This paper presents a contextual. historical analysis of recent accrual accounting developments in the Australian Public Sector (APS). It takes a critical stance in that it questions the accrual accounting developments on a number of grounds. The paper examines changes in public sector financial management and accountability in four distinct settings, being: accrual financial reporting, accrual management systems, whole of government reporting, and accrual based budgeting. The findings show that already in Australia accrual accounting has made significant encroachments into some areas of annual financial and budget reporting. This influx has meant that terms such as ‘deficit’, ‘debt’, ‘liabilities’, ‘operating results’, ‘assets’, etc. have begun to change in meaning, which it is argued has important implications for the current process of transformation of aspects of the APS.

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to review the use of content analysis as a research method in understanding SEA and to examine current contemporary foci of this research tradition. Further, several research method issues relating to the use of content analysis are examined. Methodology: Contemporary focus and research issues are analyzed to provide some future directions for scholars in the field of SEA, by categorizing work in the SEA, social environmental reporting (SER) and intellectual capital reporting (ICR) literature, according to the following: normative literature/theory/commentaries; focus of empirical investigation; quality SER research; combined research methodologies; content analysis method issues. Findings: Literature indicates that few attempts have been made to combine other research methodologies with content analysis although it has proven fruitful with the limited investigation undertaken to examine aspects of SER. Further extending the performance reporting by combining SER with ICR may provide useful information. Research implications: Increasingly, researchers in the field of social and environmental accounting (SEA) need to be able to justify the specific research methods they use when collecting the empirical data that they examine in order to support and test opinions regarding the merit of different approaches to managing, measuring and reporting of SEA. Dr Indra Abeysekera is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting at The University of Sydney.His teaching and research interests include accounting education, accounting profession, human capital, intellectual capital, and knowledge management. He has presented his ideas and research findings at numerous refereed international conferences, professional accountancy institutions and universities. His opinion on accounting and business matters has been sought and broadcast by radio, television and newspapers. Research implications: Increasingly, researchers in the field of social and environmental accounting (SEA) need to be able to justify the specific research methods they use when collecting the empirical data that they examine in order to support and test opinions regarding the merit of different approaches to managing, measuring and reporting of SEA.

Reviews some recent contributions to “alternative” accounting research in relation to the changes which have taken place in the public sector, and which have altered the structure of the sector. An important task for the authors therefore has been to define what they view as comprising the public sector. Concludes that there is still a paucity of research in this domain. There are huge opportunities, and great need, for evaluative work and international comparisons. There is also a need to focus on different phases in the institutional financial cycle. Raises series of questions about the emergence of the “new” accounting and the ways in which it is institutionalized and maintained.

This article provides an overview of the key findings and reflections of a detailed, two year comparative study examining experiences with, and without, New Public Financial Management (NPFM) reforms in eleven different countries. The study highlights the problems of trying to explain such developments through simplistic explanatory variables and emphasises the need for alternative modes of analysis more closely rooted in the different national traditions and values associated with the provision of public services.

The changes in public sectors of many western democracies, particularly as applied in public funded universities, have led to an environment where students have been redefined as customers, organisations and their programs have been redefined as fee generating and services have been reconstituted as commercialised competitive activities in the open marketplace. Work in this 'new' Higher Education Sector (HES) environment has been construed as fee generating and cost incurring, subject to financial control and evaluated for its tangible, measured outputs. This paper considers the contemporary attitudes in accounting and management academia to what constitutes research and scholarship, using Australia and the UK as case examples. From this perspective, it is argued that the changing HES environment is transforming and commodifying research into a homogenised, measured and traded commodity. This commodity is then traded in the new academic marketplace in forms such as departmental research rankings, appointability of candidates for professorial positions, departmental and individual academic competitiveness for research grants, and university eligibility for government research funding. In addition, we contend that this commodification is exhibiting a convergent tendency, in that the tradable currency shows signs of reductionism to a common form of measurement, that is, to refereed research journal articles. This paper seeks to further open up discussion and debate on these issues from both acad-