Search

Journal rankings lists have impacted and are impacting accounting educators and accounting education researchers around the world. Nowhere is the impact positive. It ranges from slight constraints on academic freedom to admonition, censure, reduced research allowances, non-promotion, non-short-listing for jobs, increased teaching loads, and re-designation as a non-researcher, all because the chosen research specialism of someone "who was vocationally motivated to become a teacher of accounting" is, ironically, accounting education. University managers believe that these journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty publish top-quality research on accounting regulation, financial markets, business finance, auditing, international accounting, management accounting, taxation, accounting in society, and more, but not on what they do in their "day job"--teaching accounting. These same managers also believe that the journal ranking lists indicate that accounting faculty do not publish top-quality research in accounting history and accounting systems. And they also believe that journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty write top-quality research in education, history, and systems, but only if they publish it in specialist journals that do not have the word "accounting" in their title, or in mainstream journals that do. Tarring everyone with the same brush because of the journal in which they publish is inequitable. We would not allow it in other walks of life. It is time the discrimination ended.

This paper presents an exploratory study into the nature and patterns of usage of accounting education research. The study adopts the most accessible metric, "Google Advanced Scholar" citations, to analyse the impact of research published in the six principal English-language accounting education journals. The analysis reveals a global readership for these journals but evidence of relatively low citation levels. However, papers tended to be cited more than expected in cross-disciplinary education journals, discipline-specific education journals, and non-education journals. Guidance is offered to authors seeking to maximise the impact of their research, and issues of concern are identified for editors and publishers. This is the first paper to look beyond content at the usefulness of research in accounting education as indicated by citations. In doing so, it contributes to the current debate on the quality of this research, and of research in accounting and finance in general.

Extending the scope of prior research, this study examines perceptions of the costs and benefits of professional accounting body affiliation in the transition from student to practitioner. The study employs data obtained from 275 students and 508 practitioners and reports differences in respect of the importance placed on various costs and benefits associated with affiliation. Findings show it is important to avoid a "one-size-fits-all" approach to attracting and retaining members and that the needs and aspirations of tomorrow's accountants are different from those of experienced professional accountants. Implications for brand development and member recruitment and retention strategies are discussed.

In 2005, Alan Sangster, looking for a new challenge, widened his career focus to include accounting history, which at that time, was considered a vibrant and high quality field in which to work. At all stages of his career since his first academic appointment, his promotion, salary rises, and appointments had all been obtained largely on the basis of the quality of his research. Sangster discovered that despite having 12 refereed publications and a book on ERP systems implementation published, he was omitted from a list of possible and probable entrants to the UK's 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise, designed to assess the quality of research across all UK universities. The reason for that omission was that none of the outlets for his research was rated above two in the "ABS Journal Quality Guide" ("ABS Guide"). The reason why this was the case was that his accounting history and accounting education papers were all published in specialist journals in those fields, none of which is deemed to be above a two in the "ABS Guide", and that his book was "irrelevant" as books are not included in the "ABS Guide". Sangster argues that the "ABS Guide" is divisive, biased, and quite clearly fallible, particularly with respect to journals specializing in accounting education and accounting history, never mind all the outlets it ignores because it does not recognize their existence.

Examines the ways in which IT (information technology) can support and facilitate the learner in the workplace and suggests that work-based learning can correct the failure of academia to respond to the requirements of modern industry. Discusses the concept of work-based learning and the development of lifelong learning capabilities. (Author/LRW)