The Winnowing Away of Behavioral Accounting Research in the US the Process for Anointing Academic...

8/12/2019 The Winnowing Away of Behavioral Accounting Research in the US the Process for Anointing Academic Elites 2006

1/36

The winnowing away of behavioral accounting researchin the US: The process for anointing academic elites

Paul F. Williams a,*, J. Gregory Jenkins b,1, Laura Ingraham c,2

a Department of Accounting, Box 8113, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USAb Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Blacksburg, VA 24061, USAc Department of Accounting and Finance, 129 South 10th Street, BT 850, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0066, USA

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a study of the most prolific publishers in the four recognized most prestigious jour-nals in accounting for the period 1963 through 1999. The focus is on learning whether the widespread perception thatbehavioral accounting research (BAR) has diminished in significance as a prominent paradigm in the US accountingacademy has any validity and to identify whether a new generation of US BAR researchers is emerging to join the aca-

demic elite. Based on the characteristics of persons who have appeared as authors five or more times during the studyperiod, it seems that BAR is in recession in shaping the US academic agenda in accounting. The power of successfulindividuals to shape the academic agenda as evidenced by service on editorial boards of prominent journals is domi-nated by those individuals who are graduates of a set of elite schools utilizing a neoclassical economics based researchparadigm. The power of this group seems to be growing in the US. In spite of the interest in BAR among accountingdoctoral students and faculty, it is not a pursuit that now leads to academic status, which, in turn, diminishes its poten-tial contribution towards the shaping of the accounting academic agenda. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Dyckman (1998)documented the ascendancy ofthe behavioral paradigm in accounting researchover the period 1978 through 1998. He noted thatin the two leading accounting journals (TheAccounting Review and Journal of AccountingResearch) the number of articles that rely upon abehavioral paradigm has increased steadily over

0361-3682/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.aos.2006.07.003

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 919 515 4436; fax: +1 919515 4446.

E-mail addresses:[email protected](P.F. Williams),[email protected] (J.G. Jenkins), [email protected] (L. In-graham).1 Tel.: +1 540 231 2527; fax: +1 540 231 2511.2 Tel.: +1 408 924 3476; fax: +1 408 924 3463.

www.elsevier.com/locate/aos

Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 783818
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/36

the 20-year period of his observations. In addition,the number of accounting faculty designatingthemselves as behavioral researchers has grown,

as well as the number of schools who count amongtheir residents at least one behavioral researcher.Dyckman tempered this sanguine view of behav-ioral accounting research (BAR) with the acknowl-edgement that funding for such research hasdeclined and that it requires considerable resourcesto conduct meaningful behavioral research.

However, the number of persons employing aparticular paradigm or the number of facultiesthat contain behavioral researchers is not theonly, or necessarily most instructive, way toassess the status of BAR within the US academy.

The ultimate test of any paradigm3 or researchprogram is the extent to which it defines the field,establishes the research agenda, or becomes aroot metaphor for the discipline (Crane,1972; Hagstrom, 1965; Kuhn, 1970; Mulkay,1979). The viability of a research genre in theserespects depends on the power its practitionershave to set the agenda, determine the contentof accounting knowledge, define the terms of suc-cess in the field, and control access to the elitestatus required to do so. The purpose of this

paper is to assess the current status of BARwithin the process of elite formation in the USaccounting academy. Specifically, we analyze theproductivity of individual scholars in Accounting,Organizations and Society (AOS), Journal ofAccounting and Economics (JAE), The AccountingReview (TAR), and the Journal of AccountingResearch (JAR) for the period 1963 through1999. We determined who the elite have been,who the new elite are likely to be, and to whatextent this new elite are BAR researchers. The

results indicate that the well-documented elitestructure of the US academy exists for BARresearchers as for the other elites but that struc-ture now makes BAR a much less likely avenue

to elite status within the US academy. Theincreasing hegemony of neoclassical economicsover the US academy threatens to reduce BAR

to Behavioral Finance Research (BFR) with thecorresponding loss from the lexicon of USaccounting discourse premises, concepts, andassumptions from other academic disciplinesbesides economics. We demonstrate how the eliteformation process proceeds in the US academythrough documenting the changes in BAR elitesthrough time. The economic imperialismdescribed by Reiter (1998) is evident in the pro-cess by which BAR elites are diminishing in num-ber and significance.

The remainder of the paper is presented in

four sections. The next section is devoted todescribing the real significance of BAR toaccounting, defining what we mean by BAR,and providing a brief history of the transforma-tion of the US accounting academy over the past40 years. Following this is a section describingour methodology, followed by the section con-taining the presentation of our analyses ofBAR elite formation. The final section containsour conclusions.

Overview of the problem

Why BAR matters: the significance of social

sciences to academic accounting

Accounting is a practice, a human activity con-structed from human values and intentions.Accounting is a social, not a natural, phenomenon(Searle, 1995). As we will discuss subsequently, asaccounting has become an autonomous discipline

within the academy, it has adopted various sche-mata, other than the schemata afforded byaccounting practice itself, to explain or describeaccounting practice. The disciplinary methods ofhistory, law, philosophy, mathematics, literarycriticism and, most notably, various social scienceshave all been employed to provide understandingsof accounting. In the US, social sciences in partic-ular have come to be regarded as a primary meansfor providing deeper, more reliable, and more rig-orous understanding of accounting. Principally,

3 Paradigm is the term used by Dyckman. We will try toavoid using that term and, instead, use the term genre.Paradigm is a term popularized by Kuhn (1970), which heutilized with multiple meanings. Recently paradigm hasbecome a business buzzword bereft of content as is the casefor so many words subject to that fate.

784 P.F. Williams et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 783818


3/36

the social sciences of economics, psychology,social psychology, and sociology have beenimported into accounting just as they have been

in all other business disciplines (all of which arealso practices), in order to provide scientific rigorand scientific understanding of these variouspractices.

However, the social sciences have not been asnotably useful to business practices as the naturalsciences have been to practices like engineeringand medicine. The value of the natural sciencesto practices lies in their success in prediction; pre-diction, in turn, enables the control that enablespractices like medicine and engineering to manipu-late the world to achieve their particular desired

outcomes. Even biology and meteorology, whichare natural sciences dealing with exceedingly com-plex phenomena, have made notable strides indeveloping predictive theory. The social scienceshave been far less successful, i.e.,

After more than 200 years of attempts, onecould reasonably expect that there wouldexist at least a sign that social science hasmoved in the desired direction, that is,toward predictive theory. It has not.. . .Thesocial sciences appear unable to demonstratethe kind of progress which is to characterizenormal science (Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 32).

The failure of the social sciences as normal sciencedoes not mean they are not worthwhile activitiesor that they do not lead us to useful understand-ings of social life. It is that social life resistsaxiomatization, a single theory, a univocal ap-proach. Andrew Abbott analogizes the difficultywith explaining social phenomena via a concepthe labels syncresis. As Abbott puts it:

A syncresis is constituted of ambiguity; toseparate its parts is to destroy it. Syncresesthus do have the fractal character that theyreappear irrespective of levels of reduction.But unlike fractal distinctions they are notoppositions that subdivide, but oppositionsthat unify (Abbott, 2001, p. 43).

The problematic posed by syncresis for studyinghuman action is more prosaically described byFlyvbjerg (2001), i.e.,

The problem in the study of human activityis that every attempt at a context-free defini-tion of an action, that is, a definition based

on abstract rules or laws, will not necessar-ily accord with the pragmatic way an actionis defined by the actors in a concrete socialsituation. Social scientists do not have atheory (rules and laws) for how people theystudy determine what counts as an action,because the determination derives from situ-ationally defined (context-dependent) skills,which the objects of study are profi-cient and experts in exercising, and becausetheory by definition presupposescontext- independence (Flyvbjerg, 2001,

p. 42).

Thus, the study of human action is inherently apluralistic one; one that is multi-vocal.4 As Abbottopines:

What do we expect when a syncresis or anyother inherently multi-vocal concept is stud-ied under a methodological manifold pre-suming univocality? Of course we expectdisorder and misunderstanding (Abbott,2001, p. 44).

The value of the social sciences to accounting doesnot lie in their power to predict, i.e., to permitengineering the world accountants have arbitrarilyroped off for themselves, but to provide multivo-cality to the study of accounting. The various con-flicts among the social sciences can serve asheuristics for developing new ideas germane toaccounting issues (Abbott, 2004). The social sci-ences provide accounting with languages withwhich to develop accountings conceptual struc-ture. Disciplinary languages represent different

. . .

metaphors and other linguistic tropes used ina discipline (that) coalesce into a more or lesscoherent knowledge structure that shapes how itsmembers and those they influence construe reality

4 Abbott speaks from the perspective of a sociologist; for thecase that economic phenomena are no exception to plurality,seeFullbrook (2001).

P.F. Williams et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 783818 785


4/36

(Ferraro, Pfeffer, & Sutton, 2005, p. 15). Thetropes of the social sciences, because all of thesocial (and natural) sciences are value-laden

(including economics (Katouzian, 1980; McClos-key, 1985)), also serve more than scientific pur-poses, e.g.,

The contemporary social sciences, despiteoccasional claims to the contrary, havenot done especially well as predictive sci-ences. One reason they nonetheless con-tinue to flourish is because they are aparticularly modern form of secular reli-gion, involving, in their own idiosyncraticlanguage, fundamental questions of what

kind of people we who are modern are(Wolfe, 1989, p. 7).5

That is social sciences . . .still provide the vocabu-laries through which we express our ultimate con-cerns and thus articulate standards against whichcontemporary society might be judged (Brown,1989, p. 4). Thus, BAR is a concern to accountingscholarship to the extent it constitutes competinglexicons with which to express some potentiallyinteresting and constructive things about the prac-tice of accounting.

