Applied Research In Accounting A Commentary

CAP Vol. 3 No. 2 — PCC vol. 3, no 2 (2004) pages 149–68 © CAAA/ACPC
Applied Research in Accounting:
A Commentary*
ALAN J. RICHARDSON, Schulich School of Business, York University
ABSTRACT
The mission of Canadian Accounting Perspectives is to provide a forum for “applied
research” in accounting, but this key term is not defined. I identify three forms of
applied research: (1) the use of existing knowledge to find solutions to current problems;
(2) the use of positivist research methods to conduct critical tests between current alternative
accounting methods and to identify empirical regularities that contribute to the develop-
ment of technologies of practice; and (3) the use of disciplined inquiry and action research
to develop mid-range theory and generate empirical results that advance the interests or
increase the capabilities of an identified community. This third form of applied research
may provide the best approach to bridging the schism between academe and practice.
Keywords Action research; Applied research; Pragmatism; Schism
N.B. Le condensé française de l’article qui suit commence à la page 161.
Canadian Accounting Perspectives (CAP) is intended to provide a forum for applied
research in accounting. But what is “applied research”? The accounting literature offers
little guidance. Books that explicitly address this issue (e.g., Weirich and Reinstein, 2000;
Zeibart, Feller, Molloy, and Omer, 2001) see applied research in accounting as the process
of matching the characteristics of transactions with existing authoritative guidance in
order to justify a particular financial reporting or tax reporting strategy.1 These books
emphasize the development of skills in analyzing transactions and in accessing government
and professional data bases, particularly on the Internet. Although these are important
skills for students and practitioners to possess, I believe that “applied research”, as it is
used in CAP’s mission statement, means more than that.
The call for “applied research in accounting” suggests that the choice of research topics
and the nature of the research undertaken from an applied perspective should be distinc-
tive. This commentary is intended to begin a dialogue about the nature of applied research.
It explores one set of philosophical constructs on which applied research could be based.
This commentary should not be taken as limiting the type of research that CAP will or
* My thanks to James Gaa, Irene Gordon, Sandy Hershcovis, Laura MacDonald, Norm Macintosh, Dean
Neu, Teri Shearer, and Linda Thorne for comments on an earlier version of this commentary, and to Joel
Amernic for his encouragement to write it. The opinions expressed in this paper are my own.
1. Joel Demski (2003) waggishly suggests that this should be referred to as applied search rather than
applied research since it is only done once. The term “professional research” is more appropriate than the
term “applied research” and is used by some schools with courses in this area — for example, Fisher
School at the University of Florida.

150 CANADIAN ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVES / PERSPECTIVES COMPTABLES CANADIENNES
CAP Vol. 3 No. 2 — PCC vol. 3, no 2 (2004)
should publish. My intention is to discuss an approach to applied research that may not
have been considered by many accounting researchers, and hence to provide an additional
bridge between academe and practice.
In one sense, the need to highlight that research in accounting could be “applied”
seems odd. Accounting and, more generally, all business disciplines are applied fields, that
is, they are fields in which people directly practise the core skills of the discipline. But
accounting as an academic subject and accounting as a field of professional practice are at
best loosely coupled, and there are recurrent “schisms” or disagreements (Bloom, Hey-
mann, Fuglister, and Collins, 1994) between the two camps that periodically flare up into
controversy (cf. Rynes, Batunek, and Daft, 2001, who report similar problems in other
management disciplines). The call for applied research in accounting is thus partly an
attempt to bridge this schism and recognition that much of the research produced by
accounting academics does not have immediate implications for practice.2
It is common to see a distinction between applied and basic research.3 The difference
between these perspectives concerns the intentions of the researcher.4 An applied
researcher focuses on finding a solution to a current social, organizational, or individual
problem; a basic researcher focuses on finding a solution to a puzzle posed by theory or
empirical observations. The distinction between the fields of research hinges on the inten-
tion of the researcher rather than on the way the research is conducted. For me, the key
distinction is that applied researchers have an additional obligation to demonstrate that
their research addresses a problem “relevant” to business or society and to specify what a
solution would be. This additional obligation motivates my discussion below.
I start by briefly reviewing the “relevance” debate in order to understand the social and
market pressures that are encouraging an applied perspective on accounting education
and research. I then consider some key dimensions that differentiate applied research from
much of the research that is currently published in the academic accounting literature. I
argue that applied research would benefit from a pragmatic approach that entails specific
commitments about the nature of research problems and the data that we use to address
them. Accordingly, I begin by distinguishing between pragmatism and positivism as
approaches to empirical enquiry. This leads into a discussion of the distinction between
substantive and statistical significance, the need for practitioners to have phenomenon-
based (ideographic) in addition to theory-testing (nomothetic) research, the role for action
research in accounting, and, finally, the place of this approach to research within the
expanded definition of responsibilities of the professoriate. I conclude by considering
2. Michael Gibbins has used the analogy on more than one occasion that his medical doctor will routinely
refer to the top medical journals to find the latest insights into the treatment of some condition, but
accountants and auditors are less likely to refer to the top accounting journals for insights into their
practice problems.
3. Although some have argued that given the speed of integration of new knowledge into modern society the
distinction between basic and applied science may be moot (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman,
Scott, and Trow, 1994).
4. I thank James Gaa for highlighting this issue.

