Abstract
Abstract
This study explores the uninvestigated area of research agenda setting, which has considerable influence on the societal impact of accounting academia, which the paying-off mentality stemming from a “publish or perish” culture risks jeopardizing. More specifically, it investigates the research topic choice of accounting researchers to ascertain whether and how the “publishing game” pressures induced by the governance principles of new public management influence this crucial decision. Survey evidence shows that European accounting researchers choose their research topics by considering (i) explicit research requests, (ii) short-term publishing opportunities, (iii) practical and educational needs, and (iv) the intellectual needs of the academic community. In this respect, researchers seem to form a heterogeneous community that places varying importance on these factors, suggesting different effects of “publishing game” pressures. The three clusters aim at societal impact through diverse avenues, while the probability of rapid publishing seems to be the primary driver of another cluster, thus revealing a substantial risk of goal displacement. This study contributes to the debate on publishing pressures in accounting academia by complementing the contextualized reflections of previous literature with evidence documenting their effects on what (in addition to how) accounting researchers study. These findings have policy and practical implications that can help policymakers, university managers, gatekeepers of the publishing process, and our entire academic community.
Funder
Università degli Studi di Genova
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Business and International Management
Reference106 articles.
1. Alawattage, C., Arjaliès, D.-L., Barrett, M., Bernard, J., de Castro Casa Nova, S. P., Cho, C. H., et al. (2021). Opening accounting: A Manifesto. Accounting Forum, 45(3), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2021.1952685
2. Andrew, J., Cooper, C., & Gendron, Y. (2021). Open letter from the editors of critical perspectives on accounting. Retrieved from https://www.journals.elsevier.com/critical-perspectives-on-accounting/announcements/open-letter
3. Andrews, F. M. (1984). Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modelling approach. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(2), 409–442. https://doi.org/10.1086/268840
4. Andrikopoulos, A., & Kostaris, K. (2017). Collaboration networks in accounting research. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 28, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2016.12.001
5. Annisette, M., Cooper, C., & Gendron, Y. (2015). Living in a contradictory world: CPA’s admission to SSCI. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 31, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPA.2015.06.001
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献