Examples abound of differences in fundamentalvalue assumptions underlying the various socialsciences; indeed the existence of multiple social sci-ences is partly attributable to disparate value

judgements. Psychology and economics are nota-bly at variance in their assumptions about whathuman rationality means vis-a-vis human action(Simon, 1986).6 Economics and sociology differ invalue assumptions about social objectives, e.g.,Economic theory is a prescriptive science; its eth-ical bias lies in its selectivity with respect to great,

and equally important, social objectives (Katouz-

ian, 1980, p. 156).7 Were accounting to succumbto speaking with only the voice of neoclassical eco-nomics it would gain next to nothing in practical

predictive capability, but would lose significantlyin the scope of its capacity to understand itself.Our concern in this paper is to provide some evi-dence on whether the social sciences other thaneconomics are significant alternative discoursesavailable to describe, understand, and shape thepractice of accounting.

The problem of definition: what is BAR?

The behavioral paradigm referred to byDyckman (1998)pertains to a genre of accounting

research that emerged about 40 years ago. It reliedupon theories adopted (and, to some extent,adapted) from the behavioral sciences other thaneconomics to provide explanations for accountingphenomena or to provide solutions to practiceproblems.8 Birnberg and Shields (1989) date thefirst appearance in the accounting literature ofthe term behavioral accounting as 1967. BARemerged out of the same circumstances that sawall of the business disciplines scientize andestablish their autonomy from business practice

(Whitley, 1986). The mode for accomplishing thetransition of US academic accounting from prac-tice dependent to an autonomous positive socialscience was to adopt theories from the established

5 It is within the contemporary social sciences where the battlefor human nature is primarily being waged (Schwartz, 1986).6 The recent popularity of laboratory economics and behav-

ioral finance are either a belated recognition of psychologicaltruths by economists or the hegemonic impulses of economiststo co-opt psychological insights to retain dominance of thesocial sciences. The jury is still out.

7 Recently, Naim (2006) provided a practical example.Brazils former president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso (asociologist), bewildered by the conflicting advise from worldrenowned economists rejected their disparate advise yet stillmanaged to avert a financial crisis. As Naim observed abouteconomic science, Surveying which economies had the bestprospects for success, Harvard professor Richard B. Freeman,

concluded that in predicting superior performance, luck seemsas key as economic policies. A science that relies on luck toexplain the fate of billions of people is a dismal science indeed(Naim, 2006, p. 2). The appeal of economic theory has more todo with the ethical biases of economics than its explanatorypower. Eliding those ethical biases is made much more difficultwhen other ethical biases are free to enter the conversation.8 More aptly it has been the experimental or positivist

versions of the behavioral sciences other than economics thatcomprise the BAR genre in the US. So, for example,ethnographic studies are virtually non-existent in the US aspart of BAR, which is certainly not the case in accountingoutside the US.



5/36

social sciences and apply them in various account-ing contexts. Zeff (1978) and Flesher (1991) bothnoted the significance of the importation of social

science theories into accounting to transformingthe form of accounting scholarship into that ofempirical social science. The empirical shifts madeacademic success in accounting increasinglydepend on ones ability to perform the scholarlytasks typical of those types of social scientistswhose academic credentials were already wellestablished within the academy.

BAR emerged in accounting in multiple waysdepending upon which of the established social sci-ences were employed as the theoretical template.AsBirnberg and Nath (1967)document, the earli-

est BAR studies relied on sociological insights,notably about human behavior within organiza-tions. One of the earliest books within the BARgenre (Caplan, 1971) advocated modernorganization theory (March & Simon, 1958; Schiff& Lewin, 1970; Simon, 1957a, 1957b) as a modelfor accountants interested in managementaccounting. The early BAR work in accountingwas characterized by its emphasis on behavioralscience models and theories that did not sharethe traditional assumptions about human motiva-

tion and behavior that characterize the standard,positivist neoclassical economic models. The inad-equacy of these standard economic characteriza-tions was famously described by Carl Devine(1960, p. 394): On balance it seems fair to con-clude that accountants seem to have wadedthrough their relationships to the intricate psycho-logical network of human activity with a heavy-handed crudity that is beyond belief. Historically,BAR has been the accounting academys responseto this shortcoming.9 BAR, as we will use the term

in this paper, refers to this historical constitution,i.e., as relying on the methods and insights of thepositive social sciences other than economics,e.g., psychology, social psychology, sociology.

To a large extent the term BAR has fallen intodisuse outside the US. The behaviorism conno-tations of the term, the limitations of the positivist

version of social science (Nonaka, 2006), and thegreater relevance of non-positivist methodologiesfor understanding organizational and sociologicaleffects of accounting, have made BAR an inaptdescriptor for much of the work pertaining toaccounting/human being interactions. In the USeven the insights of social sciences other thaneconomics are still limited to a rather narrowexperimentalism. Methodologically, BAR is, likeconventional economic applications, largely stillconfined to statistical causal modeling. We usethe term BAR advisedly, as a shorthand way to

delineate US research that falls under Dyckmansrubric of behavioral paradigm from the neoclas-sical economics inspired research. The relative nar-rowness of behavioral accounting research inthe US, compared to that in the rest of the world,is certainly an issue, but one outside the purview ofthis particular study.

Of course there are still other modes of inquirythat have been applied in accounting for sometime, e.g., legal, historical, and philosophical.These modes are not included under the rubric of

BAR for purposes of this study. These non-socialscience modes of understanding are no longer ofany relevance to the academic agenda in the USsince their application is not an avenue by whichto achieve any notable academic reputation (Rod-gers & Williams, 1996).

Redefining academic success: the transformation

of the US academy

It is well documented that scholarly disciplines

tend to be highly stratified, that is, they are hier-archic with a small number of scholars produc-ing the bulk of the disciplines scholarship(Allison, 1980; Lotka, 1922). They are sociallyorganized (Whitley, 1984) and the form of orga-nization affects what passes for knowledge in thediscipline and also how academic success isachieved (Blisset, 1972; Bourdieu, 1988; Martin,1978; Whitley, 1977, 1984). As an academic dis-cipline in the US, accounting is likewise highlystratified. It is hierarchically organized in a

9 AOS was explicitly created to provide a medium throughwhich a broad array of psychological, sociological, organiza-tional, historical, etc. understandings of accounting could beencouraged and communicated (Hopwood, 1988).

http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/36

particular way and that organization affects whomay become a member of the scholarly elite withthe power to be a shaper of and a gatekeeper for

the discipline.Fleming, Graci, and Thompson (2000)describethe transformation of the US academy via an anal-ysis of the changes that occurred in the nature ofarticles published inThe Accounting Reviewduringthe period 1966 through 1985.10 Notable featuresof the transformation at TAR are the growth inthe popularity of financial reporting topics, thechange to quantitative/empirical methods fromdeductive ones, the significant growth in influ-ence of the behavioral sciences, and the Universityof Chicago effect. The University of Chicago effect

derives from the fact that of the most cited 19authors in TAR during the period 1966 through1985, 15 of them were graduates of or facultymembers at the University of Chicago (Fleminget al., 2000, p. 61).

The dominance of authors affiliated with theUniversity of Chicago, from the earliest period ofthe transition of academic accounting in the US,has significantly determined the nature of account-ing knowledge in the US. What happened to theaccounting academy had its parallel in finance.11

Whitley (1986) traces the transition of businessfinance from practice oriented to scientific tothe movement to make all business disciplinesmore scientific, which started after World War IIand gained significant momentum during the1960s. Whitley concluded (1986, p. 174), Essen-tially, business finance had become transformedinto a branch of economics. . . The result of thistransformation of finance into financial economicswas to lead the field of finance into having a pres-tige system that mimicked economics, i.e.,

Because the study of business finance becamedominated by academic economists, espe-

cially economists adhering to traditionalneo-classical conceptions of economic theoryand analysis, the transformed field has devel-

oped an intellectual organizational structurequite similar to orthodox economics (Whit-ley, 1986, p. 180).

This orthodox economics is most closely identifiedwith the University of Chicago program of Stigler-Friedman, which is . . .characterized by faithfuladherence to Neoclassical economics and main-tained itself dead against the concept of marketfailures. . . (CEPA, 2005, p. 2).

Whitley (1984) characterizes the structure oforthodox economics as a patterned bureau-

cracy. Academic disciplines are reputationsystems organized in various ways to produce dis-ciplinary knowledge and, consequently, academicelites. Whitleys schema for classifying the organi-zational structure of disciplines relies on thedegree of four features of academic work organi-zations: functional dependence, strategic depen-dence, technical task uncertainty, and strategictask uncertainty (Whitley, 1984, p. 155). Becauseorthodox or neoclassical economics is atheoretically closed system (Chick & Dow, 2001)because of its mathematical formalization, theunreality of its premises (e.g., the nature ofhumans (Jensen & Meckling, 1994)) lead toexplaining nothing (Fleetwood, 2002), whichobviously makes it highly susceptible to empiricaluncertainties. Empirical reality confronts theorywith uncertainties that can cause great skepticismabout the fundamental orthodoxy. According toWhitley (1984), the analytical, closed structureof orthodox economics must be protected fromthe real economic world. This is accomplishedby partitioning the empirical realm of economics

into bureaucracies whose function is not to testorthodox theory, but instead to apply orthodoxtheory to explain an expanding domain ofsocial phenomena. Fuller (1988, p. 284) describesthe function of orthodox economic theory in asimilar way:

And so, from being evaluated (emphasis inoriginal) by the facts as false, neoclassicaleconomics managed to end up evaluating(emphasis in original) those same facts as

10 The Accounting Review(TAR) is published by the AmericanAccounting Association, which is the organization of account-ing academics in the US analogous, e.g., to the AmericanEconomics Association or the American Finance Association.TAR is the principal scholarly organ of the AAA and the oldestacademic accounting journal in the US.11 Ferraro et al. (2005) document this hegemony of neoclas-

sical economics has extended over all business disciplines.