APPLIED RESEARCH IN ACCOUNTING: A COMMENTARY 151
some of the current institutional impediments to carrying out this type of research within
universities and, finally, by providing an answer to the question: “what is applied research?”
THE RELEVANCE DEBATE
The inclusion of business and accounting programs in universities was resisted initially
because they were seen as vocational training rather than as a subject worthy of study in a
liberal education (cf. Austin, 2000). Once in place, business programs were criticized for
their low standards and lack of theoretical development. In particular, reports on business
education in the United States by the Carnegie Foundation (Gordon and Howell, 1959)
and the Ford Foundation (Pierson, 1959) argued that business education should be grounded
in the core disciplines of economics, statistics, psychology, and sociology. These reports
were influential in transforming business schools into “erstwhile social science units”
(Gibbins, 2002: 57). This transformation, while providing business disciplines with legiti-
macy within the university, deepened a schism between the academic and the practitioner.
The existence of a schism between accounting academe and practice has been dis-
cussed since the early 1900s (Bloom et al., 1994) but has become more pronounced since
the 1970s. This has included concerns about the relevance of academic education for suc-
cess in the profession (e.g., Bedford, 1986; Sundem, 1999), and the relevance of academic
research to practice (e.g., Zeff and Hofstedt, 1974; Bricker and Previts, 1990). In part, the
concern about the relevance of academic work to practice has been due to changes in
the relationship between universities and society. Notably, as a result of increasing partic-
ipation rates in postsecondary education, universities have shifted their focus from elite to
mass education, and the increase in conditional or outcomes-based funding for research
has brought a market discipline to university programs.
One of the continuing trends in the university environment in Canada is the decline in
government funding and the parallel increase in funding from tuition fees and research.
Kitchen (2000), for example, notes that university funding by government in Canada
decreased by 22 percent (in constant dollars) between 1988 and 1998. During this same
period, average tuition fees increased by 126 percent. The combined result is that govern-
ment funding declined from 75 percent to 55 percent of university revenues while tuition
revenue increased from 8 percent to 20 percent. Also in this period, the balance of univer-
sities’ revenue, research funding, and philanthropy (including income from endowments)
increased from 17 percent to 25 percent of their budgets. The change in the source of
funding has raised the profile of several stakeholder groups and allowed them to influence
the missions and performance criteria adopted by universities.
The increased importance of funding sources beyond government grants has resulted
in a broader accountability of universities to various stakeholder groups (Nelson, Banks,
and Fisher, 2002). Students have been reframed as clients and programs are becoming
more responsive to clients’ needs, including greater flexibility in the timing, location, and
media of program delivery, and are paying more attention to the marketability of gradu-
ates. It has also prompted universities to encourage their faculty to commercialize their
research, either by claiming intellectual property rights in the work or by offering venture
capital to encourage academics to become entrepreneurs. From the perspective of senior

administrators, applied research not only provides universities with tangible proof of their
university’s relevance to skeptical stakeholders, it also may provide a source of funding
for university operations (Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University Research,
1999). Both the demands of students/clients and the need to secure operating funds
encourage a closer connection between universities and the market economy.
This is the essence of a dilemma that is affecting many areas of academe. On the one
hand, universities have a traditional mission to expand and maintain society’s store of
knowledge. This mission is advanced by providing academics with some degree of inde-
pendence from day-to-day pressures and by emphasizing processes of collegial review and
administration. On the other hand, universities are regarded as the source of the next genera-
tion of knowledge workers and are expected to handle large numbers of entry-level and
lifelong learners. In addition, universities are increasingly being seen as catalysts of
economic growth, and both government policymakers and university administrators are
looking for ways to realize this potential. Although there is a tension between the tradi-
tional and emerging roles of universities in society, the pressure for a more applied
approach to research and education is unmistakable.
ONE VIEW OF APPLIED RESEARCH
Academia’s lack of focus and reward for applied research seems self-defeating in a group
that suffers from so many academic and practical problems. (Nearon, 2002)
While the existence of a “schism” between practice and academe has been recognized
for some time, there is an ongoing debate about how to react to it. Some academics, such
as Abdel-khalik and Ajinka (1979), have suggested that practitioners need to be trained to
become better users of traditional academic research. Increasingly, though, the call has been
for a more “applied” focus in both research and education. But what would this change in
perspective require? I argue that applied research is more than simply the application of
basic research or the search for authoritative guidance on financial reporting problems. An
applied perspective may require a fundamental change in the way we design our research.
In the remainder of this section I want to explore some of the points of departure between
an applied perspective and most current North American accounting research.
Applied Research: Pragmatism and Positivism
Applied research must provide its audience with ways of coping with their realities. This
may be done by helping people to better understand the world in which they live; it may
also be done by providing tools for managing that reality. Our approach to exploring
research topics must ultimately pass a pragmatic test: do our results make a difference in
the lives of our audience? In some cases, our work passes the tests of scientific rigour but
fails to pass the pragmatic test.
The call for business academics to anchor themselves in traditional intellectual dis-
ciplines brought with it a commitment to positivism and empirical science. Within the
positivist tradition, good science is defined by the hypothetico-deductive method, that is,
truth is based on empirical evidence of hypothesized relationships among operationally

defined and independently measured variables. From the perspective of many critics, how-
ever, some business research is trivial because the empirical regularities concern things
that we already “know” (that is, have a commonsense intuition about); concern relation-
ships of little social significance (for example, Schreuder’s 1985 parody of positive
accounting research); are based on simplified models of reality (for example, Tinker, 1988
regarding accounting regulation; Johnson and Kaplan, 1987 regarding management
accounting); or have no action implications. Applied research tends to emphasize the prag-
matic rather than the positivist approach to research.
Pragmatism is an approach to philosophical problems that focuses on the consequences
of any dispute (Rorty, 1982). In deciding on the truth of any statement, we consider what
we are trying to accomplish and whether or not the statement helps us to achieve that
outcome. This is consistent with Mattessich’s (1995) characterization of accounting as a
“conditional-normative” discipline. In other words, what we research and what we accept
as evidence depends on what we are trying to achieve. This implies, among other things,
that the factors that might be used to explain action need not be “real” (that is, verifiable
by external observers using independent measurements) but may include perceptions,
aspirations, and other psychological and sociological variables. The ontology of pragma-
tism — what is accepted as part of reality — is limited only by what helps a community to
achieve its objectives.
William James (1904) was an early proponent of pragmatism. He emphasized pragma-
tists’ respect for empirical data while highlighting the difference between the pragmatists’
and realists’ view of what aspects of experience should be accepted as data:
Now pragmatism, devoted though she be to facts, has no such materialistic bias as ordi-
nary empiricism labours under. Moreover, she has no objection whatever to the realising
of abstractions, so long as you get about among particulars with their aid and they actually
carry you somewhere. Interested in no conclusions but those which our minds and our
experiences work out together, she has no a priori prejudices against theology. If theologi-
cal ideas prove to have a value for concrete life, they will be true, for pragmatism, in the
sense of being good for so much. For how much more they are true, will depend entirely on
their relations to the other truths that also have to be acknowledged. [Emphasis in original.]
For example, a pragmatist might accept a firm’s “strategy” or a person’s “ethical commit-
ments” as valid explanatory variables, whereas these abstractions would be rejected as
variables by some empiricists as being insusceptible of independent verification. Rorty
(1991: 15) has characterized pragmatism as “anti-representational”. That is, it is a philoso-
phy “which does not view knowledge as a matter of getting reality right, but rather as a
matter of acquiring habits of action for coping with reality”.
Substantive versus Statistical Significance
One consequence of a pragmatic approach to research concerns the use of statistical tests
as a measure of the value of research findings. As the cost of computing has declined,
researchers have access to, and are able to manipulate, ever larger data bases. As a result,
we have the statistical power to detect very small effects. My colleagues, for example,

