( ISSN 2277 - 9809 (online) ISSN 2348 - 9359 (Print) ) New DOI : 10.32804/IRJMSH

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 72    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

AN EXPLORATIVE ANALYSIS ON MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING RESEARCH: FROM PAST TO FUTURE

    1 Author(s):  DR. SUDHENDU GIRI

Vol -  10, Issue- 8 ,         Page(s) : 120 - 134  (2019 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMSH

Abstract

This paper plans to investigate the effect of the management accounting research through a survey of the writing on the issues identified with this theme; some new roads of research are additionally distinguished. In this manner, the paper adds to both hypothesis and praxis. Truth be told, recommending new territories of research it advances explore in this field which, up to now, has been chiefly centered around the determinants of the loss of effect as opposed to on the idea of the effect of the management accounting exploration and its evaluation. In addition, this work means to animate new research concentrated on instruments and strategies for estimating the effect of the management accounting research; such apparatuses can be helpful to subsidizing organizations and assessment offices which can be better prepared to complete an ex-bet and an ex-post assessment of the effect that administration bookkeeping exploration undertakings can have on society.

  • Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2007). Management accounting as practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.013
  • Al-Htaybat, K., & Von Alberti-Alhtaybat, L. (2013). Management accounting theory revisited: seeking to increase research relevance. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(18), 12-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n18p12
  • Baldvinsdottir, G., Mitchell, F., & Nørreklit, H. (2010). Issues in the relationship between theory and practice in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 79-82.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.02.006
  • Banzi, R., Moja, L., Pistotti, V., Facchini, A., & Liberati, A. (2011). Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: An overview of reviews. Health Research Policy and Systems, 9, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-9-26
  • Barbaro, A., Gentili, D., & Rebuffi, C. (2014). Altmetrics as new indicators of scientific impact. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, 10(1), 3-6. http://hdl.handle.net/10760/24162
  • Barnes, C. (2015). The use of Altmetrics as a tool for measuring research impact. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 46(2), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.1003174
  • Bastow, S., Dunleavy, P., & Tinkler J. (2014). The impact of the Social Sciences. How academics and their research make a difference. London: Sage.
  • Bornmann, L. (2012). Measuring the societal impact of research. EMBO Reports, 13(8), 673-676. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.99
  • Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217-233.
    ijbm.ccsenet.org International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 13, No. 5; 2018 56
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22803
  • Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Infometrics, 8, 895-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005
  • Bornmann, L. (2015a). Alternative metrics in scientometrics: A meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics. Scientometrics, 103(3), 1123-1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1565-y
  • Bornmann, L. (2015b). Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research: A case study using data from PLOS and F1000Prime. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 305-319. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2014-0115
  • Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R. & Marx, W. (2016). Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents? Scientometrics, 109(3), 1477-1495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2115-y
  • Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2014). How should the societal impact of research be generated and measured? A proposal for a simple and practicable approach to allow interdisciplinary comparisons. Scientometrics, 98(1), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1020-x
  • Bromwich, M., & Scapens, R. W. (2016). Management Accounting Research: 25 years on. Management Accounting Research, 31, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.03.002
  • Buxton, M., & Hanney, S. (1994). Assessing payback from Department of Health Research and Development: preliminary report. Brunel University: HERG Research Report.
  • Buxton, M., & Hanney, S. (1996). How can payback from health services research be assessed? Journal of Health Services Research, 1(1), 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581969600100107
  • Buxton, M., & Hanney, S. (1998). Evaluating the NHS research and development programme: Will the programme give value for money? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 91(35), 2-6.
  • Chalmers, K., & Wright, S. (2011). Bridging accounting research and practice: A value adding endeavor.
  • Evans, R. Burritt & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Bridging the Gap between Academic Accounting Research and Professional Practice (pp. 59-68). Sydney: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.
  • Chapman, C. S., & Kern, A. (2012). What do academics do? Understanding the practical relevance of research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/qram.2012.31409caa.004
  • Chiucchi, M. S. (2013). Intellectual capital accounting in action: enhancing learning through interventionist research. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 48-68. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931311289011