7/36

irrational. In light of the endless and oftenaimless debates in the human sciences, oneis tempted to conclude that, generally speak-

ing, normative authority is the higherground to which disciplines retreat whentheir theories are in danger of empiricalfalsification.12

Reiter and Williams (2002) analysis of the crisisdocument produced by leaders of the US account-ing academy (Demski et al., 1991) indicated thatthe organization of the US academy parallels thatof economics, as well. Accounting as an academicdiscipline in the US is a bureaucracy of orthodoxeconomics a sub-discipline of a sub-discipline.13

Transformative criticism (Longino, 1990; Pera,1994), the hallmark of scholarly disciplines whosereputation systems are organized to produce scien-

tific progress, is very limited in the US accountingacademy. Ascendance to the elite ranks in the USis largely determined by the ingenuity one demon-

strates in interpreting accounting phenomena to fitthe neoclassical orthodoxy or interpreting neoclas-sical phenomena as being accounting phenomena.The sustaining feature of the neoclassical world-view in accounting is its ideological power, notits instrumental power for manipulating the worldvia its predictive success (Mouck, 1992; Rosen-berg, 1992; Stiglitz, 2002). This libertarian, neolib-eral ideology of neoclassical economics gives itimperialistic tendencies (Reiter, 1998). The imperi-alist tendencies of orthodox economics extend wellbeyond accounting, i.e.,

There is little doubt that economics has wonthe battle for theoretical hegemony in acade-mia and society as a whole and that suchdominance becomes stronger every year.This dominance is especially strong in Wes-tern countries, particularly in the UnitedStates, but is spreading rapidly over theglobe (Ferraro et al., 2005, p. 11).

Reiter (1998) dates the emergence of neoclassicalorthodoxy in accounting (what Beaver (1981)

referred to as an accounting revolution) to theperiod . . .between the 1966 Journal of Account-ing Research Conference and the 1968 publica-tion of the seminal Ball and Brown study(Reiter, 1998, p. 145). The importance of theJournal of Accounting Research (JAR) in affect-ing the dominance of neoclassical orthodoxy inUS accounting cannot be underestimated. JARbegan as a joint venture between the Universityof Chicago and the London School of Econo-mics and Political Science. In the first issue of

JAR the dean of the Chicago Graduate Schoolof Business and the Director of the LondonSchool issued a joint statement proclaiming themission for JAR. They said, The Journal ofAccounting Research will be neither distractedby the need to deal with non-research mattersnor subject to limitations of research interest; itwill be able to concentrate on general issues,but also try to cover all such issues (Schultz &Caine, 1964, p. 1). On the question of universitysponsorship they argued that:

12 Economic science is as much ideology as science.Rosenberg(1992)characterizes it as mathematical politics. As a policyscience, economic ideas, values, and assumptions, because theyaffect actions and decisions, have the reflexive property ofbecoming self-fulfilling (Ferraro et al., 2005, p. 12). For anexample of how this reflexivity creates incoherent accountingpolicy see Ravenscroft and Williams (2006). The ideologicalcharacter of orthodox economics is epitomized in the Journal ofAccounting and Economics (JAE), the third of the US trium-

virate of premier journals. JAE was created and currently editedby individuals that introduced principal/agent theory intoaccounting; both are physically and ideologically located inthe Rochester School named after William E. Simon. Roches-tersJensen and Mecklings (1978)published an article aboutthe threats to private property posed by government activism,which was a polemic designed to motivate political action fromthe business community. The transparent political agenda ofprincipal/agent theory is also evident in other works of theRochester school, e.g., Jensen and Meckling (1983, 1994),Watts and Zimmerman (1979). The business school at Roches-ter is named for William E. Simon who, for 23 years, waspresident of the John M. Olin Foundation, a principal funding

source for right-wing causes. John J. Miller (a writer forNational Review, the conservative magazine founded byWilliam F. Buckley) notes that in 1977, . . .Mr. Simon calledfor the creation of a counterintelligentsia (sic) to balance whathe saw as the liberal dominance of the universities, the newsmedia, non-profit organizations and government bureaucra-cies (Miller, 2005).13 Stephen Zeff in a personal correspondence with one of the

authors characterized accounting scholarship in the US as notbeing accounting scholarship so much as about aboutaccounting scholarship. Accounting research in the US isnow far removed from anything that resembles accountingsfunction or concerns of its practitioners.



8/36

A university is charged with the seeking ofknowledge for knowledges sake. Universitysponsorship permits a detached and long-

range view of accounting developments notswayed unduly by questions of results. Inaddition it helps students of accounting prin-ciples to maintain close contact with studentsin economics, computational and statisticaltechniques, social psychology, and other aca-demic disciplines which may have alliedinterests (Schultz & Caine, 1964, p. 1).

JAR was conceived as a scholarly journal whosepurpose was to focus on a wide array of general is-sues, employing an array of research interests

within a multi-disciplinary perspective. In addi-tion, A magazine devoted to the disseminationof new developments and concepts in accountingis by its very purpose international (emphasisadded) (Schultz & Caine, 1964, p. 2).

JAR did not turn out as Schultz and Caine envi-sioned. Within just two years JAR began its rapidtransformation into the missal for neoclassicaldoctrine in US accounting. In Sidney Davidsonspreface to the JAR issue containing the papersfrom the 1966 JAR Conference, he stated thatAccounting is singularly (emphasis added) con-cerned with the quantitative expression of eco-nomic phenomena (Davidson, 1966, p. iii). Thisproclaims a quite pronounced narrowing ofaccounting as an academic discipline from thatimplied by Schultz and Caine. Davidson alsoadumbrated a positivist mission for JAR, i.e.,Accounting thought will develop more effectivelyby increased reliance on the testing of meaningful(emphasis added) hypotheses. . .(Davidson,1966). This first JAR conference broughttogether academics, practitioners, and persons

from related disciplines.14 But asReiter and Wil-liams (2002)demonstrated, practitioners and per-sons from related disciplines were eventuallyexcluded from participation and the only partici-pants at JAR conferences today are those whosescholarship reflects a neoclassical world view.

JAR is now an extremely important shaper ofthe US academic agenda and consequentially aprincipal mechanism for identifying the academic

elite. In countless studies of journal prestige (e.g.Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, & Young, 2006;Brinn, Jones, & Pendlebury, 1996; Brown & Huef-ner, 1994; Hasselback, Reinstein, & Schwan, 2000;Houghton & Bell, 1984; Hull & Wright, 1990;Nobes, 1985; Tahai & Rigsby, 1998; Schwartzet al., 2005; Zeff, 1996), JAR is always in the topthree. Trieschmann, Dennis, Northcraft, andNiemi (2000) cited 13 studies of journal rankingsto determine the top accounting journals for con-sideration in their study of the research prestigeof MBA faculties. They settled on only three:

JAR, TAR, and JAE. In all of the work LarryBrown has done over the years investigating aca-demic prestige/stature, he has used only three USbased accounting journals as the definitive reposi-tories of quality accounting scholarship: JAR,TAR and JAE.

JARs influence on the oldest US academicjournal, TAR, is also quite significant. TAR wasfirst published in 1926. Until JARs creation in1964, TAR was the principal medium for publish-ing scholarly accounting papers in the US; few

accounting journals existed (Williams & Rodgers,1995). In a study of TAR editorial boards, Wil-liams and Rodgers (1995) tracked the scholarlyprofiles of TAR editorial board members from1967 (the first year the names of editorial boardmembers were published) through 1990. In 1967,94% of the TAR editorial board had publishedin TAR, while only 12% had published in JAR(Williams & Rodgers, 1995, p. 276). By 199085% of the TAR board had published in JAR,but only 74% had published in TAR. TAR board

membership was dependent more on success atpublishing in JAR than in the journal upon whoseeditorial board they were serving. The only other

journals cited by more than 20% of boardmembers are Contemporary Accounting Research(CAR) and JAE (Williams & Rodgers, 1995). Noother accounting publication outlets were impor-tant as success indicators for selection to theTAR board. JARs influence on defining qualityat TAR is evident when success at publishing inJAR is a more significant criterion for selection

14 The year 1966 was also the year that the AmericanAccounting Association began both the Notable Contributionto the Accounting Literature Award and the CompetitiveManuscript Award.



9/36

to the editorial board than publishing in any otherjournal. Thus, all three US premier accountingjournals are infused with the same criteria of qual-

ity, one of which is adherence to a certain politicaland economic orthodoxy.

The elite schools

The increasing dominance of US accounting bythe ideological commitments of JAR (and laterJAE) has been abetted by the existence of a setof academic institutions that have been historicallythe primary sources of Ph.D. educated faculty the elite schools. It is no longer controversial that

all academic disciplines are stratified and a centralfeature of that stratification is a prestige hierarchyof academic institutions. All disciplines are oligar-chic and the creation and maintenance of these oli-garchies are political. Blisset (1972, p. 121)described the features of the hierarchic structure,i.e.,

These oligarchic characteristics, however, donot represent the fortuitous combination ofknowledge and skill, as the hagiographersof science suggest, but are largely the result

of structural features within the scientificcommunity itself. Elites do not happen; theyare created, and the chief creators are men atprestigious institutions who control (1)recruitment and membership into the highechelons of scientific work, (2) the flow ofcommunication, (3) appointments, (4) specialsubsidies, and (5) honorific awards.