recently published an excellent study in which the only correlations that are not significant
were less than “0.00” (Linsmeier, Thornton, Ventkatachalam, and Welker, 2002; Table 1,
356–9). In other words, our ability to detect statistically significant correlations now
exceeds the number of significant digits that journals are willing to publish.
A considerable literature has debated the use of statistical significance levels in
research (e.g., Rosnow and Rosenthal, 1989; Sterne and Smith, 2001; see Lindsay, 1995,
regarding this issue in accounting research). This literature emphasizes the arbitrary nature
of the “p < 0.05” standard for statistical significance; the lack of correspondence between
statistically significant results and replicability; and its limitation to testing ordinal claims,
that is, the direction of the relationship rather than the effect size. The question of effect
size is crucial from an applied perspective: the issue is whether an observed relationship
has substantive significance in addition to statistical significance.5 In a theory testing exer-
cise, a null hypothesis is rejected if we find a statistically significant relationship. But if an
error term accounts for more than 90 percent of the variance in some phenomenon, could a
community act on the basis of that evidence?
Part of the limitation on the level of variance explained may be the preference of most
positivist researchers to explain phenomena based on causal variables derived from a narrow
theoretical framework (that is, within a specific paradigm). This approach, a priori,
assumes away the possibility of multiple causal mechanisms based on inconsistent princi-
ples. (For example, the dominant assumption of most accounting research is economic
rationality — variables that are not theoretically associated with the costs and benefits of
choices are typically not included in models but simply become part of the error variance.)
This approach is appropriate when the goal of the research is to test a theory, but it
becomes a limitation when someone is seeking sufficient understanding to take action in a
particular case. Lee (2001: 237) offers a telling analogy about the assumption of efficient
markets in financial accounting research. The assumption is comparable to saying that
oceans are flat because of the influence of gravity — but “if we are in the business of train-
ing surfers, does it makes sense to begin by assuming that waves, in theory, do not exist?”
Explaining Phenomena versus Testing Theory as a Focus for Research
Applied research has to provide a sufficiently high level of explanation and understand-
ing that practitioners can act on it. This may mean that research must begin testing more
complex and complete models of phenomena rather than focusing on testing the narrow
implications of a particular theory. This level of explanation usually requires a change
from “nomothetic” to “ideographic” research styles (Nagel, 1961).
5. For the purposes of argument, I accept that statistical significance is a necessary but not sufficient
indicator of substantive significance. This assumption is relaxed below as the discussion distinguishes
between nomothetic and ideographic approaches to research. The concern for statistical significance
raises only in large-sample research. If our concern is to explain specific instances of a phenomenon or to
intervene in a particular context, then statistical significance is no longer the appropriate criterion for
judging the validity of conclusions.

Nomothetic research is concerned with finding abstract general laws of nature while
ideographic research seeks to explain specific instances of natural phenomena. Nomothetic
research achieves its aims by reducing the complexity of phenomena to simpler dimen-
sions. For example, rather than dealing with an economic theory of depreciation specific
to each asset, we recognize broad classes of assets that can be treated as if they were the
same. Similarly, we can reduce all human motives and choice processes to economic calcu-
lation in order to construct parsimonious and testable models of behaviour. These models,
however, may not explain a large portion of the variance in a phenomenon (see Tinker,
1984 and Johnson and Kaplan, 1987 for examples of this critique from very different per-
spectives). In order to explain more variance, typically we have to appeal to a wider range
of causes.6
In part, this may be accomplished within a positivist paradigm. There have been
repeated calls for interdisciplinary research in accounting that would enrich the theories
that we use to explain accounting phenomena. The development of transaction cost eco-
nomics (Williamson, 1985) and “behavioural finance” (e.g., Thaler, 1982; Montier, 2002)
are examples of the introduction of more realistic behavioural assumptions into theories of
contracting and market processes. These approaches seek to give us a better understanding
by ensuring that the simplifying assumptions that we use are more “realistic”, or by provid-
ing a theoretical framework that justifies the use of more explanatory variables.Alternatively, a
positivist approach may be useful when the hypothesis being tested would lead to the
rejection of a particular approach to accounting — for example, when we form hypotheses
as critical tests between practical alternatives.7 It is certainly possible to do applied
research based on a positivist methodology, and Canadian Accounting Perspectives wel-
comes these studies.
An alternative approach to improving our percentage of variance explained is to focus
more on the specifics of situations using “mid-range” theories that are valid within certain
boundary conditions (Merton, 1949). This is the essence of ideographic research. There
are several examples of successful ideographic research programs in accounting using
both quantitative and qualitative methods. The Brunswick lens model of decision making
(Brunswick, 1952), for example, is an ideographic approach that has been used to under-
stand decision makers’ use of accounting information (see Libby, 1981 and Ashton, 1982
for reviews of this literature). The model does not provide a general theory of the informa-
tion that people should use to make decisions; rather, it provides a method of investigating
the weights that people attach to specific information used in a particular context, and of
exploring how changes in the information set affects individuals’ decisions.
6. The exception, of course, would be deterministic relationships such as are often found in physical and
chemical systems. In these cases, practice seeks to control the context (for example, the temperature and
pressure under which a chemical reaction occurs) in order to use the general law to achieve particular
purposes.
7. See Platt’s (1964) discussion of “strong inference” as an approach to science.