  • De Jong, S., Barker, K., Cox, D., Sveinsdottir, T., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2014) Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu001
  • Derrick, G. E., & Samuel G. N. (2016). The evaluation scale: exploring decisions about societal impact in peer review panels. Minerva, 54(1), 75-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9290-0
  • Donovan, C. (2008). The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 118, 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.260
  • Donovan, C. (2011). State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue. Esearch Evaluation, 20(3), 175-179. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635918
  • Donovan, C., & Hanney, S. (2011). The ‘payback framework’ explained. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 181-183. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635756
  • Dumay, J. C. (2010). A critical reflective discourse of an interventionist research project. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 7(1), 46-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091011034271
  • Ernø-Kjølhede, E., & Hansson, F. (2011). Measuring research performance during a changing relationship between science and society. Research Evaluation, 20(2), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876544
  • Flamholtz, E. G. (1983). Accounting, budgeting and control systems in their organizational context: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(2-3), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(83)90023-5
    Gonedes, N.J. and Dopuch, N. 1974. Capital market equilibrium, information production, and selecting accounting techniques: Theoretical framework and review of empirical work. Journal of Accounting Research 17, 48–129.
  • Graham, B., and Dodd, D.L. 1934. Security Analysis. Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
  • Healy, P.M. and Wahlen, J.M. 1999. A review of the earnings management literature and its implications for standard setting. Accounting Horizons 13, 365–383.
  • Hicks, J.R. 1946. Value and Capital. Second edition. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.
  • Hobson, J.L. Mayew, W.J., and Venkatachalam, M. 2011. Analyzing speech to detect financial misreporting. Journal of Accounting Research 50, 349–392.
  • Hodder, L. Hopkins, P.E., and Wood, D. 2008. The effects of financial statement and informational complexity on analysts’ cash flow forecasts. The Accounting Review 83, 915–956.
  • Holthausen, R.W., and Watts. R.L. 2001. The relevance of the value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31, 3–75.19
  • International Accounting Standards Board. 2001. International Accounting Standard 19 Employee Benefits. London, UK.
  • International Accounting Standards Board. 2004a. International Accounting Standard 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. London, UK.
  • International Accounting Standards Board. 2004b. International Financial Reporting Standard 2 Share-based Payment. London, UK.
  • International Accounting Standards Board. 2005. International Financial Reporting Standard 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures. London, UK.
  • International Accounting Standards Board. 2010. The Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. IASB, London.
  • International Accounting Standards Board. 2011. International Financial Reporting Standard 13 Fair Value Measurement. London, UK.
  • Irving, J.H., Landsman, W.R., and Lindsey, B.P. 2011. The valuation differences between stock option and restricted stock grants for U.S. firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 38, 395–412.
  • Jaedicke, R.K., and Sprouse, R.T. 1965. Accounting Flows: Income, Funds, and Cash. Prentice- Hall.
  • Jia, Y., Van Lent, L. and Zeng, Y. 2014. Masculinity, testosterone, and financial misreporting. Journal of Accounting Research 52, 1195–1246.
  • Kaplan, R.S. 2011. Accounting scholarship that advances professional knowledge and practice. The Accounting Review 86, 367–383.
  • Lambert, R.A. 2010. Discussion of “Implications for GAAP from and analysis of positive research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50, 287–295.20
  • Landsman, W.R. 1986. An empirical investigation of pension fund property rights. The Accounting Review 61, 662–691.
  • Moonitz, M. 1961. The Basic Postulates of Accounting, American Institute of CPAs.
  • Moonitz, M. and Sprouse, R.T. 1962. A Tentative Set of Broad Accounting Principles for Business Enterprises, American Institute of CPAs.
  • Paton, W.A., Littleton, A.C. 1940. An Introduction to Corporate Accounting Standards. American Accounting Association, Chicago, IL.
  • Richardson, S., Tuna, I. and Wysocki, P. 2010. Accounting anomalies and fundamental analysis: A review of recent research advances. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50, 410–454.
  • Ryan, S.G. 2012. Risk reporting quality: Implications of academic research for financial reporting policy. Accounting and Business Research 42, 295–324.
  • Soll, J. 2014. The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Rise and Fall of Nations. First edition, Basic Books, New York, New York.
  • Song, C.J., Thomas, W.B., and Yi, H. 2010. Value relevance of FAS No. 157 fair value hierarchy information and the impact of corporate governance mechanisms. The Accounting Review 85, 1375–1410.
  • Storey, R. K., and Storey, S. 1998. The Framework of Financial Accounting Concepts and Standards. Financial Accounting Series No. 181-C Special Report. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
  • Watts, R.L. 2003. Conservatism in accounting part II: Evidence and research opportunities. Accounting Horizons 17, 287–301.
  • Venkatachalam, M. 1996. Value-relevance of banks derivatives disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics 22, 327–355.

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details