Accounting Bits

Social accounting research: An Australasian perspective: A comment

As a field of research matures it is welcoming to undertake periods of self-reflection and contemplate what has been achieved and where are we heading. Deegan’s paper has brought to us his view of the achievements over the last decade plus and has sought to address four key questions from the Australasian perspective: on (1) presence in the literature, (2) focus of research, (3) concentration of researchers, and (4) which journals publish social accounting research. In concluding Deegan identifies seven points he believes are worthy for further investigation. This commentary will seek to address some of the issues identified by Deegan from the perspective of a researcher in this field who commenced their career in 1995 (fortuitously corresponding with the period analysed).

2. Comment on the paper

The paper makes the observation that accounting academia in Australasia has in the main published more than would be expected from its small population base, and that a small number of researchers have dominated the field. At a general level most accounting departments only have a limited number of highly active researchers, hence an observation on a concentration of output from a limited number of researchers is not unexpected. Given the relative low number of active researchers the observation of Australasia ‘punching above its weight’ is perhaps an anomaly of the actual number of researchers and their current location and perhaps not worth considerable further reflection. It would simply take the emigration of one or two of these researchers to correct the imbalance.

There are limitations with the scope of the journals reviewed and the definition of what is a social accounting publication (for example, how far into extended performance reporting do we claim as social accounting and what about ethical investment?). However, further extensions of the analysis may simply reinforce the observation of the concentration of output.

The concentration of output is worthy of additional consideration, particularly when taking into account the time frame chosen for the analysis. Would such an analysis provide significantly different results if it had been over the period 1985–2006? There may be a shuffling of the ‘order’, but the dominance of a number of contributors may only have been reaffirmed. There in lies one of the dilemmas for the social accounting field — those that make the majority of contributions to the literature have done so for many years. Only a small number of new academics in Australasia have emerged to threaten the status quo of dominance of the established authors. It is therefore perhaps ironic that this paper was motivated by the retirement of one of the prolific contributors to the literature. We are likely to see a number of other significant contributors retire over the next decade.

So what has been done to nurture and establish the next generation of social accounting researchers within Australasia? Will they establish their reputations by their output, or simply assume the mantle by default through the inevitable changing of the guard? Has the ‘old guard’ of social accounting research sufficiently invested in and trained the next generation of social accounting researchers? Or have forces conspired to limit the opportunities of new entrants to the field social accounting research? Below I attempt, from a personal perspective, to address some of the issues raised by Deegan.

2.1. A lack of critical mass — “islands in the stream”

Attending various events over the last decade it is always surprising to see how many ‘new’ and ‘young’ academics there are presenting papers, attending presentations and willing to discuss their future directions. Then they disappear. Where do they go? There is a natural attrition of academics as other opportunities arise and they move on. There are perhaps other pressures on the social accounting researcher, and that is to ‘fit in’ with the existing researchers so as to receive adequate mentoring for appropriate development as a researcher.

For a social accounting researcher in Australasia, isolation has been the norm. Whilst there are many who express an interest in the area, very few are active and hence there are limited opportunities for the individual to regularly converse with a colleague on the current state of play.1 Social accounting is a small research field and therefore at times marginalized by our more ‘mainstream’ colleagues. For a researcher that has established themselves such circumstances, whilst not desirable, are bearable as your research record protects you from the scrutiny and pressure to conform with the department’s research areas of strength. For a new researcher entering the world of accounting academia this can provide considerable hurdles for continued pursuit in the social accounting field. As pointed out by a well meaning senior colleague when close to completing my PhD: “are you intending to continue working in this field as it will limit your career options”. How many new and developing academics are able to withstand such pressure, and how many join the flow of the mainstream?

The recent advent of the Research Quality Framework (RQF) in Australia, with an increased focus on the impact of research groups, may further exacerbate isolation of the individual as a barrier for new entrants. It would be expected that all researchers considered for evaluation seek to identify themselves with a group (either in the discipline or inter-discipline). From those departments with a number of social accounting researchers, this initiative will not be detrimental. Again, given consideration of career advancement, how many newly appointed accounting academics would seek to work independently versus seeking to join established research groups? Issues such as a critical mass of researchers may become more relevant in the future.

Tags: social accounting