the two surveys. The
data used in our analysis relates to the 30 most often scored journals in each jurisdiction. The average
is calculated for all respondents scoring the journal.
aSee Table B1 for journal title abbreviations.
184 J. Locke & A. Lowe
Appendix B: Key to Journal Titles
Table B1. Key to journal titles
Journal
Abacus Abacus
Accounting and Business Research ABR
Accounting and Finance A & F
Accounting and the Public Interest API
Accounting Horizons A Horizons
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal AAAJ
Accounting, Organizations and Society AOS
Advances in Accounting Adv in A/C
Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory A:JPT
Behavioral Research in Accounting BRA
Contemporary Accounting Research CAR
Critical Perspectives on Accounting CPA
European Accounting Review EAR
Issues in Accounting Education IAE
Journal of Accounting and Economics JAE
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy JAPP
Journal of Accounting Education JofAEd
Journal of Accounting Literature JAlit
Journal of Accounting Research JAR
Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance JAAF
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting JBFA
Journal of Management Accounting Research JMAR
Journal of Taxation JofT
Journal of the American Taxation Association JATA
Management Accounting Research MAR
National Tax Journal NTJ
Review of Accounting Studies RAS
The Accounting Historians’ Journal A/C History
The Accounting Review TAR
The British Accounting Review BAR
The International Journal of Accounting IJA
Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production 185
Appendix C
Figure C2. Bubble graph of the British survey. Source: Lowe and Locke (2005, p. 88).
# Elsevier, reproduced by kind permission.
Figure C1. Bubble graph of the Australasian survey.
186 J. Locke & A. Lowe
Notes
1The term ‘paradigm’ is problematic, having been given different meanings in different contexts
(Christenson, 1983; Chua, 1986; Gaffikin, 1988). We use it here and in our surveys on the basis
that it has achieved wide currency in accounting academe. We have also simplified the descrip-
tion of the possible range of paradigmatic approaches to only distinguish between the interpre-
tive/critical and the functionalist/positivist methodologies. We are aware that this does not
represent the rich array of approaches being applied in the accounting literature, however,
the restrictions of the practical application of the survey method meant that more than two cat-
egories would have made it too complex for participants to complete.
2Latour (2005) seeks to distance himself from social construction. He suggests rather incongru-
ously while citing Hacking (1999) that social construction has been subverted and misunder-
stood so badly that the term cannot be recovered. Instead, he argues that it is better to talk
about construction. In this paper we will continue to use the term social construction since
this carries our meaning in a more generally accepted sense in the accounting literature than
does construction or constructivist.
3The Australasian survey was initially mailed out by the Accounting Association of Australia
and New Zealand (AAANZ, since renamed AFAANZ), but the response was very low. A
direct mail-out based on the Wiley Directory 2001–2002 augmented with some additional
email addresses obtained from conference lists was then used. All institutions included in the
Wiley directory were included in the mail-out. In the case of New Zealand this means polytech-
nics were also part of the population. Of the emails sent, 79%were to Australians and 21%were
to New Zealanders (based on the suffix of the email address).
4Only one participant in the survey returned a ‘don’t know’ response, providing some support for
the contention that the two paradigm groupings are broadly understood (although not providing
evidence that they are construed in the same way).
5Where ‘both’ was selected the journal was returned in both categories.
6One represented the highest quality and 7 the lowest. A 7-point scale was considered preferable
to a 5-point scale as it provides more scope for scoring differentially across the number of jour-
nals listed. A scoring approach was selected in preference to other alternatives such as requiring
a rank ordering or the use of a benchmark style of relative ranking (Hull and Wright, 1990;
Brinn et al., 1996). The key advantage in using a scoring approach is to enable respondents
to score journals which they perceive as having equivalent quality equally.
7We surveyed at least 30 journals in each jurisdiction. Twenty-five journals, a significant
majority, were common to both surveys. The remaining journals were different across the
surveys reflecting regional differences in publication outlet preferences.
8In fact there is much more than just overlapping in what Williams, Lee and others have to say
about the structure of these interrelationships.
9We compared the respondent sample to the populations in each jurisdiction. In the British case
we used the British Accounting Review Research Register. In Australia we used the Wiley
Directory (2001–2002). In the Australasian instance data on the academic population could
be established with a good degree of accuracy from the published sources. For the British
survey it was possible to establish seniority statistics for the population with good accuracy.
It was much more difficult to establish research background of population. In the latter case
this is because the BAR Research Register allows respondents to indicate their research inter-
ests to a considerable level of detail. So that although the categories we offered our respondents
were closely aligned to that provided by the Register (2002, p. iii) the detailed descriptions in
the Register itself were often quite difficult to identify with these broader descriptions.
10RAE in UK, PBRF in NZ, etc.
11We would like to thank one of the anonymous reviewers for suggesting the need to consider the
significance of this topic.
12Statements made by panel members at the EAA Editors Symposium, 26 April 2007. Two editors
of highly ranked international journals indicated that they had recently achieved admission to
Multiple