In general, however, ideographic research involves more detailed, qualitative analysis
of specific cases. For example, Burchell, Clubb, and Hopwood (1985) introduced an
approach to studying accounting policy development as an “embedded” activity within a
constellation of social processes. This approach recognizes that accounting policy choice
both shapes and is shaped by the social context in which it occurs, and that each account-
ing policy choice activates a unique constellation of social processes (see Robson, 1991,
1994; Morgan and Wilmott, 1993 for developments of this approach). These studies provide
a rich, retrospective description of events that may allow policymakers to better under-
stand the processes in which they are currently embedded.
The key trade-off between nomothetic and ideographic research approaches is the
level of generalizability of the results. The generalizability of ideographic research may be
enhanced by developing better protocols for the conduct and reporting of case research
(e.g. Fishman, 1999) or by developing methods to aggregate cases that vary according to
some verifiable dimension of the situation (e.g., McClintock, Brannon, and Maynard-Moody,
1979; Hoyle, 1998). In an applied research setting, however, this trade-off disappears
because the purpose of the research is to serve a specific client group or community. From
the client’s perspective, the generalizability of the results is moot; the question is, “does
the research serve my needs?” This is perhaps the key dimension of the schism between
practitioners and academics.
Goal-Centred,Context-Dependent Research
One of the frustrations of reading much academic research is the implicit assumption that
researchers were simply reporting on empirical regularities as third-party observers of an
immutable world. There is usually no recognition that the choices that researchers make in
their subject matter and approaches are influenced by their personal values, the epistemic
community in which they are embedded, and the reward systems under which they operate
(Tinker, Merino, and Neimark, 1982; Watts and Zimmerman, 1979). Nor are the conse-
quences of acting on the results of the research typically recognized. Much research has a
disguised normative component; we are not just modeling the way that markets work or
people make decisions, we are also involved in training people to act according to our
models. In applied research, researchers have to accept responsibility for the conse-
quences of their actions. Applied research is intended to intervene in current practices and
processes — if the research is successful, it will have an impact.
The fact that applied research will change social practices raises the question of who
will be affected by the change, particularly when not all changes will be Pareto-optimal —
that is, there may be winners and losers (Kaplan and Levine, 1997). Applied research has a
client or a community of clients. The choice of research topic and the criteria for identify-
ing acceptable solutions to problems must be derived from this community’s values.8 It is
8. Gaa’s (1986) examination of user primacy in Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) decision
making is an example of an analytic study that is explicitly concerned with the interests of an identified
client group. Although this commentary is primarily concerned with empirical issues, applied research
includes analytic work as well.

important to emphasize, however, that the researcher’s methods must be independent even
though the research is intended to address the issues of concern to a particular commu-
nity.9 The potential for applied research to harm particular groups and the possibility of
bias in the research mean that the need for ethical judgement is particularly acute in
applied research. These concerns include the ethical treatment of research subjects, the
relationship between sponsoring organizations and the researcher and its potential for
biasing or suppressing results, and the ethical use of research results. The researcher is an
ethical actor who must make a conscious choice whether or not to engage in a project and
how to disseminate the results. I return to this issue in the next section.
One approach to research that explicitly recognizes that the intent of research is to
change practice has been labeled “action research”.10 This approach commits the
researcher to engaging the subjects of the research in the process and working with them
to achieve the ends that they desire:
We argued that good action research will: be both aimed at and grounded in the world of
practice; be explicitly and actively participative; research with, for and by people rather
than on people; draw on a wide range of ways of knowing — including intuitive, experien-
tial, presentational as well as conceptual — and link these appropriately to form theory;
address questions that are of significance to the flourishing of human community and the
more than human world; aim to leave some lasting capacity amongst those involved,
encompassing first, second and third person perspectives. (Reason and Bradbury, 2001: 1)
Kaplan (1998) has described the approach that he and his colleagues used in developing
both activity-based costing and the balance scorecard as a form of action research. Both
techniques arose out of a dialogue between Kaplan and senior managers and an iterative
exploration of alternative approaches for dealing with specific problems (see also Laitinien,
2003 for an extension of this approach in management accounting).
In several fields where practitioners intervene in their clients’ lives, there has been a
call for a change from thinking about practice as an “applied science” to conceptualizing it
as “disciplined inquiry” (e.g., Peterson, 1991; Schön, 1995). The difference in approach is
captured by Schön’s (1983: 68) discussion of the “reflexive practitioner”:
When someone reflects-in-action … he is not dependent on the categories of established
theories and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique case. … He does not
keep means and ends separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic
situation. … Because his experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built into
his inquiry.
9. This distinction may be reflected in several research grant programs administered by the Canadian
Academic Accounting Association (CAAA). Letters of intent are screened by the funding bodies to
establish their interest in the research topic, but then an academic committee evaluates the merit of the
research design.
10. Researchers developing the “sociotechnical systems” theory of organizational design have also advocated
this approach (see Trist, 1981).

Applied research from this perspective is inevitably tied up with implementation. The
researcher is an active partner in experimenting with alternative approaches in the field
and reports on the results of those experiments. In accounting, this approach to research is
most notable in the social and environmental accounting area (e.g., Gray, Dey, Owen,
Evans, and Zadek, 1997).
Rorty (1991:15) makes the point that pragmatism is not relativistic but ethnocentric. A
relativistic position holds that one approach to research is as good as another; an ethnocen-
tric approach retains a critical dimension but is anchored in the needs of the audience for
that research. Pragmatic research thus operates on a different epistemology basis from
positivistic research, which assumes that the researcher and the subject of the research are
fundamentally independent. From the pragmatic perspective, the subjects are active partic-
ipants in the research process. The nature of the data collected and the “theories” tested
depend crucially on the subjects’ understanding of their circumstances and goals.
The Scholarship of Application/Scholarship of Engagement
The discovery of knowledge through practice, and the practical application of knowledge
to social problems. (Concordia University, 1998)
The growing focus on applied research in accounting is consistent with Boyer’s
(1990) influential call for the professoriate to reconsider their priorities and to expand the
accepted range of scholarship to include the “scholarship of application” and, more
recently (Boyer, 1997), the “scholarship of engagement”. Applied research as a reflexive
activity is a manifestation of this type of scholarship. It represents and requires a form of
engagement between university stakeholders and academics, and results in research that
guides stakeholders’ advancement of their own interests and/or increases their capacity to
“cope with reality” (Rorty, 1991). While there may be an overlap between some types of
high-level consulting and applied research, the key difference between them is the continu-
ing obligation of the researcher to share the lessons learned rather than create proprietary
knowledge, and to consider clients’ needs in the context of the researcher’s broader social
obligations.
The scholarship of engagement includes the traditional service role of the academic,
but recognizes that effective applied scholarship, in addition to creating technical knowl-
edge, also takes a normative position and seeks to bring about social change (cf. Bohman,
1991):
universities and colleges remain, in my opinion, one of the greatest hopes for intellectual
and civic progresses in this country. I am convinced that for this hope to be fulfilled, the
academy must become a more vigorous partner in the search for answers to our most
pressing social, civic, economic, and moral problems, and must reaffirm its historic com-
mitment to what I call the scholarship of engagement. … Campuses would be viewed by
both students and professors not as isolated islands, but as staging grounds for action.
(Boyer, 1996: 11)
Boyer’s vision implies that in all applied research there is an implicit client repre-
sented by the public interest. Applied research, therefore, may be carried out to advance

