Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Research the American Way: The Role of US Elites in Disseminating and Legitimizing Canadian Academic Accounting Research

2009; Routledge; Volume: 18; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/09638180902863878

1468-4497

Sandy Qu, Shujun Ding, Shelley M. Lukasewich,

Accounting and Organizational Management

Abstract This paper examines authorship distribution in a premiere Canadian-based research journal, Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR). It provides empirical evidence of a strong US elite dominance in the research agenda of a non-US research community. This is illustrated through a consistently higher proportion of authorship representation and participation of US elites (measured by doctoral origins) in CAR and its associated Conference. We also found that a small group of Canadian schools (measured by academic affiliations) contributes the most publications to CAR but their representation on the CAR editorial board and participation at the PhD Consortium was limited. We express our concern as to the constructive role of CAR as a top-tier journal in the dissemination of accounting research. We draw upon discussion on a European research tradition (represented by Accounting, Organizations and Society and The European Accounting Review), and its general approach to accounting research, which is perceived as distinct from the US elite approach (Lukka and Kasanen, 1996). Insights gained help widen the acceptable research in top tier journals such as CAR to further its aim to enhance geographical and intellectual diversity. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank David Cooper, Steve Salterio, Rihab Khalifa, Paolo Quattrone, and three anonymous referees for their helpful comments. Early versions of this paper were presented at the Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting (July 2007), Alternative Perspectives in Accounting Research Conference at Université Laval (March 2007), and Alternative Accounts Workshop at the University of Calgary (September 2003). The authors wish to thank Jean Bédard, Chris Chapman, Wai Fong Chua, Jesse Dillard, Yves Gendron, Duncan Green, Dean Neu, Alan Richardson, and other participants for constructive comments. We thank Dwayne Loewen for his excellent research assistance with the data collection, as well as the CAAA office for providing archival materials for this paper. However, the authors are solely responsible for the interpretations and any errors. Notes A few exceptions are Mathieu and McConomy Citation(2003) and Richardson and Williams Citation(1990). Falk Citation(1989) provides descriptive statistics and analyses pertaining to submissions of manuscripts to CAR for the first 5 years. Carnaghan et al. Citation(1994) analyze the papers and authors published in CAR and comment on the growth and development over the first 10 years. In recognition of a reviewer's comment, we note that CAR would generally be ranked as top tier by Canadian and North American academics and as second tier in Europe, the UK and Australia. We are grateful for this suggestion offered by one of the reviewers. For example, 'in the 1990s, only two UK academics published in The Accounting Review, and only seven in the Journal of Accounting Research' (Brinn et al., Citation2001, p. 224). They suggest that this absence demonstrated a collective failure of UK academics to publish in US journals. Carmona et al. (Citation1999, p. 463) cast doubt on the existence of a unified European research identity by arguing that a vast majority of European contributions to well-regarded journals are authored by UK affiliated accounting academics and that 'there exists limited mobility of non-English written accounting research across European countries'. See more details in Gendron and Baker Citation(2005), which provides interesting insight on the founding of AOS. However, Panozzo ignores the overwhelming dominance of British accounting academics over European accounting research, a contention held by Carmona et al. Citation(1999) that is based on an investigation of papers published in 13 top accounting journals during the period from 1992 to 1997. However, Bettner and Baker's comment about Canadian doctoral training may not be representative of the majority of Canadian universities that tend to follow the American model of doctoral training. Available at http://www.business.ualberta.ca/phd/programs/accounting.htm, retrieved on June 11, 2007. We acknowledge that it is problematic to use sweeping broad labels such as American versus European elite. We use it here on the basis that these labels reflect general observations of contemporary accounting research, and we believe that the labels we have chosen have achieved wide currency in accounting academe and are in line with those of Lukka and Kasanen Citation(1996) and Panozzo Citation(1997). We are grateful for this suggestion by Rihab Khalifa and Paolo Quattrone. Richardson (Citation2001, p. 53) also noted the strong preference of a Canadian identity during the initiation period of CAR, for example, it was suggested that 'Canadian be part of the title' for CAR (Richardson, Citation2001, p. 53) and that there be a requirement of 'adequate Canadian content' (Richardson, Citation2001, p. 54). Available at http://www.caaa.ca/CAR/EdtrlPlcy/index.html, retrieved on June 11, 2007. Falk (Citation2001, p. 111) acknowledged that prior to accepting the offer to serve as CAR's editor, he solicited a great deal of advice on journals and editorship from experienced editors such as Nick Dopuch, Larry Gordon, George Benston, Bill Scott, John Butterworth, and Bala Balchandran. We are grateful for this suggestion by one of the reviewers. We are grateful for this suggestion by one of the reviewers. We also note that the 2008 CAR Conference is by invitation only. See link at http://www.caaa.ca/CARConf/Registration/index.html Available at http://www.caaa.ca/CAR/EditBrd/index.html, retrieved on June 2, 2007. Past editors were: Gordon D. Richardson (2000–2006), Gerald A. Feltham and Dan A. Simunic (1997–2000), Lane A. Daley (1995–1997), Michael Gibbins (1992–1995), William R. Scott (1989–1992), Haim Falk (1984–1989) Available at http://www.caaa.ca/CAR/EditBrd/index.html, retrieved on June 2, 2007. Available at http://www.caaa.ca/PastConf/CARConf2006/RprtConf/index.html, retrieved on June 11, 2007. Available at http://www.caaa.ca/PastConf/CARConf2006/CarPhdConsortium/index.html For example, the CAAA office only kept official records of the CAR Conference for the period of 1990–2003 (except 1992 when no conference was held). As a result, records for the years 1985 through 1989 were manually collected by reading the 'editor's note' in the journal, which indicates whether the paper had been presented at a CAR Conference. One can argue that this could be due to the fewer numbers of doctoral programs and universities in Canada. Discussants are authors whose publication in CAR is classified as a discussion of a CAR Conference paper, a reply or a comment. Research productivity both by university and journal weighted by number of authors (Table 3 in Mathieu and McConomy, Citation2003), and productivity per university weighted by the quality of the selected journals (Table 8 in Mathieu and McConomy, Citation2003). There are six papers published in CAR during the period of 1984–2007, including: Abernethy and Chua Citation(1996); Gendron Citation(2001); Ahrens and Chapman Citation(2004); Gendron and Barrett Citation(2004); Chua and Mahama Citation(2007), Free Citation(2007). Based on comments on our paper by an associate editor of CAR. Williams and Rodgers (Citation1995, p. 266) suggest that one of the determinants to be considered one of the 'elite' is research productivity as measured by number of publications. See Richardson and Williams Citation(1990) and Mathieu and McConomy Citation(2003) for their analyses of Canadian researchers' productivity in other top-tier journal. For many years, the University of British Columbia was the only Canadian university to offer a PhD program in accounting. The other accounting doctoral programs in Canada are more recent. For example, the PhD programs at Alberta, Waterloo, and Calgary began in the 1980s. There are 11 programs designated as 'elite' in Schwartz et al.'s (2005) analysis: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Texas-Austin, Minnesota, Southern California, Stanford, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Interestingly, on an unrelated topic but similar theme, DeAngelo et al. Citation(2005) has noted a dysfunctional competition for media rankings among US business schools. Discussants include all authors whose publication is referred to as a discussion, reply or comment paper. There was no conference held in 1992. There was no conference held in 1992.