The oligarchic structure of accounting in the US isabetted by the AAA, which doles out prestigethrough its awards, offices, journals, conferences,

etc. (Lee, 1995). The organization of the Americanacademy facilitates this oligarchic organization be-cause the key to its structure is departments. Thesignificance of departments to the American uni-versity is described byAbbott (2001, pp. 125126):

American universities compromised by creat-ing departments of equals. The Ph.D. degree,borrowed from Germany, became special-ized into a Ph.D. in something. This specificdisciplinary degree provided a medium of

exchange between particular subunits of dif-ferent universities. There was thus completeda subsystem of structures and exchanges

organizing universities internally while pro-viding for extensive but structured careermobility externally, between institutions.Exactly coincident with this departmental-ization of the university was the formationof the national disciplinary societies, fromwhich academics gradually excluded theamateurs of knowledge, even though the lat-ter were often prominent among the socie-ties founders.

In accounting certain departments constitute an

employment network whose universities were thefounding members of the AAA (Lee, 1995, 1997,1999; Williams & Rodgers, 1995). Ph.D. candi-dates from these schools were employed as facultyat other of these schools initially because they werethe only schools awarding doctoral degrees. Wil-liams and Rodgers (1995)demonstrated the domi-nation of the editorial board ofTAR by graduatesof a set of 15 of these schools.15 For example, in1967 when TAR first published the names of itseditorial board, 75% of the board were graduatesof the 15 elite schools even while their percentageof the population of Ph.D.s was only 59% (Wil-liams & Rodgers, 1995, p. 271). This percentagehas persisted, Avogadros Number-like for nearly40 years even as the elite percentage of the globalpopulation of Ph.D. degrees has declined. The per-centage of elite TAR board members reached alow of 48% in 1985 under the editorship of Gary

15 The 15 schools are Illinois, Ohio State, Stanford, Texas-Austin, Minnesota, Washington-Seattle, Rochester, Chicago,Michigan State, California-Berkeley, Cornell, Carnegie-Mellon,

Wisconsin, and Iowa. Other programs that orbit more or lessnear this nucleus of elite schools are Northwestern, Indiana-Bloomington, Florida, Pennsylvania, NYU, Arizona, ArizonaState, and Penn State. Because of the increased dominance offinancial economics in accounting, Pennsylvania may shortly bea permanent member of the persistent elite. Graduates of anyother doctoral programs, US or non-US are not substantiveparticipants in determining the scholarly agenda in the US. Forexample, Browns (1996) citation study of accounting articlesidentified 26 classics, articles that have had the most influencein accounting over the past 30 years. Of these articles, 75% ofthem published in JAE, 97% published in JAR, and 95%published in TAR were by graduates of the elite-15.



10/36


11/36

stimulus to BAR. The data we report below dem-onstrate that the imperialist tendencies of neoclas-sical economics have significantly altered the status

of BAR in the US academy. The power that theUS reputation system affords the neoclassicistshas relegated BAR scholarship to the peripherybecause . . .power suppresses that knowledgeand rationality for which it has no use (Flyvbjerg,1998, p. 36).

Methodology

Identifying the recent BAR elite

The objective of this study is to identify theemerging BAR elite to determine the extent thatBAR research remains an avenue for scholars toeffectively participate in the academic accountingconversation. The question is whether the currentstructure of the US academy is reproducing thequantity of BAR scholars whose prestige andpower is sufficient to affect the scholarly agendaand to sustain at least some substantive multivocal-ity to US accounting scholarship. Or is it now thecase that BAR is simply an appendix to an

academic body now largely transformed into asub-discipline of economics? Our inclination wasskepticism about Dyckmans (1998) sanguineassessment of the ascendance of BAR within theUS academy. Anecdote and opinion suggest thatBAR is now marginalized in the US academy bythe economic orthodoxy just as more traditionalapproaches were a few years previously.

A most efficacious way to identify emergingelites is by identifying those persons who areacquiring intellectual capital via publications in

the journals acknowledged by the elite as the mostprestigious journals in the field. AsHargens (1988,p. 139)observed the academic journal is . . .both ameans by which a community certifies additions toits body of accepted knowledge and a meansthrough which individual scientists compete forpriority and recognition. Historically the primaryrole of the academic journal is to establish propertyrights over scientific knowledge (Merton & Zucker-man, 1973; Price, 1963; Ravetz, 1971). The practiceof citing, the opprobrium heaped upon plagiarists,

the illegality of violating copyright, all are explicitrituals acknowledging the proprietary claim ofthe original author. These claims, which through

publication are explicitly endorsed by ones peers,are essential if one is to achieve status in ones field(see, e.g.,Fuchs & Turner, 1986; Mulkay, 1979). Inthe US the American Accounting Associationbases its most prestigious awards (Seminal Contri-bution, Notable Contribution to the AccountingLiterature, and Competitive Manuscript Award)on publications per se.18 Bonner et al. (2006)notethe significance of the most prestigious journalsto individual success, i.e., Publishing in the top

journals affects many facets of an accounting scho-lars career, includingreputation(emphasis added),

pay, and tenure and promotion (Bonner et al.,2006, p. 2). InBourdieus (1988)terms publishingin the top journals is how one accumulates onessocial (scholarly) capital.

The review process at academic journals is anarchetype of whatLaclau and Mouffe (1985)referto as nodal points of discourse. Nodal points, orobligatory passage points (Clegg, 1989), are centralto the issue of problematization, which . . .involvesthe attempt by agents to enrol others to their agencyby positing the indispensability of their solutions

for (their definition of) the others problems: thisis achieved when these others are channeledthrough the obligatory passage points of practicewhich the enrolling agency seeks to fix (Clegg,1989, p. 204). The premier US accounting journalsare the passage points through which one must passto be admitted to the elite ranks of the society of USaccounting scholars. This social system, both a rep-utation system, but also potentially a system forproducing progress in the field of accounting, hasdeveloped . . .rules governing relations of meaning

and membership (Clegg, 1989, p. 226) that ossifywith age. And, according toClegg (1989, p. 226),Once a given configuration of an organizationfield has been stabilized, the pressures are such toreproduce it that way. . . Thus analyzing whatgets published in academic journals through time

18 That is, the awards are given to published works. Thoughpersons receive the awards, they receive them for specificpublished works or a collection of published work.



12/36

provides significant insights into what the configu-ration of the accounting academy is and whetherit has ossified into a stable pattern of reproducing

a predictable type of understanding.In selecting the most prestigious journals forour purposes we resorted to consulting conven-tional wisdom. Numerous studies have been con-ducted over the years putatively to determinewhich accounting journals are the best. Weacknowledge that journal quality is a social con-struction determined by many factors and thatalleging journal quality is fraught with danger(e.g.,Milne, 2002). The results of numerous studiesin the US of perceived prestige of US accounting

journals indicate there are three journals about

which there is no overt public dissensus as to theirstatus The Accounting Review (TAR), Journalof Accounting Research (JAR), and Journal ofAccounting and Economics (JAE). In most studies,Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) isindicated as the fourth most prestigious account-ing journal (Bonner et al., 2006; Brinn et al.,1996; Brown & Huefner, 1994; Hasselback et al.,2000; Houghton & Bell, 1984; Hull & Wright,1990; Nobes, 1985; Tahai & Rigsby, 1998; Zeff,1996). A recent survey of UK accounting scholars

indicated that AOS was ranked as the number oneacademic journal, followed by TAR, JAR andJAE (Lowe & Locke, 2005). In the series of cita-tion studies conducted by Brown and his cohorts(Brown, 1996; Brown, Gardner, & Vasarhelyi,1989; Brown & Gardner, 1985a, 1985b) these four

journals were the ones chosen to represent themedia through which the most prestigiousaccounting scholars delivered their works.19 Inaddition, the Social Science Citation Index, whichcontains very few accounting journals, includes a

complete citation history of these four journals.JAR, TAR, and JAE are significant as well in

establishing the prestige of business schools.20 Tri-eschmann et al. (2000)cited 13 studies of journalrankings for determining the list of accounting

journals for determining the research prestige ofMBA faculties. They settled on only three: JAR,TAR, and JAE. A study by Schwartz, Williams,and Williams (2005) found that US doctoral stu-dents familiarity with accounting journals wasdiverse across doctoral programs except for three

journals JAR, TAR, and JAE; there is universalfamiliarity with these three journals across doc-toral programs in the US. A principal indicatorof a scholars prestige is the extent to which herpeers cite her work. Citation-wise an accountingscholar is invisible to the larger community of

accounting scholars unless one publishes in TAR,JAR, JAE, or AOS. The institutionalized percep-tion of research quality is dominantly influencedby the extent to which scholars have published inthese four journals.21

For the four journals we compiled a list of everyperson who appeared as an author for the period1963 through 1999. This comprises the modernperiod of accounting scholarship when positivistsocial science established itself as the paradigmaticmanner of constructing scholarly texts in account-

ing, at least in the US. To identify the most produc-tive scholars, i.e., the potential pool of those who arelikely to become elite influencing the scholarlyagenda, we selected individuals who appeared fiveor more times as an author in the four journals com-

19 The principal objective of Browns papers was to identifythe best accounting scholars, papers, or programs. The fourjournals were deemed to be sufficient to do that, i.e., no onecould be a prominent scholar who was not published in one ofthese four journals.

