No abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a method for a structured literature review (SLR).\ud An SLR is a method for examining a corpus of scholarly literature, to develop insights, critical\ud reflections, future research paths and research questions. SLRs are common in scientific disciplines\ud dominated by quantitative approaches, but they can be adapted in accounting studies since\ud quantitative and qualitative approaches are commonly accepted.\ud Design/methodology/approach – A literature review, as a piece of academic writing, must have a\ud logical, planned structure. The authors also argue it requires tests based on qualitative and\ud quantitative methods. Therefore, the authors describe ten steps for developing an SLR.\ud Findings – The SLR method is a way that scholars can stand “on the shoulders of giants” and\ud provide insightful and impactful research that is different to the traditional authorship approaches to\ud literature reviews.\ud Research limitations/implications – Traditional literature reviews can have varied results\ud because of a lack of rigour. SLRs use a process that, through a set of rules, potentially offers less bias\ud and more transparency of the execution and measures and techniques of validation and reliability.\ud Practical implications – SLRs provide an approach that can help academics to discover underinvestigated\ud topics and methods, nurturing, therefore, the development of new knowledge areas and\ud research approaches.\ud Originality/value – The paper presents accounting researchers with an opportunity to develop\ud insightful and publishable studies, and also serves as a basis for developing future research agendas in\ud the accounting field. The authors advocate the SLR method especially to higher degree research\ud students and emerging scholars as a way of potentially developing robust and defensible research\ud agendas and questions.\ud Keywords Citation analysis, Validity, Reliability, Structured literature review, Critique,\ud Traditional authorship literature revie

This paper reviews the field of integrated reporting () to develop insights into how research is developing, offer a critique of the research to date, and outline future research opportunities. We find that most published research presents normative arguments for and there is little research examining practice. Thus, we call for more research that critiques ’s rhetoric and practice. To frame future research we refer to parallels from intellectual capital research that identifies four distinct research stages to outline how research might emerge. Thus, this paper offers an insightful critique into an emerging accounting practice

PurposeDespite the growing pressure to encourage new ways of thinking about research methodology, only recently have interview methodologists begun to realize that “we cannot lift the results of interviewing out of the contexts in which they were gathered and claim them as objective data with no strings attached”. The purpose of this paper is to provide additional insight based on a critical reflection of the interview as a research method drawing upon Alvesson's discussion from the neopositivist, romanticist and localist interview perspectives. Specifically, the authors focus on critical reflections of three broad categories of a continuum of interview methods: structured, semi‐structured and unstructured interviews.Design/methodology/approachThe authors adopt a critical and reflexive approach to understanding the literature on interviews to develop alternative insights about the use of interviews as a qualitative research method.FindingsAfter examining the neopositivist (interview as a “tool”) and romanticist (interview as “human encounter”) perspectives on the use of the research interview, the authors adopt a localist perspective towards interviews and argue that the localist approach opens up alternative understanding of the interview process and the accounts produced provide additional insights. The insights are used to outline the skills researchers need to develop in applying the localist perspective to interviews.Originality/valueThe paper provides an alternative perspective on the practice of conducting interviews, recognizing interviews as complex social and organizational phenomena rather than just a research method.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer a personal critical reflection on the future of intellectual capital (IC) based on my experience as an IC researcher, author, editor, teacher and practitioner. Design/methodology/approach – Offers a first-hand reflection on the future of IC, using evidence collected from IC in the field and the author’s personal reflections. Findings – I argue that the authors need to abandon reporting and instead concentrate on how an organisation discloses what “was previously secret or unknown”, so that all stakeholders understand how an organisation takes into consideration ethical, social and environmental impacts in keeping with an eco-systems approach to IC. Research limitations/implications – While much of the empirical evidence presented in this paper is freely available to all scholars, the interpretation and findings is subjective. Other researchers, given the same opportunity and evidence, may not necessarily make the same conclusions. Social implications – We are now on the cusp of the fourth stage of IC research (Dumay, 2013), whereby IC expands its boundaries into the wider eco-system, to “go beyond IC reporting” (Edvinsson, 2013, p. 163). Originality/value – Offers a critical review of the impact of IC reporting which is relevant to consider because of the newfound resurging interest in IC, based on the current push for integrated reporting ( < IR > ), which arguably contains IC information targeted at investors.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine intellectual capital research (ICR) methods and critically analyse how they have been utilised. The data set for this analysis is based on examining IC papers published in specialist IC and important generalist accounting journals from the years 2000 to 2011.Design/methodology/approachThe basis of the analysis is Alvesson and Deetz's critical management framework of “Insight”, “Critique” and “Transformative redefinition” with the goal of widening the discourse about how to research IC. This paper is motivated by Guthrie et al., who identify a third stage of ICR which is “based on a critical and performative analysis of intellectual capital (IC) practices in action”.FindingsThis paper argues that there is an increasing performative research agenda however many researchers appear caught in an “evaluatory trap” (Olson et al.) whereby the researchers’ approach to ICR remains stuck in an ostensive approach (see Mouritsen) that characterises second stage ICR (see Petty and Guthrie). The paper also identifies how many accounting researchers are impacted by a “dominance structure” and suggests that they need to break free from the dominance of “accounting” practice before they can understand and realise the potential of IC.Research limitations/implicationsThe implication of this paper for ICR and practice is to create a continued discourse about evolving approaches to ICR so we can continue communicating leading edge, third wave ICR, which develops IC theory in practice and effective IC management through praxis.Originality/valueFrom 2004 onwards, Guthrie et al. claim the third stage was gaining impetus and thus this paper is novel because it investigates how ICR has transitioned and how ICR might continue to develop.