“public reason” (Rawls, 1999), to explore and propose alternative solutions to problems
that are justifiable within the broad set of values that bound liberal debate.
CONCLUSION
The call for applied research in the mission statement of Canadian Accounting Perspec-
tives reflects a change in the relationship between universities and society. For better or for
worse, the boundaries between universities and key stakeholders are dissolving and aca-
demics are being called on to develop rich and meaningful ties with those groups (see
CAP volume 2, nos. 1 and 2). The traditional role of academics is being stretched to
ensure that part of the universities’ research portfolio includes applied work.
There are many ways to do applied research in accounting. There is a need for work
that identifies applications to accounting of basic research in, for example, economics and
psychology. There is also a need for a “translation” process that identifies the implications
of theoretical work for accounting practice and education. The initial call for papers of
Canadian Accounting Perspectives explicitly sought these types of articles. It is also pos-
sible to conduct applied research from a traditional positivist methodology, particularly if
researchers can formulate critical tests of competing accounting approaches that would
help practitioners to identified “preferred” techniques (that is, based on their objectives).
But these approaches will not take us very far in healing the schism between academe and
practice.
I have argued that to have an impact on the schism between academe and practice,
applied accounting research requires a different approach to identifying research questions
and a different epistemology that acknowledges the important collaborative role that our
subjects play in research studies. Applied research must have a client or, at least, must
explicitly recognize which groups in society will be affected by the research, and therefore
cannot ignore the values of the clients for the outcomes that are attained. This approach to
research, however, may be difficult to implement within the current institutional environment.
One concern is that the lack of well-developed basic science opens the door to applied
advice of dubious value (see Archer’s 2000 discussion of accounting “gurus”). This criti-
cism, however, assumes that there is a linear process that links basic research, applied
research, and the development/implementation of new practices. Peterson (1991) refers to
this as the “applied science” model. The perspective advocated in this paper is a “reflexive
practice” approach that recognizes that applied research is a philosophically distinct
approach to knowledge creation. Applied research from this perspective is not simply the
application of basic research results but a philosophically justified approach to knowledge
creation.
An additional obstacle to the development of an applied perspective is the reward sys-
tem under which university researchers labour. Most business/accounting schools still
hold to the criteria of other social sciences for promotion and tenure of their faculty. This
reward system tends to emphasize publication in peer-reviewed academic journals and
funded research programs anchored in traditional disciplines. Business academics are thus
encouraged to focus on the methodical accumulation of knowledge rather than collabora-

tive work with practitioners to achieve immediate results.11 Given the history of business
education and the continued demands for traditional academic outputs from the institu-
tions in which accounting academics are embedded, the call for applied research has been
a difficult call for most academics to answer.
A further problem for many academics contemplating an applied research project is
that the training that business academics receive in research methods (and the philosophy
of science, if this is included in their programs) tends to be limited to a form of positivism
that inherently discourages examining problems from an applied perspective. It is an
approach to science that encourages disengagement between the researcher and the subjects
of the research. This may be the most harmful schism between academics and practice and
the one most difficult to bridge.
So what is “applied research” in accounting? I would argue that applied research
refers to a continuum of activities. First, in its most basic form, applied research is the use
of existing knowledge to find solutions to current problems. This characterizes the version
of applied research that is pursued by most practitioners in resolving the ambiguities of
practice. Second, applied research is the use of positivist research methods to conduct crit-
ical tests between current accounting methods and to identify empirical regularities that
contribute to the development of technologies of practice. This is the most common
approach to applied research in the current literature. Finally, applied research is a form of
disciplined inquiry and a philosophically justified approach to knowledge creation that
results from the collaboration between the researcher and the subjects of research in devel-
oping mid-range theory and generating empirical results that advance the interests or
increase the capabilities of an identified community. This version of applied research, I
believe, is what is required to bridge the schism between academe and practice.
11. A few schools have created “clinical” positions in accounting (for example, the Stern School at NewYork
University, the Freeman Business School at Tulane University, and the Marshall School of Business at the
University of Southern California), but these appear to have more to do with meeting teaching needs than
to do with encouraging an applied research perspective in business schools.

LA RECHERCHE APPLIQUÉE EN COMPTABILITÉ : RÉFLEXION CRITIQUE
CONDENSÉ
Perspectives comptables canadiennes a pour mission d’offrir une tribune à la recherche
appliquée en comptabilité, d’où la question : qu’est-ce que la « recherche appliquée » ? La
présente réflexion critique vise à ouvrir la discussion sur la nature de la recherche
appliquée et ne doit pas être interprétée comme ayant pour objet de circonscrire la nature
des travaux de recherche que publiera ou devrait publier Perspectives comptables
canadiennes. L’intention de l’auteur est de soumettre à la discussion une façon d’aborder
la recherche appliquée que de nombreux chercheurs n’ont pas envisagée, semble-t-il, et de
jeter ainsi un pont de plus entre universitaires et praticiens.
La comptabilité comme objet théorique et la comptabilité comme objet d’exercice
professionnel forment, au mieux, un couple indécis. Les débats sur la pertinence de la
formation universitaire pour le succès professionnel et sur la pertinence de la recherche
universitaire pour l’exercice de la profession sont récurrents (Bloom et al., 1994). Ce sujet
est la source d’un dilemme qui touche de nombreuses sphères universitaires. D’une part,
les universités ont cette mission traditionnelle d’élargir les connaissances. Elles
progressent dans la réalisation de cette mission lorsque les universitaires sont libérés des
pressions quotidiennes et que les processus collégiaux d’examen et de gestion sont
privilégiés. D’autre part, les universités sont considérées comme une pépinière de
travailleurs du savoir et l’on s’attend à ce qu’elles forment un grand nombre d’étudiants.
Ce sont, de plus, des catalyseurs de la croissance économique, et c’est pourquoi les
gouvernements et les administrations universitaires cherchent comment matérialiser ce
potentiel. La demande de recherche appliquée en comptabilité est en partie une tentative
de résorption de ce schisme et la confirmation qu’une grande partie des travaux des
théoriciens de la comptabilité n’ont pas de retombées immédiates sur la pratique.
Bien que l’existence d’un schisme entre théorie et pratique soit reconnue depuis un
certain temps, la controverse demeure quant à la façon d’y réagir. Certains (dont
Abdel-khalik et Ajinka, 1979) ont suggéré que l’on forme les praticiens à mieux utiliser la
recherche théorique traditionnelle, mais de plus en plus de voix se font entendre pour
réclamer un virage de la recherche et de la formation vers des objets plus « appliqués ».
La recherche appliquée doit fournir à ses destinataires des façons de résoudre les
problèmes auxquels ils font face. Elle peut y parvenir en les aidant à mieux comprendre le
monde ou en leur proposant des outils pour résoudre ces problèmes. Les travaux de
recherche doivent réussir le test du pragmatisme : les résultats de ces travaux font-ils une
différence dans la vie de ceux à qui ils s’adressent ? Rorty (1991, p. 15) a qualifié le
pragmatisme d’« anti-représentatif », c’est-à-dire de principe « selon lequel l’objet de la
connaissance n’est pas de bien cerner la réalité, mais plutôt d’acquérir des modes d’action
permettant d’affronter la réalité » [traduction]. Dans certains cas, nos travaux réussissent
le test de la rigueur scientifique mais échouent le test du pragmatisme parce qu’ils portent
sur des objets que nous « connaissons » déjà (c’est-à-dire des objets que notre logique
intuitive nous permet d’appréhender), qu’ils touchent des relations dont la signification
sociale est faible, qu’ils sont basés sur des modèles simplifiés de la réalité ou qu’ils n’ont

