This paper presents a compilation of personal reflections from 66 contributors on the impact of, and responses to, COVID-19 in accounting education in 45 different countries around the world. It reveals a commonality of issues, and a variability in responses, many positive outcomes, including the creation of opportunities to realign learning and teaching strategies away from the comfort of traditional formats, but many more that are negative, primarily relating to the impact on faculty and student health and wellbeing, and the accompanying stress. It identifies issues that need to be addressed in the recovery and redesign stages of the management of this crisis, and it sets a new research agenda for studies in accounting education.

The emergence of double entry bookkeeping marked the shift in bookkeeping from a mechanical task to a skilled craft, and represented the beginnings of the accounting profession. This study seeks to identify what caused this significant change in bookkeeping practice. I do so by adopting a new accounting history perspective to investigate the circumstances surrounding the emergence of double entry in early 13th century Italy. Contrary to previous findings, this paper concludes that the most likely form of enterprise where bookkeeping of this form emerged is a bank, most likely in Florence. Accountability of the local bankers in Florence to the Bankers Guild provided a unique external impetus to generate a new form of bookkeeping. This new bookkeeping format provided a clear and unambiguous picture of the accounts of all debtors and creditors, along with the means to check that the entries between them were complete and accurate.

This paper seeks to show that organisational change, fuelled by the expansion of information technology, may have contributed to the erosion of the previously established relationship between company size and the quantitative investment appraisal criteria selected. It finds that companies are using more methods together, that usage of the more sophisticated discounted cash flow techniques is higher, and that usage of the less theoretically sound accounting rate of return technique is lower, than previous studies would have suggested for companies of the size involved. It suggests that the size/method selection relationship may only be identifiable when the companies involved are all part of one study, or the studies compared are contemporaneous.

This paper describes the background, design process, and implementation problems encountered during the first year of use of an asynchronous internet-based on-line assessment system on an introductory accounting course. The on-line assessment system was both summative and formative in nature and was designed to encourage and reinforce the learning of basic principles. The paper reports a positive correlation between student performance in the on-line assessments and in their final examination. It concludes with a list of issues to be considered when embarking on a venture of this sort.Internet-based online assessment, accounting, evaluation,

No abstract

This paper investigates why, in 1494, the Franciscan friar and teacher of mathematics, Luca Pacioli, published an instructional treatise describing the system of double entry bookkeeping. In doing so, it also explores the rhetoric and foundations of double entry through the lens of Pacioli's treatise. Recent findings on Pacioli's life and works, his writings, and the medieval accounting archives are combined to identify how he was inspired by his faith and his humanist beliefs to give all merchants access to the practical mathematics and the bookkeeping they required. The paper finds that Pacioli's teaching method was inspired by Euclid, his Franciscan education, and his humanist beliefs, and that Pacioli reveals a simplicity in the then-unrecognized axiomatic foundation of double entry that has been largely overlooked. The findings represent a paradigm shift in how we perceive Pacioli, his treatise, and double entry.

Article (Accepted Version) http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Sangster, Alan (2015) You cannot judge a book by its cover: the problems with journal rankings. Accounting Education, 24 (3). pp. [175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186] This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/61858/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse:Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. 1 You cannot judge a book by its cover: the problems with journal rankingsAlan Sangster (a.j.a.sangster@btinternet.com) Griffith University, Australia AbstractJournal rankings lists have impacted and are impacting accounting educators and accounting education researchers around the world. Nowhere is the impact positive. It ranges from slight constraints on academic freedom to admonition, censure, reduced research allowances, non-promotion, non-short-listing for jobs, increased teaching loads, and redesignation as a non-researcher, all because the chosen research specialism of someone who was vocationally motivated to become a teacher of accounting is, ironically, accounting education. University managers believe that these journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty publish top quality research on accounting regulation, financial markets, business finance, auditing, international accounting, management accounting, taxation, accounting in society, and more, but not on what they do in their 'day job' -teaching accounting. These same managers also believe that the journal ranking lists indicate that accounting faculty do not publish top quality research in accounting history and accounting systems. And they also believe that journal ranking lists show that accounting faculty write top quality research in education, history, and systems, but only if they publish it in specialist journals that do not have the word 'accounting' in their title, or in mainstream journals that do. Tarring everyone with the same brush because of the journal in which they publish is inequitable. We would not allow it in other ...

No abstract