IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bracre/v52y2020i5s0890838920300305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risks from self-referential peer review echo chambers developing in research fields

Author

Listed:
  • Unerman, Jeffrey

Abstract

Denigration of academic experts and expertise, amid a resurgence of political populism, poses a challenge to the legitimacy of academic research. Addressing this challenge requires us to continually demonstrate the importance of basing policy interventions on reliable evidence, rather than unevidenced assertions that gain traction through communication echo chambers. However, unconscious confirmation biases in collection and analysis of evidence can impair the reliability of our research insights. A key source of such confirmation biases are unchallenged ideologies and other taken-for-granted assumptions underlying any research (sub)field. This essay argues that informal and formal peer review processes at many stages of research need to highlight and challenge both conscious selectivity bias and unconscious confirmation bias. However, they are unlikely to do so where researchers only take on board feedback from peers in the same (sub)field who share ideological commitments and taken-for-granted assumptions. In such circumstances, self-referential peer review echo chambers can develop that entrench rather than challenge weaknesses in a research (sub)field. This can be a major risk to the effectiveness and reputation of any academic research (sub)field; a risk we need to confront.

Suggested Citation

  • Unerman, Jeffrey, 2020. "Risks from self-referential peer review echo chambers developing in research fields," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:bracre:v:52:y:2020:i:5:s0890838920300305
    DOI: 10.1016/j.bar.2020.100910
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890838920300305
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100910?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Fforde, 2017. "Confirmation bias: methodological causes and a palliative response," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(5), pages 2319-2335, September.
    2. Morales, Jérémy & Sponem, Samuel, 2017. "You too can have a critical perspective! 25 years of Critical Perspectives on Accounting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 149-166.
    3. Roberts, Robin W. & Wallace, Dana M., 2015. "Sustaining diversity in social and environmental accounting research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 78-87.
    4. Christopher A. Bail & Lisa P. Argyle & Taylor W. Brown & John P. Bumpus & Haohan Chen & M. B. Fallin Hunzaker & Jaemin Lee & Marcus Mann & Friedolin Merhout & Alexander Volfovsky, 2018. "Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(37), pages 9216-9221, September.
    5. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    6. Jérémy Morales & Samuel Sponem, 2017. "You too can have a critical perspective! 25 years of Critical Perspectives on Accounting," Post-Print hal-01479941, HAL.
    7. O'Dwyer, Brendan & Unerman, Jeffrey, 2016. "Fostering rigour in accounting for social sustainability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 32-40.
    8. Archel, Pablo & Husillos, Javier & Spence, Crawford, 2011. "The institutionalisation of unaccountability: Loading the dice of Corporate Social Responsibility discourse," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 327-343.
    9. Choudhury, Nandan, 1988. "The seeking of accounting where it is not: Towards a theory of non-accounting in organizational settings," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 549-557, October.
    10. Jeffrey Unerman & Franco Zappettini, 2014. "Incorporating Materiality Considerations into Analyses of Absence from Sustainability Reporting," Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 172-186, December.
    11. David Hirshleifer, 2001. "Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1533-1597, August.
    12. Forsythe, Robert & Forrest Nelson & George R. Neumann & Jack Wright, 1992. "Anatomy of an Experimental Political Stock Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1142-1161, December.
    13. Jan Bebbington & Jeffrey Unerman, 2018. "Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(1), pages 2-24, January.
    14. Andrew, Jane & Cortese, Corinne, 2013. "Free market environmentalism and the neoliberal project: The case of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 397-409.
    15. Spence, Crawford & Husillos, Javier & Correa-Ruiz, Carmen, 2010. "Cargo cult science and the death of politics: A critical review of social and environmental accounting research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 76-89.
    16. Endenich, Christoph & Trapp, Rouven, 2018. "Signaling effects of scholarly profiles – The editorial teams of North American accounting association journals," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 4-23.
    17. Jeffrey Unerman & Jan Bebbington & Brendan O’dwyer, 2018. "Corporate reporting and accounting for externalities," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 497-522, July.
    18. Roberts, Robin W., 2018. "We can do so much better: Reflections on reading “Signaling Effects of Scholarly Profiles—The Editorial Teams of North American Accounting Association Journals”," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 70-77.
    19. Brooks, Chris & Schopohl, Lisa, 2018. "Topics and trends in finance research: What is published, who publishes it and what gets cited?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(6), pages 615-637.