pas de répercussions sur l’action. Le coût de l’informatique devenant de plus en plus
abordable, les chercheurs ont accès à des bases de données toujours plus volumineuses et
ont la capacité de manipuler ces données ; nous sommes aujourd’hui en mesure de déceler
les effets statistiquement significatifs, si modestes soient-ils. Or, l’importance de l’effet est
cruciale dans l’optique de la recherche appliquée : il s’agit de déterminer si une relation
observée a non seulement une signification statistique, mais une signification de fond.
Une partie de la limitation à laquelle est assujettie la proportion d’écarts expliqués
dans les phénomènes peut être attribuable aux variables causales dérivées d’un cadre
théorique étroit sur lesquelles s’appuie la recherche. Cette approche élimine d’office,
a priori, la possibilité de multiples mécanismes causals issus de principes incompatibles
(par exemple, l’hypothèse prédominante de la majorité des travaux de recherche
comptable est la rationalité économique). L’approche est appropriée lorsque la recherche a
pour but d’éprouver une théorie, mais elle impose une limitation lorsque la recherche vise
à permettre au destinataire d’acquérir une compréhension suffisante de l’objet étudié pour
pouvoir prendre des mesures concrètes. Lee (2001) fait une analogie au sujet de
l’hypothèse de l’efficience des marchés en recherche financière : elle équivaut à affirmer
que les océans sont plats à cause de l’effet de la gravité, mais, dit-il, « si notre tâche est de
former des surfeurs, est-il logique de supposer au départ que les vagues sont, en théorie,
inexistantes ? » [traduction].
La recherche appliquée doit assurer un niveau de compréhension suffisamment élevé
pour que les praticiens puissent y réagir. Cela signifie que la recherche doit tester des
modèles plus complexes et plus complets des phénomènes, plutôt que d’être axée sur la
vérification des strictes conséquences d’une théorie particulière. Ce niveau d’explication
exige habituellement dans la recherche un passage du style « nomothétique » au style
« idéographique » (Nagel, 1961). La recherche nomothétique s’intéresse aux lois
générales de la nature, tandis que la recherche idéographique vise à expliquer des cas
précis. La recherche nomothétique atteint son but en ramenant les phénomènes complexes
à des dimensions plus simples. Pour pouvoir expliquer une plus grande partie des écarts
dans un phénomène particulier, il faut généralement s’intéresser à un éventail de causes
plus large. À maintes reprises ont été réclamés des travaux de recherche interdisciplinaire
en comptabilité propres à enrichir les théories utilisées pour expliquer les phénomènes
comptables et à justifier l’utilisation d’un plus grand nombre de variables explicatives.
Une autre approche possible pour améliorer la proportion d’écarts expliqués consiste
à se concentrer sur des situations précises en utilisant les théories « médianes », valides à
l’intérieur de certaines bornes (Merton, 1949). C’est là l’essence de la recherche
idéographique. Il existe plusieurs exemples de programmes de recherche idéographique
efficaces en comptabilité, des programmes faisant appel à des méthodes tant quantitatives
(comme le modèle de la lentille de Brunswick) que qualitatives (comme les études de cas
d’élaboration de méthodes comptables). Le principal compromis entre les approches
nomothétique et idéographique porte sur la mesure dans laquelle les résultats peuvent être
généralisés. Du point de vue du client, la possibilité de généralisation des résultats est sans
intérêt pratique ; la question est de savoir si la recherche répond à ses besoins.

