Affiliation:
1. Paul F. Williams is a Professor at North Carolina State University and at the University of Strathclyde.
Abstract
SYNOPSIS
In this brief paper, I provide an argument that the rigor that allegedly characterizes contemporary mainstream accounting research is a myth. Expanding on arguments provided by West (2003), Gillies (2004), and Williams (1989), I show that the numbers utilized extensively to construct the statistical models that are the central defining feature of rigorous accounting research are, in many cases, not adequate to the task. These numbers are operational numbers that cannot be construed as measures or quantities of any kind of stable property. Constructing elaborate calculative models using operational numbers leads to equations whose results are not clearly decipherable. The rigorous nature of certain preferred forms of accounting research is, thus, largely a matter of appearance and not a substantive quality of the research mode that we habitually label “rigorous.” Thus, the policy recommendations implied by the results of rigorous accounting research may be viewed with considerable skepticism.
Publisher
American Accounting Association
Reference84 articles.
1. Abbott, A.
2004. Methods of Discovery. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.
2. Jobs and income growth of top earners and the causes of changing income inequality: Evidence from U.S. tax return data;Bakija,2012
3. What is the actual economic role of financial reporting?;Ball;Accounting Horizons,2008
4. Accounting informs investors and earnings management is rife: Two questionable beliefs;Ball;Accounting Horizons,2013
5. How did financial reporting contribute to the financial crisis?;Barth;European Accounting Review,2010
Cited by
28 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