Bob Jensen's Tidbits

In the first 40 years of TAR, an accounting “scholar” was first and foremost an expert on accounting. After 1960, following the Gordon and Howell Report, the perception of what it took to be a “scholar” changed to quantitative modeling. It became advantageous for an “accounting” researcher to have a degree in mathematics, management science, mathematical economics, psychometrics, or econometrics. Being a mere accountant no longer was sufficient credentials to be deemed a scholarly researcher. Many doctoral programs stripped much of the accounting content out of the curriculum and sent students to mathematics and social science departments for courses. Scholarship on accounting standards became too much of a time diversion for faculty who were “leading scholars.” Particularly relevant in this regard is Dennis Beresford’s address to the AAA membership at the 2005 Annual AAA Meetings in San Francisco:

In my eight years in teaching I’ve concluded that way too many of us don’t stay relatively up to date on professional issues. Most of us have some experience as an auditor, corporate accountant, or in some similar type of work. That’s great, but things change quickly these days.
Beresford [2005]

Jane Mutchler made a similar appeal for accounting professors to become more involved in the accounting profession when she was President of the AAA [Mutchler, 2004, p. 3].

In the last 40 years, TAR’s publication preferences shifted toward problems amenable to scientific research, with esoteric models requiring accountics skills in place of accounting expertise. When Professor Beresford attempted to publish his remarks, an Accounting Horizons referee’s report to him contained the following revealing reply about “leading scholars” in accounting research:

1. The paper provides specific recommendations for things that accounting academics should be doing to make the accounting profession better. However (unless the author believes that academics' time is a free good) this would presumably take academics' time away from what they are currently doing. While following the author's advice might make the accounting profession better, what is being made worse? In other words, suppose I stop reading current academic research and start reading news about current developments in accounting standards. Who is made better off and who is made worse off by this reallocation of my time? Presumably my students are marginally better off, because I can tell them some new stuff in class about current accounting standards, and this might possibly have some limited benefit on their careers. But haven't I made my colleagues in my department worse off if they depend on me for research advice, and haven't I made my university worse off if its academic reputation suffers because I'm no longer considered a leading scholar? Why does making the accounting profession better take precedence over everything else an academic does with their time?
As quoted in Jensen [2006a]

The above quotation illustrates the consequences of editorial policies of TAR and several other leading accounting research journals. To be considered a “leading scholar” in accountancy, one’s research must employ mathematically-based economic/behavioral theory and quantitative modeling. Most TAR articles published in the past two decades support this contention. But according to AAA President Judy Rayburn and other recent AAA presidents, this scientific focus may not be in the best interests of accountancy academicians or the accountancy profession.

In terms of citations, TAR fails on two accounts. Citation rates are low in practitioner journals because the scientific paradigm is too narrow, thereby discouraging researchers from focusing on problems of great interest to practitioners that seemingly just do not fit the scientific paradigm due to lack of quality data, too many missing variables, and suspected non-stationarities. TAR editors are loath to open TAR up to non-scientific methods so that really interesting accounting problems are neglected in TAR. Those non-scientific methods include case method studies, traditional historical method investigations, and normative deductions.

In the other account, TAR citation rates are low in academic journals outside accounting because the methods and techniques being used (like CAPM and options pricing models) were discovered elsewhere and accounting researchers are not sought out for discoveries of scientific methods and models. The intersection of models and topics that do appear in TAR seemingly are borrowed models and uninteresting topics outside the academic discipline of accounting.

We close with a quotation from Scott McLemee demonstrating that what happened among accountancy academics over the past four decades is not unlike what happened in other academic disciplines that developed “internal dynamics of esoteric disciplines,” communicating among themselves in loops detached from their underlying professions. McLemee’s [2006] article stems from Bender [1993].

“Knowledge and competence increasingly developed out of the internal dynamics of esoteric disciplines rather than within the context of shared perceptions of public needs,” writes Bender. “This is not to say that professionalized disciplines or the modern service professions that imitated them became socially irresponsible. But their contributions to society began to flow from their own self-definitions rather than from a reciprocal engagement with general public discourse.”

Now, there is a definite note of sadness in Bender’s narrative – as there always tends to be in accounts of the shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. Yet it is also clear that the transformation from civic to disciplinary professionalism was necessary.

“The new disciplines offered relatively precise subject matter and procedures,” Bender concedes, “at a time when both were greatly confused. The new professionalism also promised guarantees of competence — certification — in an era when criteria of intellectual authority were vague and professional performance was unreliable.”

But in the epilogue to Intellect and Public Life, Bender suggests that the process eventually went too far. “The risk now is precisely the opposite,” he writes. “Academe is threatened by the twin dangers of fossilization and scholasticism (of three types: tedium, high tech, and radical chic). The agenda for the next decade, at least as I see it, ought to be the opening up of the disciplines, the ventilating of professional communities that have come to share too much and that have become too self-referential.”

For the good of the AAA membership and the profession of accountancy in general, one hopes that the changes in publication and editorial policies at TAR proposed by President Rayburn [2005, p. 4] will result in the “opening up” of topics and research methods produced by “leading scholars.”

"Questioning the Value of Remedial Education," by Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, July 31, 2008 --- http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/31/remedial

"Pre-Med Education Must Be Compatible with Liberal Arts Ideals," by Timothy R. Austin, Inside Higher Ed, July 31, 2008 --- http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/07/31/austin