La recherche universitaire est souvent présentée comme si les chercheurs étaient
simplement des tiers observant un univers immuable. L’on n’accorde habituellement
aucune considération à l’influence qu’exercent les valeurs des chercheurs, leur milieu et
les systèmes de rétribution auxquels ils sont soumis dans leur travail sur le choix de la
matière qu’ils traitent et sur les méthodes qu’ils emploient. En général, l’on ne reconnaît
pas non plus les conséquences des décisions prises à la lumière des résultats de la
recherche. Les chercheurs ne se contentent pas de modéliser le fonctionnement des
marchés ou la façon dont les gens prennent des décisions, ils contribuent également à
entraîner les gens à agir selon leurs modèles.
Le fait que la recherche appliquée soit appelée à changer les pratiques sociales
soulève une question : qui sera touché par ces changements ? La possibilité que la
recherche appliquée porte préjudice à certains groupes et qu’elle soit partiale signifie que
l’exercice du jugement éthique est une impérative nécessité. Ces préoccupations
englobent le traitement des objets de recherche, la relation entre les organisations qui
financent la recherche et les chercheurs, la possibilité que cette relation ait pour
conséquence de fausser ou de supprimer des résultats, et l’utilisation éthique des résultats
de la recherche. Le chercheur est un acteur éthique qui doit décider en toute conscience
s’il lui faut ou non s’engager dans un projet particulier et comment les résultats de ce
projet seront diffusés.
Une façon d’aborder la recherche qui consiste à reconnaître explicitement que
l’intention de cette recherche est de modifier la pratique est appelée « recherche-action ».
Envisager la recherche sous cet angle amène le chercheur à engager les sujets de la
recherche dans le processus et à travailler avec eux à la réalisation des fins qu’ils visent.
Kaplan (1998) a décrit comment lui et ses collègues se sont attaqués à l’élaboration de la
comptabilité par activités et du tableau de bord équilibré sous l’angle de la recherche-action,
c’est-à-dire en dialoguant avec des cadres supérieurs et en procédant à l’exploration
itérative des différentes méthodes utilisées dans le traitement de problèmes précis (voir
Laitinien, 2003). Cette façon d’envisager la recherche se remarque également dans le
domaine de la comptabilité sociale et environnementale (par exemple, Gray et al., 1997).
L’intérêt porté à la recherche appliquée répond à l’appel lancé par Boyer (1990) qui
demandait aux professeurs de repenser leurs priorités et de s’engager envers le « savoir en
vue de la mise en application » et, plus récemment (Boyer, 1997), envers le « savoir en
vue de l’engagement ». Le savoir en vue de l’engagement embrasse le rôle de service
traditionnel des professeurs mais reconnaît que l’efficacité du savoir appliqué réside non
seulement dans la création de connaissances techniques, mais aussi dans une prise de
position normative et dans la concrétisation du changement social. Le point de vue de
Boyer suppose donc que toute recherche appliquée a un client implicite représenté par
l’intérêt public. La recherche appliquée peut donc avoir pour objet de satisfaire la « raison
publique » (Rawls, 1999), d’explorer et de proposer des solutions de rechange qui se
justifient dans le vaste ensemble de valeurs qui délimite le débat libéral.
L’appel à la recherche appliquée dans la politique éditoriale de Perspectives
comptables canadiennes reflète une évolution de la relation entre les universités et la
société. Les frontières s’éclipsent entre les universités et les principales parties prenantes,

et les professeurs sont appelés à entretenir des liens signifiants avec ces groupes. Le rôle
traditionnel des professeurs prend de l’ampleur : ils doivent s’assurer qu’une partie du
portefeuille de travaux de recherche des universités soient consacrés à la recherche
appliquée.
Les façons de faire de la recherche appliquée en comptabilité sont nombreuses. Les
besoins touchent les travaux qui définissent les applications comptables de la recherche
fondamentale en économique et en psychologie, par exemple. Ils touchent également le
processus de « conversion » qui détermine les retombées de travaux théoriques en
comptabilité sur la pratique et la formation comptables. Il est également possible de
réaliser un travail de recherche appliquée à partir d’une méthodologie positiviste
traditionnelle, en particulier si les chercheurs peuvent soumettre à des tests critiques les
approches comptables concurrentes pouvant aider les praticiens à définir les techniques
qu’ils doivent « privilégier » (c’est-à-dire celles qui leur permettent d’atteindre leurs
objectifs). Mais ces approches ne nous mènent pas très loin dans notre tentative de
résorption du schisme entre théorie et pratique.
Selon l’auteur, pour avoir une incidence sur le schisme entre théorie et pratique, la
recherche comptable appliquée doit aborder sous un angle différent la définition des
questions de recherche et adopter une épistémologie qui reconnaisse l’importance de la
collaboration des sujets aux études réalisées. La recherche appliquée doit avoir un client
ou, à tout le moins, reconnaître explicitement ceux et celles qu’elle touchera ; elle ne peut
donc ignorer l’incidence des valeurs des clients sur les résultats obtenus. Cette approche
risque cependant d’être difficile à appliquer dans le contexte institutionnel qui prévaut, en
raison des préoccupations que soulèvent la pénurie de recherche fondamentale sur laquelle
fonder les applications, les systèmes de rétribution des universités qui discréditent la
recherche appliquée et le manque de formation des chercheurs en ce qui a trait aux
méthodes de recherche appliquée.
Alors, qu’est-ce que la « recherche appliquée » en comptabilité ? L’auteur est d’avis
qu’elle renvoie à un continuum d’activités. Premièrement, dans sa forme la plus
élémentaire, la recherche appliquée consiste dans l’utilisation des connaissances
existantes pour trouver des solutions aux problèmes actuels. Deuxièmement, elle consiste
dans l’utilisation de méthodes de recherche positivistes pour soumettre à des tests
critiques les approches comptables actuelles et déterminer les régularités empiriques qui
contribuent à la définition de techniques pratiques. Enfin, la recherche appliquée est une
forme d’investigation ordonnée et une approche de la création du savoir ayant une
justification philosophique qui résulte du travail concerté du chercheur et des sujets de
recherche à l’élaboration d’une théorie médiane et à l’obtention de résultats empiriques
qui favorisent les intérêts d’une collectivité définie ou en accroissent les capacités. Cette
interprétation de la recherche appliquée, estime l’auteur, est celle qu’exige la résorption
du schisme entre théorie et pratique.

REFERENCES
Abdel-khalik, R., and B. Ajinka. 1979. Empirical research in accounting: A methodological
viewpoint, Education Research Monograph No. 4. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting
Association.
Archer, S. 2000. Pendants or gurus: The production and dissemination of knowledge in the
management sciences. Lecture, University of Surrey.
Ashton, R. 1982. Human information processing in accounting. Sarasota, FL: American
Accounting Association.
Austin, B. 2000. Capitalizing knowledge: Essays on the history of business education in Canada.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bedford, N. ed. 1986. Special Report on the Future of Accounting Education: Preparing for the
Expanding Profession. American Accounting Association Committee on the Future Structure,
Content, and Scope of Accounting Education. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
Bloom, R., H. G. Heymann, J. Fuglister, and M. Collins. 1994. The schism in accounting. Westport,
CT: Quorum.
Bohman, J. 1991. New philosophy of social science. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Boyer, E. L. 1996. The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach 1 (1):
11–20.
Boyer, E. L. 1997. Selected speeches, 1979–1995. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Bricker, R. J., and G. Previts. 1990. The sociology of accountancy: A study of academic and
practice community schisms. Accounting Horizons 4 (1): 1–14.
Burchell, S., C. Clubb, and A. G. Hopwood. 1985. Accounting in its social context: Towards a
history of value added in the United Kingdom. Accounting, Organizations and Society 10 (4):
381–413.
Brunswick, E. 1952. The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Concordia University. 1998. Institutional self-study submitted to the Commission on Institutions of
Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.
Demski, J. 2003. Remarks, annual conference of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association,
Ottawa, May 31.
Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University Research. 1999. Public investments in
university research: Reaping the benefits. Ottawa: Advisory Council on Science and
Technology.
Fishman, D. B. 1999. The case for pragmatic psychology. New York: New York University Press.
Gaa, J. C. 1986. User primacy in financial reporting rulemaking: A social contract approach. The
Accounting Review 61 (3): 435–54.
Gibbins, M. 2002. The future of accounting education: The implications to Canadian universities.
Canadian Accounting Perspectives 1 (1): 57–67.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new
production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
London: Sage.