20 One may question why we are including JAE since it doesnot publish BAR. The reason is that our concern is with powerwithin the academy and the extent to which BAR provides thediscourses that condition how that power is wielded. Forexample,Birnberg, Hoffman, and Moser (1998, p. 4) observe:Thus, while current BAR in management accounting clearly is

derived from agency theory, future research may again go off inother directions. How is it that BAR began largely under theinfluence of Herbert Simon, only to end up under the influenceof Jensen and Meckling? JAE has been instrumental inestablishing the principal/agent model as the sine qua non ofhow to understand human behavior in organizations. We areconcerned about power, not merely about individual scholarsaccess to journals.21 For example, of the AAA Notable Contribution Awards

that were bestowed on journal publications, 17 were publishedin TAR, 8 in JAR, 7 in JAE, and 1 each in AOS, ContemporaryAccounting Research, and Journal of Accountancy. The eliteschool dominance also is evident, as we have previously noted.



13/36

bined for the period 1963 through 1999. We made noadjustments for co-authorship; that is, we countedappearances, not equivalent articles. Five was

selected as the cut-off number because, based onLotkas law (1922), it would capture only the top510% of most productive scholars (see also Rod-gers & Williams, 1996). As the number of appear-ances decreases from five, the number of authorsgrows rapidly. The conclusions we reach from ouranalysis are not sensitive to the number of publica-tions being six or four. For each decade (1960s,1970s, 1980s, and 1990s) we identified all individualswith five or more publications. This allowed us toidentify an emergent group of potentially elite schol-ars for each decade during the modern period.

For the individuals with five or more appear-ances in the decade of the 90s we compiled someadditional metrics that we used in our analyses ofthe new BAR elite. A power index was calculatedfor each person similar to the one utilized byWil-liams and Rodgers (1995) to ascertain the degreean individual was involved in the gate keeping pro-cess at the four journals. An individual receivedone point for each year he or she was a memberof one of the four journals editorial boards duringthe period 1963 through 2000. For example, if

someone was a member of the editorial board ofTAR and AOS in 1991 that person received twopoints. Two points were assigned for each year thatsomeone was an associate or consulting editor sincegate keeping power is greater because these individ-uals participate in deliberations on more papers ina given year. Four points were awarded for beingan editor of one of these journals since the editorhas great gate keeping power since he or she ulti-mately decides which papers are reviewed, whodoes the reviewing, and which papers are accepted

for publication. Both total score and average yearlyscore (total score divided by (2000 year of receiv-ing Ph.D.)) were determined for each person.

We also did a literature profile for each person.From the bibliographies of all papers publishedduring the decade of the 1990s (1990 through1999), we counted the total citations to academic

journals by the discipline represented by each jour-nal. We ignored citations to books, reports, work-ing papers, government documents, newspaper ormagazine articles, etc. Our interest was in identify-

ing what other disciplines informed the authors asthey constructed their papers. The omission ofbooks is, admittedly, a shortcoming because some

disciplines, e.g., history or philosophy, use booksas a dissemination medium to a greater extent thanother disciplines. This is a more significant prob-lem for authors publishing in AOS since authorsin AOS tend to cite many more books than doauthors in the other three journals. However, sinceour focus is on BAR, a singular focus on journalsis sufficient to capture what we need. The disci-pline categories that were cited at least once were:Economics, Finance, Management/Administra-tion, Marketing, Sociology, Psychology, Statistics,Law, Personnel, Political Science, Engineering,

Mathematics, Science, Demography, Medicine/Health Care, Public Relations, Communication,Design/Art, Anthropology, Computer/ArtificialIntelligence, Education, Archeology, Philosophy,Humanities/Literature, and History. Accountingborrows from many disciplines, however, most ofthese disciplinary categories were cited only byauthors publishing in AOS. Of the above list 12disciplines were cited only in AOS. The bibliogra-phies inTAR,JAR, andJAEwere more limited inthe range of disciplines consulted.

Based on these counts, we developed a disciplin-ary profile for each person, which consisted of thenumber of times a journal from a particular disci-pline was cited divided by the total citations madeto all journal articles cited. We also included cita-tions to the four journals and a category all otheraccounting journals. Thus, for each individual theprofile consisted of the percentage of citations toliterature published in journals for each of TAR,JAR, JAE, AOS, other accounting journals,and various other disciplines. For example,

Joni Young published five papers, all in AOS. Herprofile was (percentages less than 1% were treatedas zeros): TAR


14/36

literatures utilized by the authors. We are interestedin determininggroupsof scholars who are similar ordissimilar to other groups.These groups constitute

research genres, which are, in turn, research interests(in the range of senses of the word interest), successat which garners prestige. The results of the variousanalyses follow. Two analyses are presented below.One was for the emergent elite prior to the 1990sand a more extensive analysis for those that emergedin the 1990s.

Presentation of the analyses

Pre-1990 elites

Table 1contains lists by decade through 1989 ofBAR scholars that emerged via five or more pub-lications in the four journals. We identifiedwhether someone was a BAR scholar in the man-ner similar to that utilized byDyckman (1998). Ifthe person indicated behavioral as a research inter-est inHasselbacks Directory (2002) we classifiedthem as a BAR researcher. In addition, weinspected the titles, abstracts, and bibliographiesof the articles to determine if they were consistent

with what constituted BAR research as we definedit based on the description provided by Birnbergand Shields (1989). Only one genuine BAR scholaremerges in the 1960s: Jacob Birnberg. Many of theindividuals who appeared five or more times in theperiod 1963 through 1969 were persons who werecontinuing their careers from the pre-positivesocial science era or were not utilizing positivesocial science models in their work, e.g. Chambers,Staubus, and Brief. Obviously, JAE and AOS didnot yet exist. The emergence of the neoclassicists

occurs during this same period. Birnberg is joinedby four economics elite Beaver, Demski, Ijiri,and Dopuch. They (except Ijiri),22 unlike Birnberg,

appear later on our list of most prolific publishersin the 1990s as well. Each of these neoclassicistshas won at least one Notable Contribution to theLiterature Award and one (Beaver) has receivedthe Seminal Contribution Award. Three of theseindividuals (Beaver, Demski, and Ijiri) became

Table 1Publications by emergent behavioral elite by decade

Author Ph.D. schooland year

Appearances in:

JAE JAR TAR AOS 1960s

Birnberga Minnesota, 62 0 0 6 0

1970s

R. Ashtona Texas, 73 0 2 4 0Chesleya Ohio St., 73 0 4 1 0Flamholtza Michigan, 69 0 1 2 2Kinneya Michigan St., 68 0 7 2 1Libbya Illinois, 74 0 4 1 1Lusk Northwestern, 72 0 2 4 0Mocka Berkeley, 69 0 2 2 1Rhodea Minnesota, 69 0 0 2 3

1980s

A. Ashtona Texas, 79 0 3 2 0Caseya Ohio St., 78 0 3 3 0Chow Oregon, 81 0 0 8 0D. Cooper Manchester, 79 0 0 0 5Covaleski Penn State, 79 0 0 0 6Dirsmith Northwestern, 75 0 0 0 6Dyckmana Michigan, 62 0 4 1 2Ferrisa Ohio St., 74 0 0 2 6Hiltona Ohio St., 77 0 4 1 0A. Hopwooda Chicago, 71 0 0 0 5Jiambalvoa Ohio St., 77 1 1 2 3Kida Massachusetts, 78 0 5 0 1B. Lewis Penn St., 78 0 4 1 4

Merchanta

Berkeley, 78 0 0 2 3Panya Illinois, 78 0 4 1 0Pratt Indiana, 77 0 1 2 3Reckersa Illinois, 78 0 2 3 2Shields Pittsburgh, 78 0 2 1 8Snowballa U. of

Washington, 750 0 3 2

I. Solomona Texas, 79 0 2 3 2Swieringaa Illinois, 69 0 3 1 3Trotman New South

Wales, 840 3 1 2

Ueckera Texas, 73 0 5 4 1Wallera U. of

Washington, 810 4 1 5

A. Wright U. of S. California, 79

0 1 3 1

a Denotes elite school graduate.

22 Unlike Beaver, Demski, and Dopuch, it could be arguedthat Ijiri is not within the neoclassical category. That is a validobservation. Ijiri resists easy classification since he brings toaccounting perspectives, e.g., legal, mathematical, that are quitedifferent from the perspectives of the other three persons. Itshould be noted that Ijiri is the only one of the foureconomists not still publishing in elite journals during the1990s.



15/36

president of the AAA and the other (Dopuch)became the editor of JAR.

During the next decade, the number of BAR

scholars increases. There were 30 persons in all,eight were BAR (27%), 22 not BAR. All butone of the BAR scholars were graduates of eliteschools, even though Northwestern (Lusk) isone of the schools that was mentioned previ-ously as a non-persistent elite. All of theseindividuals published in JAR and/or TAR.None of them appear on the list purely by vir-tue of success at publishing in AOS. In the1980s the number of emergent BAR scholarsincreases to 25. AOS came into existence in1976, which provided more opportunity for

BAR scholars to publish their work. There werea total of 73 emergent scholars during the 1980sso BAR scholars represented 34% of the total.Of the 25, 21 published in JAR and/or TAR(84%). Only 4 of the individuals appear exclu-sively because of AOS. The number of non-elitegraduates is 10 (40%), which might be expectedgiven the substantial increase in the number ofdoctoral programs created in the 1960s and1970s. Through the 1980s the leading US jour-nals sustained a BAR elite and enabled it to

grow slightly proportionally to the non-BARelite.

