The practical relevance of management accounting research published in Abacus

Citation

Jones, S. (2012), "The practical relevance of management accounting research published in Abacus", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 9 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/qram.2012.31409caa.007

The practical relevance of management accounting research published in Abacus

Article Type: Commentary From: Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Volume 9, Issue 3

In this commentary I specifically consider the types of management accounting research published by Abacus over the last 40 years, including the subject matter of the various papers published, the typical methodologies employed in this research and the broader relevance of management accounting research (as published by Abacus) to accounting practice more generally. Before specifically considering these issues, it is worthwhile for me to provide a broad overview of Abacus itself, as this will serve to better contextualise the theme of this commentary to the specific area of management accounting research.

Background to Abacus

Abacus is currently an ISI listed journal and its 2010 citation impact factor is 0.833 (Abacus is ranked 32/74 of SSCI business and finance journals). Abacus is published by Wiley-Blackwell on a quarterly basis. The journal publishes on average around six papers per issue, or around 24 papers per annum. Currently the journal receives around 180 submissions per year and the acceptance rate is currently around 13 per cent. The journal also has one of the highest download rates of all journals in the Wiley-Blackwell’s stable of business and finance journals. Total downloads across all international jurisdictions (including Australia) have increased more than 700 per cent in the past five years. Currently, article download rates are strongest in (in rank order of download): the US, Europe, UK and Australasia, respectively.

While Abacus is based in Australia, more than 80 per cent of Abacus publications are from international author/s. Abacus has a strong representation of published articles coming from authors in the UK, the US, Europe and to a lesser extent Asia. The internationalisation of Abacus has been a noticeably increasing trend since 1965, and based on the profile of current submission this trend is expected to continue strongly over the next five to ten years. While Abacus appears to have a particularly strong niche in qualitative research, the presence of empirical research publications is steadily growing and has become more prominent over the past decade.

Focus of Abacus papers

Over many years, Abacus has developed an international reputation for scholarly rigour and a distinctive culture of research diversity and methodological tolerance. The journal places considerable value on the practical relevance and applicability of published research findings. From its inception the Abacus editorial policy objective has been to seek:

[…] publication of exploratory constructive and critical articles on all aspects of accounting and those phases of the theory and administration of organizations and of economic behaviour generally which are related to accounting, finance and business studies.

The scope of the journal is also very broad – seeking to reach academics, practitioners and educators globally. It is noteworthy that Abacus has a significant subscription base from practitioners, as well as academics. This is partly owing to the unique position of Abacus being owned by the Accounting Foundation at the University of Sydney, which is a funding body made of leading professors and several eminent practitioners.

Interest in the practical relevance of research also goes back to the founder of the journal, Professor Ray Chambers. Not only was Chambers one of the most widely recognised accounting professors in the world, but he was intimately involved in the development of accounting practice on a number of levels, but most prominently as an accounting standard setter and educator. Chambers has had an enduring interest in the practical implications of academic research since the inception of Abacus in 1965. Chambers formed Abacus partly to pursue a “quest” for evidence-based research and partly to promote “thinking about accounting thought and practice”. Previous editorials have emphasized that Abacus seeks to publish original research involving international studies on accounting covering a myriad of topics and using various research methods. Abacus remains one of the few leading accounting journals with such a scholarly and yet practical focus to research. The journal has no regimented ideas about the subject matter or methodology of Abacus publications. Chambers, the founder of Abacus, once reflected, “thinking is as much a part of the process as accumulating facts. It is perhaps the most difficult part”, and further, “research requires an imaginative approach to the facts, even perhaps a fanciful approach, though never fanciful conclusions” (Chambers, 1995a, b).

Because Abacus is as much interested in the practical relevance of accounting research as it is with rigorous scholarship, the journal has evolved with a high level of tolerance to research methodology. Since 1965, Abacus research papers can be broadly grouped as:

• •

  empirical;

• •

  theoretical/analytical; and

• •

  historical.