Purpose – This paper aims to review and critique the public sector knowledge management (KM) literature, offers an overview of the state of public sector KM research and outlines a future research agenda. Design/methodology/approach – Articles published in KM journals are analyzed using a structured literature review methodology. The paper analyzes 180 papers published within ten journals specializing in the field of KM. Findings – Public sector KM is a research area of growing importance. Findings show that few authors specialize in the field and there are several obstacles to developing a cohesive body of literature. Low levels of international cooperation among authors and international comparisons mean that the literature is fragmented. Some research topics and some geographical areas within the public sector theme are over-analyzed, while others are under-investigated. Additionally, academic researchers should re-think their methodological approach if they wish to make significant contributions to the literature and work toward developing research which impacts practice in conjunction with practitioners. Originality/value – The paper presents a comprehensive structured literature review of the articles published in KM journals. The paper’s findings can offer insights into future research needs.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate intellectual capital (IC) measurement critically so that the dynamics of intangible value creation can be better understood and to provide insights into how IC is constructed rather than what IC is.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents a case study on how a division of a large Australian financial institution utilised an approach based on complexity theory to investigate IC in practice. The method utilises narrative, numbers and visualisations to make sense of IC at a particular point in time.FindingsIt is argued that trying to “fit” existing popular frameworks to gather IC measurements inside organisations has little relevance to understanding the value‐creation process. As a result of the investigation of IC in this paper, it is found that, to date, IC measurement has relied heavily on “accountingisation” and that alternate methods to understand IC need to be developed. The paper highlights that academics and practitioners need to develop new skills.Research limitations/implicationsThe case study is limited to the use of an alternate method to investigate IC in a particular organisational and cultural setting. The research opens the possibility of the benefits of changing thinking about both research into, and the practice of, measuring IC.Practical implicationsRather than being constrained by the traditional models of measuring intangibles, by way of contemporary IC reporting frameworks, a more open process is outlined that could improve the timeliness and use value of the information.Originality/valueThis paper has relevance to both IC academics and practitioners as it critically examines the contemporary IC frameworks and offers an alternate method for examining IC which has the potential to add to a discourse which focuses on additional understanding of IC.