Gordon, R. A., and J. E. Howell. 1959. Higher education for business. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Gray, R., C. Dey, D. Owen, R. Evans, and S. Zadek. 1997. Struggling with the praxis of social
accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 10 (3): 325–64.
Hoyle, R. H., ed. 1998. Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
James, W. 1904. What is pragmatism? Lecture II from series of eight lectures dedicated to the
memory of John Stuart Mill, A new name for some old ways of thinking, in Writings 1902-
1920. New York: Library of America. Available online at http://www.marxists.org/reference/
subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm.
Johnson, T., and R. Kaplan. 1987. Relevance lost: The rise and fall of management accounting.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, A. E., and G. Levine, eds. 1997. The Politics of Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Kaplan, R. S. 1998. Innovation action research: Creating new management theory and practice.
Journal of Management Accounting Research 10: 89–118.
Kitchen, H. 2000. Provinces and municipalities and universities, schools, and hospitals: Recent
trends and funding issues. In Canada: The State of the Federation, 1999-2000 — Toward a
New Mission Statement for Canadian Fiscal Federalism, ed. H. Lazar, 295–336. Kingston,
ON: Institute for Intergovernmental Relations.
Laitinien, E. K. 2003. Future-based management accounting: A new approach with survey
evidence. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 14 (3): 293–324.
Lee, C. M. C. 2001. Market efficiency and accounting research. Journal of Accounting and
Economics 31 (1–3): 233–53.
Libby, R. 1981. Accounting and human information processing: Theory and applications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lindsay, R. M. 1995. Reconsidering the status of tests of significance: An alternative criteria of
adequacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 (1): 35–53.
Linsmeier, T., D. B. Thornton, M. Ventkatachalam, and M. Welker. 2002. The effect of mandated
risk disclosures on trading volume sensitivity to interest rate, exchange rate and commodity
price movements. The Accounting Review 77 (2): 343–77.
Mattessich, R. 1995. Conditional-normative accounting methodology: Incorporating value
judgments and means-end relations of an applied science. Accounting, Organizations and
Society 20 (4): 259–84.
McClintock, C. C., D. Brannon, and S. Maynard-Moody. 1979. Applying the logic of sample
surveys to qualitative case studies: The case cluster method. Administrative Science Quarterly
24 (4): 612–29.
Merton, R. K. 1949. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
Montier, J. 2002. Behavioural finance: Insights into irrational minds and markets. London: Wiley.
Morgan, G., and H. Willmott. 1993. The “new” accounting research: On making accounting more
visible. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 6 (4): 3–36.
Nagel, E. 1961. The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Nearon, B. 2002. A radical proposal for accounting education. CPA Journal, http://
www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2002/1002/features/f102802.htm (accessed May 14, 2003).
Nelson, M., W. Banks, and R. Fisher. 2002. Improved accountability disclosures by Canadian
universities. Canadian Accounting Perspectives 2 (1): 77–107.
Peterson, D. 1991. Connection and disconnection of research and practice in the education of
professional psychologists. American Psychologist 46 (4): 441–51.
Pierson, F. 1959. The education of American businessmen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Platt, J. R. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146 (3642): 347–53.
Rawls, J. 1999. The law of peoples; with The idea of public reason revisited. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Reason, P., and H. Bradbury, eds. 2000. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and
Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robson, K. 1991. On the arenas of accounting change: The process of translation. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 16 (5/6): 547–70.
Robson, K. 1994. Inflation accounting and action at a distance: The Sandilands episode.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 19 (1): 45–82.
Rorty, R. 1982. Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, relativism, and truth, vol. 1, Philosophical papers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosnow R. L., and R. Rosenthal. 1989. Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in
psychological science. American Psychologist 44 (10): 1276–84.
Rynes, S. L., J. M. Batunek, and R. L. Daft. 2001. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and
transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal 44 (2): 340–55.
Sterne, J. A. C., and G. D. Smith. 2001. Sifting the evidence — What’s wrong with significance
tests. British Medical Journal 322 (7280): 226–31.
Schön, D. A. 1983. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. 1995. The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change 27 (6): 27–34.
Schreuder, H. 1985. Suitable research: On the development of a positive theory of the business suit.
Sundem, G. 1999. The Accounting Education Change Commission: Its history and impact.
Sarasota, FL: Accounting Education Change Commission and American Accounting
Association.
Thaler, R. H., ed. 1982. Advances in Behavioural Finance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tinker, A. M. 1984. Theories of the state and the state of accounting: Economic reductionism and
political voluntarism in accounting regulatory theory. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy
3 (1): 55–77.
Tinker, A. M. 1988. Panglossian accounting theories: The science of apologising in style.
Tinker, A. M., B. Merino, and M. D. Neimark. 1982. The normative origins of positive theories:
Ideology and accounting thought. Accounting, Organizations and Society 7 (2): 167–200.
Trist, E. L. 1981. The evolution of socio-technical systems. In Perspectives on Organization Design
and Behavior, eds. A. H. Van de Ven and W. F. Joyce. New York: Wiley.
Watts, R., and J. Zimmerman. 1979. The demand for and supply of accounting theories: The market
for excuses. The Accounting Review 54 (2): 273–305.

Weirich, T. R., and R. Reinstein. 2000. Accounting and auditing research: A practical guide, 5th ed.
Cincinnati: South-Western College Publications, Thomson Learning.
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Zeff, S., and T. R. Hofstedt. 1974. The communication gap: The researcher and the practitioner.
Accountants Magazine 77 (1).
Ziebart, D. A., A. L. Feller, K. H. Molloy, and T. C. Omer. 2001. Introduction to applied
professional research for accountants, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Applied Research In Accounting A Commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Applied Research In Accounting A Commentary

Similar to Applied Research In Accounting A Commentary (20)

More from Alicia Edwards

More from Alicia Edwards (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Applied Research In Accounting A Commentary