In order to provide some additional context forthe analysis of the 1990s elite to follow, we focusedattention on the individuals who emerged in the1980s. This group would by now be in the middleage of their careers when we could expect them tobe participating fully as shapers of the scholarlyagenda and performing significant gate keepingfunctions. Table 2 contains power index scoresby journal for BAR scholars that emerged during

the 1980s. A number of these individuals achievedsome high index numbers other than just by virtueof AOS (obviously Hopwoods number is hugesince he is the founder and only editor of AOS).But service to AOS is not the only source of highscores. Hilton, Jiambalvo, Lewis, Merchant, Pratt,Shields, Soloman, Swieringa, Trotman, and Wallerall were a significant presence on the boards of US

journals. However, the number of those individu-als serving on boards of US journals after 2000has dropped quite significantly. In parentheses

beside each score are the scores for each journalfor these persons post-2000. Only two have pro-vided continuing service on TARs board (Jiam-balvo and Pratt) and none now serve on the JARboard. Though seven of the non-BAR elite whoemerged during the 1980s still serve on the JARboard, none of the emergent BARs continue. Thisstrongly suggests that something happened duringthe 1990s that changed the prospects for BAR

research as a potential shaper of the discipline. Itis to that we turn our attention.

The 1990 elites

During the period 1990 through 1999, 83 peopleappeared five or more times as authors in JAE,JAR,TAR, andAOScombined. These individualsare listed in Table 3. These persons include indi-viduals who emerged as prominent scholars manyyears prior to this period and their appearance in

Table 2Power indexes for 1980s emergent behavioral elite (post-2000index in parentheses)

Author JAE JAR TAR AOS Total

A. Ashtona 0(0) 0(0) 2(0) 0(0) 2(0)Caseya 0(0) 0(0) 1(0) 0(0) 1(0)Chow 0(0) 0(0) 4(3) 7(2) 11(5)D. Cooper 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 33(5) 33(5)Covaleski 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 6(5) 6(5)Dirsmith 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 16(5) 16(5)Dyckmana 10(0) 0(0) 4(0) 0(0) 14(0)Ferrisa 0(0) 0(0) 5(0) 11(0) 16(0)Hiltona 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 0(0) 8(0)A. Hopwooda 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 92(20) 92(20)Jiambalvoa 0(0) 0(0) 11(5) 0(0) 11(5)Kida 0(0) 0(0) 3(0) 0(0) 3(0)B. Lewis 0(0) 18(0) 9(0) 8(0) 35(0)

Merchanta 0(0) 0(0) 10(1) 15(5) 25(6)Panya 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)Pratt 0(0) 0(0) 12(5) 0(0) 12(0)Reckersa 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)Shields 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 24(10) 32(10)Snowballa 0(0) 0(0) 4(0) 0(0) 4(0)I. Solomona 0(0) 0(0) 9(0) 6(3) 15(3)Swieringaa 0(0) 22(0) 19(0) 15(0) 56(0)Trotman 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 7(5) 15(5)Ueckera 0(0) 0(0) 4(0) 0(0) 4(0)Wallera 0(0) 0(0) 8(0) 5(0) 13(0)A. Wright 0(0) 0(0) 4(0) 0(0) 4(0)

a Denotes elite school graduate.



16/36

Table 3Authors with five or more appearances in JAE, JAR, TAR, and AOS1990 through 1999 (elite-15 in italics)

Author Ph.D. school and year Appearances in: Power index

JAE JAR TAR AOS Total Per yearAbernathy Latrobe, 89 0 0 0 5 0 0Ali Columbia, 87 2 2 1a 0 3 0.23Amir Berkeley, 91 1 2 3 0 0 0Baiman Stanford, 74 1a 4a 3a 1a 83 3.19Banker Harvard, 80 2 0 4 0 0 0Barth Stanford, 89 4 3 5a 0 12 1.10Bartov Berkeley, 89 2 0 3 0 0 0Beaver Chicago, 65 4a 0a 2a 0 111 3.17Bloomfield Michigan, 92 0 1 3a 1a 8 1.00Bonner Michigan, 88 0 2 5a 2a 17 1.42Bushman Minnesota, 89 2 4a 1a 0 12 1.10Chow Oregon, 81 0 0 0a 7a 11 0.58Chua Sheffield, 83 0 0 0 5a 6 0.35Clinch Stanford, 88 3 2 1 0 0 0Collins, D. Iowa, 73 3a 0 2a 0 59 2.19Collins, J. Florida, 83 1 3 1a 0 10 0.59Cooper, D. Manchester, 79 0 0 0 5a 33 1.57Covaleski Penn State, 79 0 0 0 6a 6 0.29Cready Ohio State, 85 2 1 2a 0 3 0.20Datar, S. Stanford, 85 1 2 4a 0 6 0.40Dechow Rochester, 93 4 1 2a 0 5 0.71DeFond Washington, 87 4 0 1a 0 1 0.08Demski Chicago, 67 1 5 2a 0 21 0.64Dirsmith Northwestern, 75 0 0 0 9a 16 0.64Dopuch Illinois, 61 2 2a 2a 0 149 3.82Dye Carnegie Mellon, 80 2a 4a 2 0 43 2.15

Elgers Maryland, 78 1 3 1a

0 3 0.14Feltham Berkeley, 67 4a 1a 2a 0 70 2.12Francis, Jen. Cornell, 87 2a 7a 1a 0 17 1.31Gaver, Jen. Arizona, 86 2 1 2a 0 2 0.14Gaver, K. Carnegie Mellon, 74 2a 1 3a 0 20 0.77Gigler Minnesota, 92 0 4a 1a 0 9 1.13Guenther Washington, 90 3 0 2a 0 1 0.10Hand Chicago, 87 2 2 3a 0 4 0.31Harris, T. Washington, 83 1 6 1a 0 5 0.29Harrison, G. Macquerie, 90 0 0 0 5 0 0.00Hemmer Odense, 90 4a 2a 1 0 5 0.50Holthausen Rochester, 80 4a 0a 1a 0 73 3.65Hughes, J.S. Purdue, 74 3a 1 1a 0 25 0.96Indjejikian Pennsylvania, 89 3 4a 1a 0 14 1.27

Ittner Harvard, 92 0 3 1a 2 4 0.50Kang, S.-H. MIT, 88 2 3 1a 0 3 0.25Kennedy Duke, 92 0 4 1 0 5 0.63Kim, O. Pennsylvania, 90 3 1 1 0 0 0King, R. Arizona, 86 2 1 2a 0 3 0.21Koonce Illinois, 90 0 3 1a 1 7 0.70Kothari Iowa, 86 5a 1 2a 0 35 2.50Lang Chicago, 90 1 6 1a 0 4 0.40Larcker Kansas, 78 3a 7a 1a 1a 59 2.68Lev Chicago, 68 2a 4a 2a 0 73 2.28Libby Illinois, 74 0 6a 3a 4a 54 2.08Lundholm Iowa, 87 0 3 3a 0 7 0.54



17/36

Table 3 is testament to their continued activity.There are persons who received their doctoratesin the decade prior to 1990 and there are some thatreceived their doctorates post-1990. Degree datesrange from 1961 to 1992.

Cursory inspection ofTable 3confirms the con-clusion that AOS is much more dissimilar to theUS journals than they are to each other. That is,the US journals do not represent distinctly differ-ent literatures; they are complementary, whereasAOS represents a distinctly different literature(Lee & Williams, 1999; Lowe & Locke, 2005). Thisis evident from the number of zeros in the AOScolumn relative to those in the US journal col-umns. People who publish prolifically in AOStend

not to publish in the US journals, while peoplewho publish in one of the US journals tend to pub-lish in one or more of the others 42 (50.6%) of the1990 elites published in all three US journals.However, 14 (53.8%) of those who published inAOSpublished at least one article in a US journal.But only 3 (7.1%) of those who published in allthree US journals were able to publish at leastone article in AOS.

Cluster analyses of bibliographic profiles alsoconfirm the distinction between AOSand the US

journals. Table 4 contains the results of clusteranalyses based on bibliographic profiles for vari-ous numbers of cluster solutions to illustrate whena reduction of groupings results in one group

Table 3 (continued)

Author Ph.D. school and year Appearances in: Power index

JAE JAR TAR AOS Total Per year

Lys Rochester, 82 4a 1 0a 0 31 1.72Maydew Iowa, 93 2a 2 1 0 2 0.29McNichols UCLA, 84 2 2 1a 0 12 0.75Melumad Berkeley, 85 1 4 0a 0 2 0.13Miller, P. London, 83 0 1 0 7a 29 1.71Nelson, M. Ohio State, 90 0 1 7a 2a 18 1.80Neu Queens, 89 0 0 0 7 0 0Ohlson Berkeley, 72 1a 4a 2a 0 50 1.79Penno Northwestern, 82 0 2a 4a 0 15 0.83Potter Wisconsin, 86 2 1 1 1 0 0Power, M. Cambridge, 84 0 0 0 5a 10 0.63Pratt Indiana, 77 0 2 3a 2 12 0.52Preston Bath, 82 0 0 0 5a 10 0.56Rajan Carnegie Mellon, 90 0 4 4a 0 5 0.50Reichelstein Northwestern, 84 1 2 2a 0 3 0.19Robson Manchester, 88 0 0 0 5 1 0.08Shackelford Michigan, 90 4a 2 1a 0 19 1.90Shevlin Stanford, 86 2 2 1a 0 13 0.93Shields, M. Pittsburgh, 78 0 1 0a 4a 29 1.32Sivarama-krishnan Northwestern, 88 0 3 4 0 0 0Skinner Rochester, 89 5 2 1a 0 19 1.73Sloan Rochester, 92 7a 1 4a 0 6 0.75Tan Michigan, 92 0 4 0 1 0 0.00Trotman New South Wales, 84 0 1 1a 3a 15 0.94Verrechia Stanford, 76 6a 4a 3a 0 62 2.58Wang, S.W. Michigan, 88 2 0 3 0 0 0.00Watts Chicago, 71 1a 2a 2 0 116 4.00

Waymire Chicago, 84 0 3 2a

0 4 0.25Wild, J.J. Wisconsin, 83 1 2 2a 0 5 0.29Young, J. Illinois, 91 0 0 0 5 0 0.00Zimmerman Berkeley, 74 3a 0 2 0 88 3.38

a Denotes service on editorial board.