Empirical papers include studies that involve some form of data collection and analysis, including surveys, interviews, case studies, experiments, field studies, capital market and event studies, and related empirical methodologies. Theoretical/analytical papers include theoretical studies, including accounting, legal, economic and critical theory; conceptual framework analysis; regulatory studies; analysis of measurement concepts; standard setting issues and related topics. Historical papers include any studies that employ some form of historical methodology, including general accounting history studies, historical biographies, historical anthologies, and critical accounting histories. These thematic headings are quite broad as it is possible for an article to straddle more than one classification. Furthermore, each of these broader methodological groups can readily be decomposed into a number of related methodological areas.

When Abacus was first established in 1965, the published articles were overwhelming theoretical/analytical in nature and many studies had a very applied practical focus. In fact, around 80 per cent of papers were theoretical and/or analytical up until the late 1970s. However, from Volume 15 onwards, the number of empirical papers gained significant momentum. Over the past 15 years, nearly half of all Abacus articles have been empirical. This no doubt reflects the broader trends in accounting research towards positivist methodologies that took hold during the 1970s and 1980s. However, it is clear that Abacus has not been dominated by the positivist research culture to the same extent as other leading international accounting journals (such as Accounting Review and the Journal of Accounting Research). For instance, from Volume 21 to 35, Abacus published a large percentage of historical papers, which has galvanised the reputation of Abacus as a premier publication outlet for scholarly qualitative research, particularly in accounting history. Further, around 45 per cent of all published articles in Abacus have been theoretical and/or analytical, suggesting that Abacus appears to be maintaining its reputation as a niche publisher of diverse qualitative research with a broad readership, which includes academics and practitioners. While the longer term trends would suggest that empirical research studies are likely to play an increasingly important role for Abacus, the current trends also indicate that Abacus will continue to be a premier outlet for alternative research methodologies and research problems having a practical interest to the profession.

The subject matter of Abacus articles

The interest of Abacus in practical and applied aspects of research has led to a broadly eclectic approach to subject matter. While the majority of articles published in Abacus since 1965 are in the financial reporting field, Abacus continues to publish across a very broad spectrum of subject areas, ranging from financial reporting, management accounting, accounting history, auditing, finance/economics, critical perspectives, public sector, international accounting, and other areas (such as law, education and culture). From 1965 to 2009, around 38.98 per cent of Abacus articles were in the field of financial reporting. However, a wide range of other subject areas have been published by Abacus. Around 7.45 per cent of articles are in management accounting field, while 5.75 per cent of published papers are in the area of critical perspectives. A further 7.14 per cent of articles have been published in the area of accounting theory and concepts, while 4.04 per cent of articles have been published in international accounting. A further 6.83 per cent of articles have been published in the auditing field, and 9.94 per cent of articles have been published in accounting history. A further 12.27 per cent of Abacus articles are in the field of finance and economics. The statistics tend to reinforce the niche standing of Abacus as an eclectic journal that publishes a wide diversity of scholarship using a wide variety of methodologies. Abacus is perhaps more eclectic now than at any other time in its history.

Management accounting research

In writing this commentary for QRAM, I have analysed all management accounting papers published in Abacus over the last 40 years. My main conclusion is that, to a very large extent, management accounting research published by Abacus reflects the broader focus of the journal, which encapsulates:

• •

  methodological diversity;

• •

  tolerance to a variety of different types of research issues, ideas and problems; and

• •

  a keen interest in the practical relevance/implications of research findings.