    20. Rob Gray & Richard Laughlin, 2012. "It was 20 years ago today," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 25(2), pages 228-255, February.
    21. David Hirshleifer & Sonya Seongyeon Lim & Siew Hong Teoh, 2009. "Driven to Distraction: Extraneous Events and Underreaction to Earnings News," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(5), pages 2289-2325, October.
    22. Spence, Crawford, 2009. "Social accounting's emancipatory potential: A Gramscian critique," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 205-227.
    23. Dillard, Jesse & Vinnari, Eija, 2017. "A case study of critique: Critical perspectives on critical accounting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 88-109.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brennan, Niamh M., 2021. "Connecting earnings management to the real World:What happens in the black box of the boardroom?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    2. David Steingard & Kathleen Rodenburg, 2023. "Societal Impacts of Higher Education Research: From ‘Publish or Perish’ to ‘Publish and Prosper’ in Business School Scholarship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Kathleen Rodenburg & Michael Rowan & Andrew Nixon & Julia Christensen Hughes, 2022. "The Misalignment of the FT50 with the Achievement of the UN’s SDGs: A Call for Responsible Research Assessment by Business Schools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-33, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michelon, Giovanna & Rodrigue, Michelle & Trevisan, Elisabetta, 2020. "The marketization of a social movement: Activists, shareholders and CSR disclosure," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Gendron, Yves & Rodrigue, Michelle, 2021. "On the centrality of peripheral research and the dangers of tight boundary gatekeeping," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Sorola, Matthew, 2022. "Q methodology to conduct a critical study in accounting: A Q study on accountants’ perspectives of social and environmental reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Michelon, Giovanna, 2021. "Accounting research boundaries, multiple centers and academic empathy," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    5. Grisard, Claudine & Annisette, Marcia & Graham, Cameron, 2020. "Performative agency and incremental change in a CSR context," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    6. George, Sendirella & Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse, 2023. "Social movement activists’ conceptions of political action and counter-accounting through a critical dialogic accounting and accountability lens," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. Roberts, Robin W. & Wallace, Dana M., 2015. "Sustaining diversity in social and environmental accounting research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 78-87.
    8. Verdier, Marie-Anne & Boutant Lapeyre, Jennifer, 2023. "The myth of workforce reduction efficiency: The performativity of accounting language," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Gendron, Yves, 2018. "On the elusive nature of critical (accounting) research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-12.
    10. Stacchezzini, Riccardo & Masiero, Eleonora & Lai, Alessandro, 2023. "Histories as counter-accounting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Clune, Conor & O’Dwyer, Brendan, 2020. "Organizing dissonance through institutional work: The embedding of social and environmental accountability in an investment field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Dillard, Jesse & Vinnari, Eija, 2019. "Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 16-38.
    13. Brown, Judy & Tregidga, Helen, 2017. "Re-politicizing social and environmental accounting through Rancière: On the value of dissensus," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-21.
    14. Brooks, Chris & Fenton, Evelyn & Schopohl, Lisa & Walker, James, 2019. "Why does research in finance have so little impact?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 24-52.
    15. Tregidga, Helen & Milne, Markus J., 2022. "Not at our table: Stakeholder exclusion and ant/agonistic engagements," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse, 2013. "Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the “death of environmentalism” debates," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-18.
    17. Gallhofer, Sonja & Haslam, Jim, 2019. "Some reflections on the construct of emancipatory accounting: Shifting meaning and the possibilities of a new pragmatism," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    18. Hussain, Simon & Liu, Lana Yan Jun & Miller, Anthony D., 2020. "Accounting as a dichotomised discipline: An analysis of the source materials used in the construction of accounting articles," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    19. Andrew, Jane & Baker, Max & Huang, Casey, 2023. "Data breaches in the age of surveillance capitalism: Do disclosures have a new role to play?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    20. Godowski, Christophe & Nègre, Emmanuelle & Verdier, Marie-Anne, 2020. "Toward dialogic accounting? Public accountants’ assistance to works councils − A tool between hope and illusion," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:bracre:v:52:y:2020:i:5:s0890838920300305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.