Click here to download

Who Influences Whom? An Exploratory Analysis of the Interrelations between Accounting Research and the IASB’s Standard Setting Activity
Author/s: Michele Pizzo, Nicola Moscariello, Claudio Teodori, Monica Veneziani, Laura Rocca, Alberto Quagli, Elisa Roncagliolo 
Year:  2016 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  18 Pg. 77-94 FullText PDF:  250 KB
DOI:  10.3280/FR2016-001005
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

This study investigates the interrelations between accounting research and the IASB activity. Prior research shows a significant gap between academia, the standard setters and the accounting profession and underlines the failure of academic papers to contribute to accounting practice. Although we find some evidence of the intention of the IASB to fill the gap between accounting theory and practice, our analysis confirms the existence of a significant distance between financial accounting research and the IFRSs. The IASB ‘due process’ definitely influences the academic activity, but the accounting literature does not seem to represent a cornerstone for the IFRSs. Particularly, during the ‘due process’ steps that precede the P.I.R. phase, the IASB only quotes few papers. With the P.I.R. process, the number of research papers analysed by the IASB significantly increases, but it is not yet clear how this ex-post activity might really influence the IFRSs statements. Finally, we find that the traditional academic ranking systems are not a key factor driving the IASB selection of the articles to analyse during the P.I.R. process. This evidence sheds light on the risk of an unfruitful self-referentiality of the accounting academic literature and on the self-feeding nature of the academic world.
Keywords: Academic research, academic ranking systems, accounting practice, standard setting, post-implementation review

