investment, personal values, socially responsible investing,

SYNOPSIS: This archival study addresses whether the presence or absence of “bright lines” in a lease accounting standard influences the classification of leases as capital or operating. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first archival research to address the association between lease classification decisions and the use of U.S. GAAP and IFRS lease accounting standards. We examine firms' lease classification decisions using 2007–2009 data from a matched sample of members of the Fortune Global 500 that report under U.S. GAAP and IFRS. Consistent with experimental work by Agoglia et al. (2011), we find strong evidence that U.S. GAAP firms using a lease standard containing bright-line guidance (i.e., ASC 840) are more likely to classify leases as operating than IFRS firms adhering to a lease accounting standard that lacks the bright lines of the U.S. standard (i.e., IAS 17). Also consistent with Agoglia et al. (2011), we find little evidence of increased dispersion accompanying financial reporting under IFRS. In fact, we find some evidence suggesting the use of IFRS may actually lead to lower dispersion in reporting outcomes.

With the advent of computerized data searches, the number of accounting programs that use citation analysis to measure faculty members’ research productivity has increased—often believing that this methodology offers relevant or reliable data for tenure, promotion, teaching load, and merit pay decisions. But such “objective” bases often ignore such factors as which journals to count, the effect of co-authorships, and article quality. Reliance on such citations can also cause “uneven playing fields” within the accounting discipline as well as among accounting and other areas or departments within schools of business. After reviewing the relevant literature, we present the results of a survey asking accomplished authors about the factors that make them more or less likely to cite an article. Since the process of counting citations focuses on quantity issues (as all citations “count” equally regardless of the citation’s importance to the research article and the reasons for making the citation), we examine some quality issues that lead to authors citing others’ research findings. The survey results indicate that, while citations often are based on the quality of the cited work, other factors less indicative of quality, such as authorship by a friend or colleague and publication in a U.S. journal, help to determine which relevant works are cited or not cited. We also suggest other measures to assess research quality to supplement or replace citation counts.

We survey highly-experienced professionals from local accounting firms regarding the adoption of and perceived benefits from data visualization in audit practice. Although the majority of respondents have minimal experience with data visualization, local-firm partners have positive perceptions regarding the value that visualization can have on audit quality and client-related benefits. These perceptions are affected by visualization technology usage: perceived audit quality benefits increase with usage but client benefit perceptions decrease with usage. These results are consistent with competing models of technology adoption. In total, whether one labels a firm a ‘laggard’ or a ‘rational non-adopter’ of visualization technology appears to be driven by whether the firm seeks to adopt technology in order to improve audit quality or to add value for their clients.