I believe that a majority of management accounting papers published in Abacus over the years would have some level of practical relevance/interest to practitioners to the extent that:

• •

  Abacus tolerates and indeed encourages the use of effective but more accommodating methodological approaches to render papers more readable and comprehensible to a wider audience (which includes practitioners);

• •

  as far as possible, publications are not targeted at building up particular “research paradigms” (such as positive research), which can stifle research creativity and innovation and ultimately reduce the relevance of research to practitioners;

• •

  the subject matter of most of the published management accounting papers either deals directly with some potentially relevant question/issue to practice; attempts to solve a problem (or part of a problem) that exists in practice; or provides some level of critique of existing practices or highlights deficiencies/limitations with existing practices; and

• •

  several papers attempt to illuminate issues surrounding a particular practice using the benefit of hindsight (an historical perspective).

I believe that many of the management accounting papers published by Abacus over the past 40 years or so years would have relevance to practitioners for any one or more of these reasons. For instance, Abacus has published management accounting papers in history (e.g. histories of zero-cost budgeting and the evolution of standard cost techniques), which attempt to illuminate or explain an accounting practice or technique with the benefit of historical context or hindsight. Other papers have explored the links between performance measurement systems and such variables as business strategy, task uncertainty, and cognitive styles of management, which has broad relevance to the practice of management accounting. Abacus has published several papers examining the use and application of modern costing technologies (such as ABC), which has relevance to improving existing management accounting practices. Other management accounting studies published by Abacus also have a strong practical flavour, such as studies that have examined the pricing of long term transfer pricing relationships, and many studies that have delivered various solutions to different kinds of capital budgeting optimisation problems. These studies utilise a wide variety of research methods, including historical analysis, surveys, case studies, experiments, and analytical/mathematical techniques.

I believe that the type of research technique (e.g. qualitative or quantitative) utilised in management accounting research can have an important impact on whether practitioners perceive the research to be relevant (this may be more a question of how the results are actually communicated than whether the research problem itself has relevance to practice). In my experience, practitioners typically prefer qualitative research designs because they are easier to read and interpret. Practitioners frequently lack the research training or depth to evaluate quantitative or econometric studies. Practitioners very quickly get “put off” by mathematically-oriented studies or studies that get too distracted with the finer points of methodology. On the other hand, if academics only write simple and relatively descriptive papers suitable for a practitioner audience, journal editors are very likely to quickly “desk reject” such papers on the grounds they are not sufficiently scholarly for publication. Academic journals such as Abacus consciously attempt to be relevant to practitioners, but ultimately must impose very high standards of scholarship on academics to ensure that only the best quality research gets published.

While I believe that much of the management accounting research published in Abacus over the past 40 years would be relevant to practice (in terms of the points raised above), it goes without saying that the methodological sophistication of accounting research has grown enormously over the past two decades or so. This development has not only been evidenced in the leading North American journals, but has spread to many other so-named “second tier” accounting journals. Accounting journals are also competing more aggressively for greater international recognition and limelight as manifested through various journal performance metrics, such as citation impact factors published by the SSCI.

As the next generation of accounting scholars are likely to be better trained in quantitative methods and more able to respond to the growing demands of leading accounting journals for ever greater methodological sophistication and rigour, I believe the rift between accounting research and practice will continue to grow and widen over time. Academic journals can play a very important role in closing (or at least reducing) the divide between academia and practice. I do not believe the answer to closing the divide is to abandon sophistication in research. However, many academic journals do appear to be excessively focused on the subtle finesses of research design and quantitative analysis, frequently at the expense of the underlying research problem itself. To remain relevant to practice, accounting journals need to maintain high scholarly standards, but understand that methodology should never be viewed as an end in itself. Accounting journals need to think more “outside the square” and publish a great number of more creative, innovative and critical papers that are capable of changing or at the very least challenging conventional practices as we know them. Academic journals also need to find more effective and innovative strategies to communicate research findings to practitioners, as well as engaging more with the practitioner community about the value and relevance of academic research to the world of practice. One such strategy would be for academic journals to publish a synopsis of significant research findings to practitioners, potentially as some form of “practice note” at the end of each issue (or in some other relevant outlet, such as a practitioner journal).

Stewart Jones