Italian academia facing an international scenario: Issues and trends

Author/s Andrea Lionzo
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2017/2 Language English
Pages 18 P. 5-22 File size 319 KB
DOI 10.3280/FR2017-002001
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The opening up to international debate of Italian accounting studies has required local researchers to deal with scientific paradigms based on assumptions, theories and methods markedly different from those that have been leading for decades the local knowledge production system. In an international scenario, a leading part has been played by the Anglo-Saxon mainstream paradigm. Not surprisingly, the interest of many Italian scholars has been catalyzed by such studies. However, the paradigm behind these studies is not free of criticism, as emerges from a qualified debate arising at international level around the pros and cons of this scientific approach. This paper - and the others collected in this Special Issue - hopes to contribute to the debate, with the aim, on the one hand, of overcoming some unbending defensive positions and, on the other hand, of favoring a conscious internationalization process.

Keywords: Accounting research, academia, positive accounting theory, scientific paradigm.

  1. AAA (2008), Accounting faculty in U.S. colleges and universities: status and trends, 1993-2004. (Sarasota, FL.: American Accounting Association).
  2. Antonelli V. (2010), L’economia aziendale alla sfida dell’internazionalizzazione: cronaca di una morte annunciata?, Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale, luglio-agosto, pp. 379-391.
  3. Baker C.R. (2011), A genealogic history of positivist and critical accounting research, Accounting History, 16 (2), pp. 207-221.
  4. Ball R. and Brown P. (1968), An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers, Journal of Accounting Research, 6, pp. 159-177.
  5. Ball R. (2013), Accounting informs investors and earnings management is rife: Two questionable beliefs, Accounting Horizons, 27 (4), pp. 847-853.
  6. Basu S. (2012), How can accounting researchers become more innovative?, Accounting Horizons, 26 (4), pp. 851-870.
  7. Baxter W.T. (1988), Accounting Research – Academic Trends versus Practical Needs. (Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland).
  8. Beattie V. (2005), Moving the financial accounting research front forward: The UK contribution, British Accounting Review, 37, pp. 84-114.
  9. Beattie V. and Goodacre A. (2006), A new method for ranking academic journals in accounting and finance, Accounting and Business Research, 36 (2), pp. 65-91.
  10. Beattie V. and Smith S.J. (2012), Today’s PhD Students – Is there a future generation of accounting academics or are they a dying breed? A UK perspective. (Edinburgh: ICAS).
  11. Beattie V. (2014), Reviewer shortage creates crisis for journal peer review system, EAA Newsletter, 2, pp. 10-12.
  12. Beaver W. (1968), The information content of annual earnings announcements, Journal of Accounting Research, Supplement, 6, pp. 67-92.
  13. Bradshaw M.T., Richardson S.A. and Sloan R.G. (2001), Do analysts and auditors use information in accruals?, Journal of Accounting Research, 39 (1), pp. 45-75.
  14. 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.
  15. Brown P.R. (2013), How can we do better?, Accounting Horizons, 27 (4), pp. 855-859.
  16. Cooper D.J. (2008), Is there a future for interpretive accounting research?, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , 19 (6), pp. 837-839.
  17. Demski J.S. (2007), Is accounting an academic discipline?, Accounting Horizons, 21 (2), pp. 153-157.
  18. Friedman M. (1953), Essays in Positive Economics. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
  19. Godfrey J., Hodgson A., Tarca A., Hamilton J. and Holmes S. (2010), Accounting theory. (Australia: John Wiley & Sons, 7th Edition).
  20. Granof M. and Zeff S.A. (2008), Research on accounting should learn from the past, The Chronicle of Higher Education (March 21): A34.
  21. Higson A. and Kassem R. (2016), Accounting research: relevance lost, Financial Reporting, 1, pp. 59-76.
  22. Jeanjean T. and Ramirez C. (2008), Aux sources de théories positives: contribution à une analyse des changements de paradigme dans la recherche en comtabilité, Comptabilité, Contrôl e Audit, 14 (2), pp. 5-25.
  23. Kaplan R.S. (2011), Accounting Scholarship that Advances Professional Knowledge and Practice, The Accounting Review, 86 (2), pp. 367-383.
  24. Kuhn T. (1977) The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press).
  25. Lai A., Lionzo A. and Stacchezzini R. (2015), The interplay of knowledge innovation and academic power: Lessons from “isolation” in twentieth-century Italian accounting studies, Accounting History, 20 (3), pp. 266-287.
