The accounting history research in the ‘<i>Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria</i>’ (<i>Italian Accounting Review</i>), 1901–2015

Coronella, Stefano; Neri, Lorenzo; Risaliti, Gianluca; Russo, Antonella

doi:10.1177/1032373218807543

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, many prior studies selected journals which are specified as top , premier , major or leading (Henry and Burch, 1974; Chung et al , 1992; Carmona et al , 1999; Chan et al , 2005, 2006; Jones and Roberts, 2005; Englebrecht et al , 2008b; Fleischman and Schuele, 2009; Endenich and Trapp, 2016; Andrikopoulos and Kostaris, 2017; Merigó and Yang, 2017), while some others concentrated on a single prominent journal (Williams, 1985; Heck and Bremser, 1986; Anderson, 2002; Gaunt, 2014; Lohmann and Eulerich, 2017). Further, a significant number of prior authorship studies focused on particular topics in accounting discipline, such as accounting history (Anderson, 2002; Fleischman and Schuele, 2009; Gomes et al , 2015; Coronella et al , 2019), accounting education (Urbancic, 2009), environmental management accounting (Schaltegger et al , 2013) and accounting information systems (Worrell et al , 2013). The findings of these studies certainly provide useful insights into the understanding of authorship patterns in accounting research.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, prior studies on authorship collaborations are mostly confined to a single region, such as Asia–Pacific (Chan et al , 2005) and Europe (Carmona et al , 1999; Chan et al , 2006; Raffournier and Schatt, 2010), while some other studies pertain to a single country, such as China (Hussain et al , 2015), Germany (Fülbier and Weller, 2011), Italy (Coronella et al , 2019) and the USA (Tuttle and Dillard, 2007). Although these regional and country-specific studies provide significant contextual implications, they do not provide a holistic and global picture of accounting discipline.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Network analysis in accounting research: an institutional and geographical perspective

Uyar

Kılıç

Köseoğlu

2020

JAAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe objective of this study is to explore the accounting research network among institutions and countries globally and to contribute to the knowledge development in accounting discipline across regions with a novel and original approach.Design/methodology/approachThis study has been conducted by manually collecting data from 10,863 papers published in 22 accounting journals indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) for the period 2000–2016. Analyses and visualizations of collaborative networks across institutions and regions were performed by using network analysis software packages, including Pajek, UCINET 6, NetDraw and VOSviewer.FindingsThe study finds that the most productive five universities are the University of New South Wales, University of Sydney, University of Texas, University of California and University of Manchester worldwide. In accordance with the institution ranking, the five most productive countries in all periods are the USA, the UK, Australia, Spain and Canada. However, in addition to these countries, it is important to note that some European and Asian countries and New Zealand from Oceania are among the most productive countries which host prolific institutions. Furthermore, network indicators show that the UK is the most influential actor in centrality and brokerage within the research network. We should note that Australia is also among the most influential nations with its influential institutions. In all research metrics, the dominance of Anglophone countries (e.g. the USA, the UK and Australia) is observable on which language advantage might play a role since most internationally accredited journals publish scientific articles in English.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is bounded with several main limitations. First, due to collecting the data manually, there might be some inherent limitations. Second, the study is constrained by the time frame between 2000 and 2016. The study does not answer why and how questions in investigating research productivity and effectiveness in the network. Our study might inspire new studies to complement ours by considering these constraints.Practical implicationsOur findings indicated the prominent institution-wide and country-wide actors; thus, the results provide a global perspective on the collaboration network. Second, our findings guide job seekers, who are particularly research-oriented, to potential recruiters around the world both at the institution level and country level. Third, the results might play an important role in forming institution-based and country-based research policies. The USA, among others, is a particularly important actor in productivity, whereas the UK, among others, is a remarkable country in centrality and brokerage in the research network. By examining the policies of these two countries, other nations might shape their research strategies, promotion policies and support and reward schemes. Fourth, cross-institution and in particular cross-country collaborations are imperative in the diversity of accounting research as they blend culturally diverse researchers. Fifth, prominent institutions highlighted in this study might be adopted as role models by other institutions in the same country and benefit their expertise in productivity and cooperation by scrutinizing their approaches. Sixth, our findings and metrics might be adopted as benchmarks for institutions and nations for performance evaluation. Considering our 5-year period indicators, institutions can set targets for their improvement and for measuring the progress. We provide other important implications in the conclusion section of the study.Originality/valueTo the best knowledge of the authors, no study yet investigated the collaboration across academic institutions, regions, and countries in accounting discipline to this extent. Therefore, our research provides a significant contribution to the literature by seeking a comprehensive network analysis of authorship patterns from an institutional and geographical perspective. Doing so, we contribute to knowledge development in accounting discipline with institutional and geographical network analyses.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Network analysis in accounting research: an institutional and geographical perspective

Uyar

Kılıç

Köseoğlu

2020

JAAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Undoubtedly, historical research in accounting has been on the rise over the past 20 years, with an upsurge of historical subjects being investigated, scholars turning to historical research, and considerable developments in debates on methodological issues or differing schools of thought (Carnegie and Napier, 1996; Fleischman and Radcliffe, 2005; Napier, 2001; Parker, 1999). Scholars have extensively reflected on the evolving content and borders of the discipline (Baskerville et al, 2017; Carnegie and Napier, 1996, 2012), mapping areas of research, pinpointing trends (Bisman, 2012; Ferri et al, 2018; Fleischman and Radcliffe, 2005; Fowler and Keeper, 2016; Napier, 2006; Walker, 2008), and exploring patterns and variations in terms of authorship, affiliations, period, country and sectors under study (Carnegie and Potter, 2000; Coronella et al, 2018; Williams and Wines, 2006). One of the most consistent claims of these reviews relates to the issue of theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shades of theory: A topic modelling of ways of theorizing in accounting history research

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article aims to explore ways of theorizing in accounting history research. The article draws on findings originating from a semi-automated text analysis by means of topic modelling of 1,300 accounting history papers published between 1996 and 2015 across six journals most relevant to the discipline. Findings show the presence of a whole range of ways of theorizing at different levels of abstraction (from narrating to conceptualizing to theorizing settings to grand theorizing). Different ways of theorizing tend to be associated not only with specific research objects but also with specific journal types. Overall, both narrating and grand theorizing are relatively decreasing in favour of mid-range theorizing approaches, which seem to be on the rise.

show abstract

“…These classifications support researchers in understanding the development of accounting thought. To develop a methodology for the topic classification, we benefit from the works of Williams and Wines (2006), Anderson (2002), Carnegie and Potter (2000), and Coronella et al (2019). There are fifteen categories in this field: surviving business records, business history, accounting applications, biography, prosopography, institutional history, public sector accounting, comparative international, historiography, corporate regulation, auditing, cost and management accounting, taxation, accounting and religion, and general.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

survey of published works in De Computis (2004-2019)

Güvemli¹,

Eskin

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The accounting history research in the ‘Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria’ (Italian Accounting Review), 1901–2015

Cited by 7 publications

References 57 publications

Network analysis in accounting research: an institutional and geographical perspective

Network analysis in accounting research: an institutional and geographical perspective

Shades of theory: A topic modelling of ways of theorizing in accounting history research

survey of published works in De Computis (2004-2019)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About