Good Analytical Research

Abstract

The purpose of this commentary is to address the issues raised by Ohlson from the point of view of analytical accounting research. The aim is not only to provide some input to young researchers who are going to publish good research using analytical methods, but also to give some hints to help users of analytical accounting research to understand and interpret the findings of this type of research. Ohlson has taken on a task of identifying a set of critical factors which are likely to lead to successful research. Good research is defined as research that makes an impression. Thus, it is not enough to get the research published - not even in a premier journal. The research should have an impact, the community should learn something. As Ohlson notes, there is enough 'ordinary' research. In my view this is the right attitude. Short-term optimization is also widespread in the research community and that is not what we should strive for. With the objective in place, I will continue to analyze the question in relation to analytical research. I start out discussing the aim of analytical research by providing a few examples of good models. The first is the Feltham-Ohlson model and the second is the agency model. Both are simple and elegant models dealing with difficult issues. The analysis proceeds to characterize good models. A good model is a simple model that zooms in on the problem under scrutiny. It is a 'minimal' model that contains the problem and nothing outside the problem. I then proceed to characterize good research in an analytical framework. This is research that tackles a problem that is of interest to the users and the researcher. In this process I also identify current notable analytical research. Finally, I contrast this to the recommendations of Ohlson.

Comparing the research-practice gap in management accounting

“…In bringing a theory-based, classificatory framework to the conversation then, our intent is to first identify, and consequently, to explore the relative importance of barriers that have been advanced as pivotal in preventing academic research from more effectively engaging with practice as they apply within Australia and Germany. In view of the limited empirical evidence on the research-practice gap, and consistent with the contention of Christensen (2011), our use of theory is intended to provide a first-order approximation of the problem to establish a foundational basis for further empirical enquiry.…”

Writing an article for a refereed accounting journal

“…A further reason for manuscripts to be rejected by certain journals is the theory used (Bono and McNamara, 2011). Theory is an abstraction of reality, a simplification that allows us to cut out the noise and focus on the issues that concern us (Christensen, 2011) and thus theory generally plays an important role in the accounting research articles published in generalist accounting journals. The data (and findings) may tell a story, but if that story conflicts with current understandings, reviewers are likely to question the data, the methods and so on.…”

The analysis of intellectual capital evolution: a perspective on research

“…The literature (Christensen, 2011; Ohlson and Kong, 2011; Locke and Lowe, 2008) contributes to the understanding of the quality and prestige of accounting journals acknowledged by the academic environment. Also, many researchers confirm the interdependence between the academic institutions' ranking and the effects of the reputation resulting from publishing papers in academic journals (Bonner et al , 2006; Lowe and Locke, 2005).…”