  26. Lawrence P.A. (2003), The politics of publication: Authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research, Nature, March, pp. 259-261.
  27. Lee T. (1995), Shaping the US academic accounting research profession: The American Accounting Association and the social construction of a professional élite, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6 (3), pp. 241-261.
  28. Lev B. and Zarowin P. (1999), The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them, Journal of Accounting Research, 37, pp. 353-385.
  29. Lionzo A. (2012), Gli studi di financial accounting di matrice nordamericana. Fondamenti epistemologici e percorsi scientifici. (Milano: FrancoAngeli).
  30. Locke J. and Lowe A. (2008), Evidence and Implications of multiple paradigms in accounting knowledge production, European Accounting Review, 17 (1), pp. 161-191.
  31. Lukka K. (2010), The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research, Management Accounting Research, 21 (2): 110-115.
  32. Malmi T. (2010), Reflections on paradigms in action in accounting research, Management Accounting Research, 21 (2): 121-123.
  33. Mattessich R. (2008), Two hundred years of accounting research. An international survey of personalities, ideas and publications. (Abingdon: Routledge).
  34. Moser D.V. (2012), Is Accounting Research Stagnant?, Accounting Horizons, 26 (4), pp. 845-850.
  35. Mouck T. (1993), The ‘revolution’ in financial reporting theory: A Kuhnian interpretation, The Accounting Historians Journal, 20 (1), pp. 33-58.
  36. Oler D.K., Oler M.J. and Skousen C.J. (2010), Characterizing accounting research, Accounting Horizons, 24 (4), pp. 635-670.
  37. Parker L., Guthrie J. and Gray R. (1998), Accounting and management research: Passwords from the gatekeepers, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11 (4), pp. 371-402.
  38. Quagli A., Avallone F. and Ramassa F. (2016), The real impact factor and the gap between accounting research and practice, Financial Reporting, 1, pp. 29-58.
  39. Reiter S.A. and Williams P.F. (2002), The structure and progressivity of accounting research: The crisis in the academy revisited, Accounting, Organization and Society, 27 (6), pp. 575-607.
  40. Richardson S.A. (2003), Earnings quality and short sellers, Accounting Horizons, 17, Supplement, pp. 49-61.
  41. Rutherford B.A. (2011), Accounting research and accounting policy: What kind of gap?, Accounting on Europe, 8 (2), pp. 141-154.
  42. Sidrea (2009), La ragioneria e l’economia aziendale: dinamiche evolutive e prospettive di cambiamento, Atti del I convegno Nazionale della Società Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale, 8-9 maggio 2008. (Milano: FrancoAngeli).
  43. Tessitore A. (2006), Documenti predisposti a supporto del gruppo di lavoro sulla cultura aziendale, in Appunti per un dibattito sulla cultura aziendale. (Roma: Litosud).
  44. Unerman J. and O’Dwyer B. (2010), The relevance and utility of leading accounting research. The association of chartered certified accountants, Research Re-port 120. London.
  45. Unger L. (2001), Protecting the integrity of financial information in today’s marketplace. (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Bar Association).
  46. Viganò E. and Mattessich R. (2007), Accounting research in Italy: Second half of the 20th century, Review of Accounting and Finance, (6) 1, pp. 24-41.
  47. Watts R. and Zimmermann J. (1978), Towards a positive theory of the determination of accounting standards, The Accounting Review, pp. 112-134.
  48. Watts R. and Zimmerman J. (1986), Positive accounting theory. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall).
  49. Williams P.F. and Rodgers J.L. (1995), The Accounting Review and the production of accounting knowledge, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6 (3), pp. 263-287.
  50. Young J.J. (2009), The absence of dissent. Accounting and the Public Interest, 9, pp. 1-10.
  51. Zaninotto E. (a cura di) (2006), Presente e futuro degli studi di economia aziendale, Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale. (Bologna: il Mulino).
  52. Zeff S.A. (1989), Recent trends in accounting education and research in the USA: some implications for UK academics, British Accounting Review, 21 (2), pp. 159-176.

  • The governance of standard setting and the role of academia in Italian accounting regulation, 1942 to the present Alberto Quagli, Francesco Avallone, Paola Ramassa, Elisa Roncagliolo, in Accounting History /2019 pp.464
    DOI: 10.1177/1032373219856715

Andrea Lionzo, Italian academia facing an international scenario: Issues and trends in "FINANCIAL REPORTING" 2/2017, pp 5-22, DOI: 10.3280/FR2017-002001