  1. Baxter W.T. (1988), Accounting Research – Academic Trends Versus Practical Needs. (Edinburgh: Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland).
  2. Bhimani A., Bond D. and Sivabalan P. (2014), Righting the pendulum: explaining IASB pursuits for users legitimacy. Working Paper. London School of Economics and Political Sciences.
  3. Bloom R. (1994), The Schism in Accounting. (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood).
  4. Bricker R.J. and Previts G.J. (1990), The sociology of accountancy: A study of academic and practice community schisms, Accounting Horizons, 4 (1), pp. 1-14.
  5. Bruggemann U., Hitz J.M. and Sellhorn T. (2012), Intended and unintended consequences of mandatory IFRS adoption: a review of extant evidence and suggestions for future research. Discussion Paper n. 2012-011, Berlin.
  6. Bushman R. and Landsman W.R. (2010), The pros and cons of regulating corporate reporting: a critical review of the arguments, Accounting and Business Research, 40 (3), pp. 259-273,, DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2010.9663400
  7. Dewing I.P. and Russell P.O. (1998), Accounting education and research: Zeff’s warnings reconsidered, British Accounting Review, 30 (3), pp. 291-312,, DOI: 10.1006/bare.1998.0072
  8. Ewert R. and Wagenhofer A. (2012), Using Academic Research for the Post-Implementation Review of Accounting Standards: A Note, Abacus, 48, pp. 278-291,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2012.00362.x
  9. FASB (2013), FASB Response to the FAF on the Post-implementation review of SFAS 131.
  10. Fulbier R.U., Hitz J.M. and Sellhorn T. (2009). Relevance of academic research and researchers’ role in the IASB’s financial reporting standard setting, Abacus, 45 (4), pp. 455-492,, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2009.00300.x
  11. Glover J. (2014), Have academics and the standard setters traded places?, Accounting, Economics and Law – A Convivium, 4 (1), pp. 17-26.
  12. Granof M.H. and Zeff S.A. (2008), Research on accounting should learn from the past, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 21 (1), pp. 54-82.
  13. Grossman G. and Helpman E. (1994), Protection for sale, American Economic Review, 84 (2), pp. 833-850.
  14. Guthrie J., Burrit R. and Evans E. (2011), The relationship between academic accounting research and professional practice, in E. Evans, R. Burritt and J. Guthrie (eds.), Bridging the gap between academic accounting research and professional practice. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, Sydney.
  15. Heem G. (2007), International accounting standardization: the institutional legitimacy of the private standard setter. Working Paper,
  16. Holthausen R.W. and Leftwich R.W. (1983), The economic consequences of accounting choice: implications of costly contracting and monitoring, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, pp. 77-117,, DOI: 10.1016/0165-4101(83)90007-1
  17. Horngren C. (1973), The marketing of accounting standards, Journal of Accountancy, 137 (4), pp. 61-66.
  18. IASB (2010), The Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting.
  19. IASB (2011), Agenda Paper 2, Post-Implementation Reviews, World Standard Setters Conference.
  20. IASB (2012), Post-Implementation Review of IFRS 8, Operating Segments. Staff Memorandum.
  21. IASB (2013), Post-Implementation Review: IFRS 8 Operating Segments.
  22. IASC Foundation (2008), Due Process Handbook for the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).
  23. Johnson S.B. and Solomons D. (1984), Institutional legitimacy and the FASB, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 3, pp. 165-183,, DOI: 10.1016/0278-4254(84)90015-2
  24. Kothari S.P., Ramanna K., Skinner D. (2009), What should GAAP look like? A survey and economic analysis. Working paper, University of Chicago, Harvard and MIT.
  25. Laughlin R. (2011), Accounting research, Policy and Practice: worlds together or worlds apart?, in E. Evans, R. Burritt and J. Guthrie (eds.), Bridging the gap between academic accounting research and professional practice. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, Sydney.
  26. Leisenring J.J. and Todd J. (1994), Accounting Research: on the relevance of research to practice, Accounting Horizons, 8 (4), pp. 74-79.
  27. Levine-Clark M. and Gil E.L. (2009), A comparative citation analysis of Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14 (1), pp. 32-46,, DOI: 10.1080/08963560802176348
  28. Macve R. (2014), “Trading places”: a UK (and IFRS) comment, Accounting, Economics and Law – A Convivium, 4 (1), pp. 27-40.
  29. Meho L.I. and Yang K. (2007), Impact of data sources on citations counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus Scopus and Google scholar, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13), pp. 2105-2125,, DOI: 10.1002/asi.20677
  30. Mitchell F. (2002), Research and practice in management accounting: improving integration and communication, European Accounting Review, 11 (2), pp. 277-289,, DOI: 10.1080/09638180020017087
  31. Moehrle S., Anderson K., Ayres F., Bolt-Lee C., Debreceny R., Dugan M., Hogan C., Maher M. and Plummer M. (2009), The impact of academic accounting research on professional practice: An analysis by the AAA Research Impact Task Force. Accounting Horizons, 23 (4), pp. 411-456,, DOI: 10.2308/acch.2009.23.4.411
  32. Moldovan R. (2014), Post-Implementation Reviews for IASB and FASB standards: a comparison of the process and findings for the operating segments standards. Accounting in Europe, 11 (1), pp. 113-137,, DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2014.901588
  33. Pigou A. (1938), The economics of welfare. (London: Macmillan).
  34. Richardson A.J., Eberlein B. (2011). Legitimating transnational standard-setting: the case of the International Accounting Standards Board, Journal of Business Ethics, 98, pp. 217-245,, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0543-9
  35. Rutherford B.R. (2011), Accounting research and accounting policy: what kind of gap? Accounting in Europe, 8 (2), pp. 141-154,, DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2011.621390
  36. Schipper K. (1994), Academic accounting research and the standard setting process, Accounting Horizons, 8 (4), pp. 61-73.
  37. Singleton-Green B. (2010), The communication gap: Why doesn’t accounting research make a greater contribution to debates on accounting policy? Accounting in Europe, 7 (2), pp. 129-145,, DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2010.511880
  38. Stigler G. (1971), The theory of economic regulation, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2 (4), pp. 3-21,, DOI: 10.2307/3003160
  39. Swieringa R.J. (1998), Accounting research and policy making, Accounting and Finance, 38 (3), pp. 29-49,, DOI: 10.1111/1467-629X.t01-1-00003
  40. Tilt C. (2010), The impact of academic accounting research on professional practice, in E. Evans, R. Burritt and J. Guthrie (eds.), Accounting Education at a Crossroad in 2010. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, Sydney.
  41. Watts R.L. and Zimmerman J.L. (1979), The demand for and supply of accounting theories: the market for excuses, The Accounting Review, 54 (2), pp. 273-305.
  42. Woods M. and Higson A. (1996), The interface of accounting research with education and practice, Accounting Education, 5 (1), pp. 35-42,, DOI: 10.1080/09639289600000004
  43. Zeff S.A. (1974), Comments on accounting principles – how they are developed, in R.R. Sterling (ed.), Institutional issues in public accounting: paper and responses from Accounting Colloquium III. (Lawrence, KS: Scholars Book Co.).
  44. Zeff S.A. (1978), The rise of “economic consequences”, Journal of Accountancy, 146 (December), pp. 56-63.
  45. Zeff S.A. (2014), Some historical reflections on “Have academics and the standard setters traded places?”, Accounting, Economics and Law – A Convivium, 4 (1), pp. 41-48.

Michele Pizzo, Nicola Moscariello, Claudio Teodori, Monica Veneziani, Laura Rocca, Alberto Quagli, Elisa Roncagliolo, in "FINANCIAL REPORTING" 1/2016, pp. 77-94, DOI:10.3280/FR2016-001005


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content