18/36

Table 4Cluster membership for authors for three to six cluster solutions

Author Cluster membership

Cluster three Cluster four Cluster five Cluster sixAbernathy 1 1 3 3Ali 3 4 5 4Amir 3 4 5 4Baiman 3 3 4 5Banker 3 4 5 6Barth 3 4 5 4Bartov 3 4 5 6Beaver 3 4 5 4Bloomfield 3 3 4 5Bonner 2 2 2 2Bushman 3 3 4 5Chow 1 1 3 3Chua 1 1 1 1Clinch 3 4 5 4Collins, D. 3 4 5 4Collins, J. 3 3 4 6Cooper, D. 1 1 1 1Covaleski 1 1 3 3Cready 3 4 5 6Datar, S. 3 3 4 5Dechow 3 4 5 4DeFond 3 4 5 4Demski 3 3 4 5Dirsmith 1 1 3 3Dopuch 3 3 4 5Dye 3 3 4 5

Elgers 3 4 5 4Feltham 3 4 5 6Francis, Jen. 3 4 5 6Gaver, Jen. 3 4 5 4Gaver, Ken 3 4 5 4Gigler 3 3 4 5Guenther 3 4 5 6Hand 3 4 5 6Harris, T. 3 4 5 6Harrison, G. 1 1 3 3Hemmer 3 3 4 5Holthausen 3 4 5 4Hughes, J.S. 3 4 5 6Indjejikian 3 3 4 5

Ittner 1 1 3 3Kang, S.-H. 3 4 5 4Kennedy 2 2 2 2Kim, O. 3 4 4 6King, R. 3 3 4 5Koonce 2 2 2 2Kothari 3 4 5 4Lang 3 4 5 6Larcker 3 3 4 5Lev 3 4 5 6Libby 2 2 2 2Lundholm 3 3 4 6



19/36

joining another. It is clear fromTable 4that thereare substantively only three groups: an AOSgroup, a US BAR group, and an economics/finance group, which is by far the largest. The moststable affinity is the US BAR group, since the indi-viduals in this grouping remain together in everysolution. The final cluster centers, i.e., the averageprofile of all members in the clusters, for the 6-group solution are presented in Table 5. Thesedata indicate that the AOS group contains twosubgroups: both are similar except that one citesmanagement/administration literature while theother cites other accounting journals more heavily.Both cite sociology, but the management groupcites psychology, as well. The US BAR people(group 2 in Table 5) are together in all solutionsand their texts are characterized as relying heavily

on citations to JAR, TAR, other accounting jour-nals and psychology journals. The economicsgroup consists of three variations on the genre: aJAEdominated source literature, a JAR/econom-ics literature, and a balanced, JAR, TAR,JAE, economics and finance literature. Table 6contains the final cluster centers for the threegroup solution in which we observe the three basictypes of literature being produced by the mostproductive scholars in the four leading journals.These groups are distinctly different. Cluster oneis the AOScluster and the profile reflects the phi-losophy of the journal as enunciated by AnthonyHopwood (1988). The non-accounting literaturemost utilized is from the disciplines of manage-ment/administration and sociology. The account-ing literature is from AOS and other accounting

Table 4 (continued)

Author Cluster membership

Cluster three Cluster four Cluster five Cluster six

Lys 3 4 5 4Maydew 3 4 5 6McNichols 3 4 5 6Melumad 3 3 4 5Miller, P. 1 1 1 1Nelson, M. 2 2 2 2Neu 1 1 3 3Ohlson 3 4 5 6Penno 3 3 4 5Potter 2 2 2 2Power, M. 1 1 1 1Pratt 2 2 2 2Preston 1 1 1 1Rajan 3 3 4 5Reichelstein 3 3 4 5Robson 1 1 1 1Shackelford 3 4 5 6Shevlin 3 4 5 4Shields, M. 1 1 3 3Sivaramakrishnan 3 3 4 5Skinner 3 4 5 4Sloan 3 4 5 4Tan 2 2 2 2Trotman 2 2 2 2Verrechia 3 4 4 6Wang, S.W. 3 4 5 4Watts 3 4 5 4

Waymire 3 4 5 6Wild, J.J. 3 4 5 4Young, J. 1 1 1 1Zimmerman 3 4 5 4



20/36

journals (e.g., Critical Perspectives on Accounting;Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal;AAA section journals; etc.). Cluster three, the eco-nomics group, illustrates the extent that all three

US journals are similar. The authors in this group(the largest with 59 members, 71%) combine eco-nomics and finance literature with literature pub-lished in all three US journals. Of the threegroups this one is the least diverse in the literatureit cites (notably, other accounting journals). Thesecond cluster is the US BAR group that emergesas a result of publishing BAR work in the US jour-nals, which constructs its texts from other account-ing journals save JAE and AOS and literaturefrom the discipline of psychology.

There is a notable sameness to the three USjournals. This is evident when comparing the pro-files of the four journals in terms of the specific

journals cited.Table 7provides a list of those spe-cific journals whose citations comprised at least 1%of total journal citations for the individuals listedinTable 3. Citations in JAR, TAR, and JAE aredominated by citations to just those three journals.Citations to journals other than accounting jour-nals are exclusively to finance and economics jour-nals. The BAR presence in JAR and TAR is notsufficient to give them a citation profile that is dif-ferent from JAE, which publishes no BAR schol-arship. AOS, on the other hand, is quite differentwith minimal citing of finance and economics,

but with substantial citing of sociology and man-agement literature. The total percentage of cita-tions accounted for by the journals listed inTable 7 is also instructive. For AOS only 59% ofthe total citations to journals are accounted forby the journals whose citations exceeded 1% ofthe total. For the three US journals citations aremuch more heavily concentrated to that limitedset of journals. There is a greater homogeneityand narrowness of the US journals when com-pared to AOS. Ironically, AOS, a non-US journal

contains significant citations to the major profes-sional US journal, Journal of Accountancy. Thethree US journals do not.

We also determined the frequency with whichspecific articles were cited by the 83 persons inour group of top publishers of the 1990s. The datainTable 7focuses on total citations to particular

journals.Exhibit 1, panels A, B, C, and D containlists of the top 20 articles (and ties) cited in TAR,JAR, JAE, and AOS, respectively. The articlescited most frequently by AOS authors are mark-

edly different from those of the three US journals,which are very similar. One article from Econome-tricais common to all three US journals and eachof the US journals has four articles in commonwith the other two.

Of the articles cited in the three US journals all,save three, are orthodox economics inspired. Onlythree of the articles cited are BAR studies and twoof those, both involving Libby as an author,appeared in JAR, which no longer has any BARscholars (elite or otherwise) on its editorial board.

Table 5Cluster centers for six cluster solution

Sources Cluster groups

1 2 3 4 5 6JAE 0.0 1.9 1.0 27.5 10.5 12.6JAR 0.3 19.2 6.5 20.4 20.4 24.3TAR 3.4 15.1 7.2 17.4 9.4 11.7AOS 30.6 4.5 20.4 0.0 9.0 0.0Other Accounting 24.3 15.2 9.9 7.6 8.7 10.8Economics 1.6 3.2 2.9 8.1 29.2 13.2Finance 3.2 2.1 1.9 14.1 6.5 22.2Management/Administration

6.2 4.7 25.9 3.8 6.7 2.9

Sociology 11.1 0.5 10.1 0.0 0.2 0.0Law 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.8 4.9 1.2Psychology 0.0 28.9 7.8 0.2 0.7 0.5Political Science 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1

Table 6Cluster centers for three cluster solution

Sources Cluster groups

1 2 3

JAE 0.5 1.9 17.6JAR 3.6 19.2 21.7TAR 5.5 15.1 13.1AOS 25.2 4.5 0.3Other Accounting 16.6 15.2 9.0

Economics 2.3 3.2 15.9Finance 2.5 2.1 14.6Management/Administration 16.7 4.7 4.3Sociology 10.6 0.5 0.1Law 0.7 0.6 2.1Psychology 4.2 28.9 0.4Political Science 0.9 0.0 0.1



21/36

The JAR hegemony over the US literature beingproduced by the most productive scholars isapparent. JAR articles are cited 10, 8, and 7 timesin TAR, JAR, and JAE, respectively. Since therewere 50 cites in total to articles in accounting jour-nals (including cites common among the four jour-nals), citations to JAR articles comprise 50% ofaccounting journal citations. Citations to JAEarticles in TAR, JAR, and JAE are 3, 2, and 12,respectively, or 34% of the accounting journal cita-tions. Citations to TAR articles in TAR, JAR, andJAE are 4, 0, and 0, respectively, or only 8% of thetotal. Thus, among the top US journals there is ahierarchy established by this citation behavior ofthe top publishers. JAR is ubiquitous, but articlesin the AAAs flagship journal TAR are cited fre-quently only in TAR. The citation behavior ofour group of top scholars indicates that JAR has

effectively established the standard for USaccounting scholarship and that standard speaksloudest in the language of neoclassical economics.

