related documents
ORP25 - The professional accounting journals and the academic author
Hussey and Cottingham 1999
Executive summary
The five main professional accountancy bodies in Great Britain donate significant funds to academic research. Although questions have not been posed on the observable benefits of this research to the profession, there has been considerable debate on the relevance to practitioners of the research conducted by academics. This present study contributes to and extends that debate by concentrating on the extent to which academics communicate to practitioners through the medium of the professional accounting journals.
The specific aims of the study were to ascertain the volume and nature of articles by academics in the five main British accounting journals. To achieve these aims, a content analysis of the journals was conducted for the ten year period 1987-96 and every article identified as being written by an academic was collected and analysed. Where articles were written by two or more authors, they have been credited with equal proportions. The period covers the conduct of two Research Assessment Exercises (RAE), which are important as the basis for determining the allocation of government funding to research. Articles by academic authors in professional journals are not usually recognised for the purposes of the RAE.
On an annual basis, over the ten year period, between 8.6% and 12.0% of all articles published in the five journals were attributed to academic authors. A total of 750 articles by academics were published with the highest number (290) being in Accountancy and the lowest (44) in Public Finance. Although Accountancy has been the dominant journal on a ten year basis, there have been changes in the relative positions of the journals. Accountancy has declined as a publisher and, since 1993, Certified Accountant and Management Accounting have both published more articles than Accountancy.
The 750 articles were attributed to a total of 512 academic authors, but very few of these authors can be considered as active as 86% of them were responsible for only two or fewer articles. Only 25 authors managed to publish five or more articles over the ten year period and no individual author published at least one article every year. There is some evidence from this study that the active authors are more likely to have a PhD and/or a professional qualification than those who do not publish so frequently.
A division of the ten years into two five-year periods reveals a decline in productivity in the second period. This could be the result of increased lecturing or administrative burdens placed on academics or the editorial policies of the journals. It can also be argued that the requirements of the Research Assessment Exercise has focused academics', attention on writing for refereed journals, which improve their research rating rather than for professional journals.
An analysis of the institutions employing the academics shows that 24 had staff who published a total of nine or more articles over the ten year period. Cardiff Business School has the highest number of articles (44.2) attributed to it and members of staff have appeared in print in each of the ten years. Institutional productivity in terms of average number of articles per staff member is higher, however, at Bath, Edinburgh and Reading Universities. These findings should be treated with caution as some institutions only appear in the list of 24 because of the efforts of one or two staff.
Comparing the institutions over the two five-year periods and their ratings in the Research Assessment Exercises in 1992 and 1996, there is fragmentary evidence that institutions with good research ratings also tend to have staff who publish in professional journals. There are some notable exceptions and some institutions which are renowned for their substantial research activity and whose staff publish frequently in academic journals, rarely appear in the pages of the professional journals.
The main subject covered by the 750 articles was financial accounting and reporting. From a low base in the early years, general management articles have now risen to second place, followed by management accounting topics and international issues. Public accounting, presumably partly owing to Public Finance's current editorial policy of only using journalists, does not feature prominently.
Of the 190 research based articles, Management Accounting is the main publisher. This is to some extent due to the policy of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants towards the dissemination of research it funds. Accountancy does not publish a high number of research based articles in those areas where the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales provides substantial funding.
In each of the five journals the number of articles which can be classified as 'pure' research are much higher than those which can be classified as 'applied' research. These findings conflict with the belief held by some academics that professional journals and practitioners are only interested in applied research.
The main conclusion from this study is that, despite the substantial funding from the professional bodies, only a very small proportion of academic individuals contribute to the dissemination of knowledge of the discipline through the medium of the professional journals. These individuals tend to be well qualified academically and are employed mostly in institutions that have demonstrated research competency.
Although the Research Assessment Exercise may deter academics from seeking publication in professional journals, the decision does not rest solely with the prospective authors. The relationship between the professional body, the journal and the editorial body can be decisive factors. If we wish to encourage academics to make developments in the knowledge of the discipline easily accessible by practitioners, these policies need to be reviewed.