Points to Consider When Self‐Assessing Your Empirical Accounting Research

Abstract

We provide a list of points to consider (PTCs) to help researchers self‐assess whether they have addressed certain common issues that arise frequently in accounting research seminars and in reviewers’ and editors’ comments on papers submitted to journals. Anticipating and addressing such issues can help accounting researchers, especially doctoral students and junior faculty members, convert an initial empirical accounting research idea into a thoughtful and carefully designed study. Doing this also allows outside readers to provide more beneficial feedback rather than commenting on the common issues that could have been dealt with in advance. The list, provided in the appendix, consists of five sections: Research Question; Theory; Contribution; Research Design and Analysis; and Interpretation of Results and Conclusions. In each section, we include critical items that readers, journal referees, and seminar participants are likely to raise and offer suggestions for how to address them. The text elaborates on some of the more challenging items, such as how to increase a study's contribution, and provides examples of how such issues have been effectively addressed in previous accounting studies.

Quality in the process of scientific production in accounting in Brazil

“…Other studies address research quality criteria, such as impact (Brown & Gardner, 1985;Carmona, 2006); relevance (Reiter & Williams, 2002); rigor (Evans, Feng, Hoffman, Moser, & Van der Stede, 2015;Williams, 2014); and validity (Libby et al, 2002). Finally, a set of studies explores citation analysis (Brown & Gardner, 1985;Dunbar & Weber, 2014); and perceptions of accounting journals quality, also called peer reviews (Ballas & Theoharakis, 2003;Brinn et al, 2001;Brown & Huefner, 1994;Lowe & Locke, 2005;Lowensohn & Samelson, 2006;Taylor, 2011).…”

“…Rich, detailed, and complex data. (André, 2001;Denscombe, 2010;Evans et al, 2015;Mays & Pope, 1995;National Institutes of Health, 1979;Schwartzman, 1988 Choosing a strategy that will likely bring success to achieve the research objectives and that clearly and explicitly justifies its choice. (Creswell, Klassen, Clark, & Smith, 2011;Denscombe, 2010;Healy & Perry, 2000) An understanding of the meaning of each of the general criteria selected for this study was formed from the various sources used.…”

“…The focus of the selected set of studies covers citation analysis (Aragão et al, 2014;Brown & Gardner, 1985;Dunbar & Weber, 2014); perceptions of the quality of accounting journals, also called peer reviews (Ballas & Theoharakis, 2003;Brinn et al, 2001;Brown & Huefner, 1994;Lowe & Locke, 2005;Lowensohn & Samelson, 2006;Taylor, 2011); productivity and quality in university business departments Doyle & Arthurs, 1995;M.J. Jones et al, 1996;Martins & Lucena, 2014); quality criteria, such as validity (Libby et al, 2002); rigor (Evans et al, 2015;Williams, 2014); relevance (Reiter & Williams, 2002); impact (Carmona, 2006); and integrity (Andrade, 2011;Antunes et al, 2011); and research practices and features (Martins & Lucena, 2014;Mendonça Neto et al, 2009;Miranda et al, 2011;Taylor, 2011;Theóphilo & Iudícibus, 2005).…”

“…However, accounting numbers are not particularly precise because they are operational numbers, not quantities, and the likely intractability of the data problems suggests that this research methodology is not the only path to accounting understanding. Evans et al (2015) Theoretical Paper in journal None Purpose: to help accounting researchers, particularly those who are less experienced, improve the quality of their research and more clearly communicate how they address key issues. The article presents a list of Points to Consider (PTCs) when conducting empirical accounting research.…”

“…Although the main sources to do this have been Spencer et al (2003) and Mays and Pope (2006), a dozen other sources were considered, such as the validity schema network (Brinberg & McGrath, 1985), points to consider (Evans et al, 2015), principles of evaluation (AEA, 2004;Yarbrough et al, 2011), and legislation regarding ethics in research using human subjects (Brasil, 2012(Brasil, , 2013National Institutes of Health, 1979). Additionally, the focus of each relationship/attribute was indicated.…”