Exhibit 1also indicates which authors or citedpapers appearing in accounting journals receivedtheir doctoral degrees from an elite US school.The dominance of elite schools in the US journalsis pronounced. For the cited articles in JAR, TAR,and JAE that were in accounting journals therewere 45 different authors. Of those authors, threewere not listed inHasselback (2004)so their degreeschools were not ascertainable; 42 were accountingacademics. Of that 42, 37 (88.1%) received degreesfrom an elite school; 16 of the 42 (38.1%) receivedtheir degrees from just two schools Chicago (7)and Stanford (9). There are only five individualswith non-elite accounting degrees among theauthors of most cited accounting articles.

Table 7Journal citations of 1990s emerging elite greater than or equal to 1% of total journal citations

Journal cited Journal of interest

TAR JAR JAE AOSTAR 16.3 10.7 12.0 8.9JAR 20.2 25.1 18.3 7.0JAE 12.5 10.3 25.1 AOS 1.0 1.3 23.4Journal of Financial Econ. 3.8 2.4 7.6 Journal of Finance 3.7 3.6 5.1 Journal of Business 1.5 1.2 Econometrica 3.2 3.8 2.9 Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 2.9 1.3CAR 2.2 2.6 2.9 Bell/Rand Journal of Economics 1.6 3.0 1.6 Journal of Political Economy 1.6 1.6 2.1 Accounting Horizons 1.2 1.6 American Economic Review 1.1 1.7 1.4 Journal of Accounting Literature 1.2 Journal of Economic Theory 1.4 Academy of Management Journal 1.1American Journal of Sociology 1.5Academy of Management Review 2.2Administrative Science Quarterly 4.9American Sociological Review 1.3Critical Perspectives on Accounting 1.1Harvard Business Review 1.2Journal of Accountancy 2.5Journal of Personality and Social Psych. 1.1

Total percentage accounted for (out of 100) 71.3% 71.8% 80.1% 59.0%

Total Journal Citations per Journal 2103 2337 2026 2991



22/36

Exhibit 1Most frequently cited articles by 1990s emerging elite in TAR, JAR, JAE, and AOS 1990 through 1999 (frequency of citation appearsin parentheses;* denotes elite graduate; ? denotes unknown)

Panel A: Articles published in The Accounting Review

1. (12) White, H. (?). 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity,Econometrica, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 817838.(12) Healy, P.M.(*) 1985. The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions,Journalof Accounting and Economics, Vol. 7, No. 13, pp. 85107.

3. (9) Bernard, V.L.(*) and Thomas, J.K.(*) 1989. Post-earnings announcement drift: Delayedprice response or risk premium, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 136.

4. (8) Holmstrom, B. (?) 1979. Moral hazard and observability,Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 7491.5. (7) Demski, J.(*) and Feltham, G.(*) 1994. Market response to financial reports,

Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 17, No. 12, pp. 340.(7) Dye, R.(*) 1985. Disclosure of nonproprietary information, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 123145.(7) Patell, J.M.(*) 1976. Corporate forecasts of earnings per share and stock price behavior:Empirical tests, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 246276.(7) Libby, R.(*) 1985. Availability and the generation of hypotheses in analytical review,

Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 648667.(7) Lambert, R.A.(*) and Larcker, D.F. 1987. An analysis of the use of accounting andmarket measures of performance in executive compensation contracts,Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 85125.(7) McNichols, M., Wilson, G.P.(*), and DeAngelo, L.(*) 1988. Evidenceof earnings management from the provision for bad debts, Journal ofAccounting Research, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 131.(7) Barth, M.E.(*) 1991. Relative measurement errors among alternative pensionasset and liability measures, The Accounting Review, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 433463.

12. (6) Gjesdal, F.(*) 1981. Accounting for stewardship, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 208231.(6) Bernard, V.L.(*) 1987. Cross-sectional dependence and problems in inferencez in market-based accounting research, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 148.(6) Ball, R.(*) and Brown, P.(*) 1968. An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers,

Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 159178.(6) Frederick, D.M.(*) and Libby, R.(*) 1986. Expertise and auditor judgements inconjunctive events, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 270290.(6) Landsman, W.(*) 1986. An empirical investigation of pension fund property rights,The Accounting Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 662691.

17. (5) Verrechia, R.(*) 1983. Discretionary disclosure, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 179194.(5) King, R., Pownall, G.(*) and Waymire, G.(*) 1990. Expectations adjustments via timelymanagement forecasts: Review, synthesis, and suggestions for future research,Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 9, 113144.(5) Wilson, G.P.(*) 1987. The incremental information content of the accrual andfunds components of earnings after controlling for earnings, The Accounting Review, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 293322.(5) Bernard, V.L.(*) and Stober, T.L.(*) 1989. The nature and amount of informationin cash flows and accruals, The Accounting Review, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 624652.

Panel B: Journal of Accounting Research

1. (17) White, H. (?) 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimationand a direct test for heteroskedasticity, Econometrica, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 817838.(17) Patell, J.M.(*) 1976. Corporate forecasts of earnings per share and stockprice behavior: Empirical tests, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.14, No. 2, pp. 246276.

3 (11) Verrechia, R.(*) 1983. Discretionary disclosure,Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 179194.4. (10) Dye, R.A.(*) 1985. Disclosure of nonproprietary information, Journal of Accounting

Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 123145.(10) Easton, P.D.(*) and Harris, T.S.(*) 1991. Earnings as an explanatory variable forreturns, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1936.



23/36

Exhibit 1 (continued)

6. (9) Ohlson, J.A.(*) 1995. Earnings, book values, and dividends in equity valuations, ContemporaryAccounting Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 661687.(9) Holmstrom, B.(?) and Milgram, P.(?) 1987. Aggregation and linearity in the provision of intertemporalincentives,Econometrica, Vol. 55, No. 2., pp. 303328.

8. (8) Holmstrom, B.(?) 1979. Moral hazard and observability,Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 7491.(8) Darrough, M.N. and Stoughton, N.M.(?) 1990. Financial disclosure policy in an entry game,Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 12, No. 13, pp. 219243.(8) Penman, S.B.(*) 1980. An empirical investigation of the voluntary disclosure of corporate earnings forecasts, Journal ofAccounting Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 132160.

11. (7) Diamond, D.W.(?) 1985. Optimal release of information by firms, Journal of Finance, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 10711094.12. (6) Milgram, P.R.(?) 1981. Good news and bad news: Representation theorems and applications,

Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 380391.(6) Kyle, A.S.(?) 1985. Continuous auctions and insider trading, Econometrica, Vol. 53, No. 6, pp. 13151336.(6) Davis, J.S. and Solomon, I.(*) 1989. Experience, expertise, and explicit-performance

research in public accounting, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 8, pp. 150164.(6) King, R., Pownall, G.(*) and Waymire, G.(*) 1990. Expectations adjustments via timelymanagement forecasts: Review, synthesis, and suggestions for future research,Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 9, pp. 113144.(6) Antle, R.(*) and Smith, A.(*) 1986. An empirical investigation of therelative performance evaluation of corporate executives, Journal ofAccounting Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 139.(6) Demski, J.S.(*) and Sappington, D.E.M.(?) 1987. Delegated expertise,Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 6889.(6) Freeman, R.N.(*) and Tse, S.Y.(*) 1992. A nonlinear model of securityprice responses to unexpected earnings, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 185209.(6) Lev, B.(*) 1989. On the usefulness of earnings research: Lessons and directionsfrom two decades of empirical research, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 153192.(6) Antle, R.(*) and Eppen, G.D.(?) 1985. Capital rationing and organizational slack

in capital budgeting, Management Science, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 163174.

Panel C: Journal of Accounting and Economics

1. (18) Healy, P.M.(*) 1985. The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions,Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 7, No. 13, pp. 85107.(18) Collins, D.W.(*) and Kothari, S.P.(*) 1989. An analysis of intertemporal andcross- sectional determinants of earnings response coefficients, Journal of Accounting andEconomics, Vol. 11, No. 23, pp. 143181.

3. (17) White, H.(?) 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity,Econometrica, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 817838.

4. (13) Jones, J.J.(*) 1991. Earnings management during import relief investigations,Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 193228.

5. (12) Beaver, W.(*), Lambert, R.(*) and Morse, D.(*) 1980. The information contentof security prices, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 328.(12) Ball, R.(*) and Brown, P.(*) 1968. An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers,Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 159178.

7. (11) Lambert, R.A.(*) and Larcker, D.F. 1987. An analysis of the use of accounting and marketmeasures of performance in executive compensations contracts, Journal of Accounting Research,Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 85125.(11) Easton, P.D.(*) and Harris, T.S.(*) 1991. Earnings as an explanatory variable for returns,Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1936.

(continued on next page)



24/36

Exhibit 1 (continued)

9. (10) Holmstrom, B.(?) 1979. Moral hazard and observability, Bell Journal of Ec

The Winnowing Away of Behavioral Accounting Research in the US the Process for Anointing Academic...

Documents

Transcript of The Winnowing Away of Behavioral Accounting Research in the US the Process for Anointing Academic...