IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Growth and dispersion of accounting research about New Zealand before and during a National Research Assessment Exercise: Five decades of academic journals bibliometrics

Listed author(s):
  • Dixon, Keith

Purpose – University academics are important to the discovery and dissemination of knowledge about accounting practice and accounting learning. This article explores the consequences for the Pacific society of New Zealand of how these discovery and dissemination activities have come to be assessed for performance management, formulaic public funding and offshore accreditation. Design/methodology/approach – A longitudinal, bibliometric approach is taken to how knowledge about accounting practice and accounting learning in New Zealand has been disseminated over the past half century. The approach lends itself to the question of whether the trends revealed in the bibliometrics are suited to New Zealand audiences, including students, accountants, policymakers, Aotearoa New Zealand’s indigenous people and its diverse recent-settler populations, and Pacific New Zealand Society. One hundred and sixty accounting journals and several professional magazines are searched for articles based on empirical materials drawn from New Zealand. Findings – The findings relate to the geographical locations of the editors and the rankings of the periodicals that articles have been published in, and the topics the articles cover. The findings are interpreted in the broad contexts of academic activities, university development, and tertiary education policy and funding. Of the three activities associated with accounting in New Zealand universities, research has been the last to develop, starting with occasional articles penned by a small band of professors and published in the Chartered Accountants Journal (CAJ) and The Accounting Review. Now, research is often accorded the highest priority, as reflected in formal individual academic performance measurement systems, and related institutional incentives and penalties (exemplified by the Performance Based Research Fund of 2012). Measurement is conducted at the individual and institutional level, using criteria linked to lists of periodicals that are decidedly Atlantocentric. The CAJ has been deserted in favour of academic journals, virtually all based outside New Zealand. Academics have modified the way they report to suit the foreign editors and readerships. Publication patterns continue to change. Strong incentives and coercements seem to exist for New Zealand-based academics to behave selfishly for short-term survival. These persuaders seem to be wielded by a quasi-indigenous élite seeking to mimic their supposed superior counterparts elsewhere; and to dominate their subjects, and so exercise power and maintain their status. This is regardless of what might be better from a local, societal point of view. To publish about New Zealand, there is some advantage in studying areas in which New Zealand is seen as a “world leader” (e.g., Structural Adjustment, New Public Management, environmental accounting). This contrasts with areas about which the outside world is oblivious (e.g., New Zealand’s multicultural array of people and organisations, including the Maori people) or areas in which New Zealand lacks differences of “world” interest (e.g., financial collapses and director impropriety, what can be learnt from stock exchange data). Research limitations/implications – The research is confined to basic bibliometrics (a publication analysis, rather than citation or co-citation analyses), anecdotes and comparison with secondary sources. Originality/value – This study is concerned with whether knowledge about accounting practice and accounting learning in New Zealand is being disseminated in a way that suits those likely to be most interested and affected. It is distinct from most studies of this ilk, which attempt to rank journals or are about researcher productivity and author placement.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

File URL:
File Function: revised version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 51100.

in new window

Date of creation: 05 Nov 2013
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:51100
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2459
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-992459
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Tony Brinn, 2008. "The composition of editorial boards in accounting: a UK perspective," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 21(1), pages 5-35, January.
  2. Aleksandra Pop-Vasileva, 2011. "University corporatisation," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(4), pages 408-439, May.
  3. Ahrens, Thomas & Chapman, Christopher S., 2006. "Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 819-841, November.
  4. Kam C. Chan & Chih‐Hsiang Chang & Jamie Y. Tong & Feida Zhang, 2012. "An analysis of the accounting and finance research productivity in Australia and New Zealand in 1991–2010," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 52(1), pages 249-265, 03.
  5. Sandy Qu & Shujun Ding & Shelley Lukasewich, 2009. "Research the American Way: The Role of US Elites in Disseminating and Legitimizing Canadian Academic Accounting Research," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 515-569.
  6. Lowe, Alan & Locke, Joanne, 2005. "Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: results of a web-based survey of British accounting academics," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 81-98, January.
  7. Borghans, Lex & Cörvers, Frank, 2009. "The Americanization of European Higher Education and Research," IZA Discussion Papers 4445, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  8. Bernard Raffournier & Alain Schatt, 2009. "Is European accounting research fairly reflected in academic journals? An investigation of possible non-mainstream and language barrier biases," Working Papers CREGO 1090301, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
  9. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
  10. Joanne Locke & Alan Lowe, 2008. "Evidence and Implications of Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 161-191.
  11. Dixon, Keith, 2009. "Calculative practices in higher education: a retrospective analysis of curricular accounting about learning," MPRA Paper 18295, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  12. Imad Moosa, 2011. "The demise of the ARC journal ranking scheme: an ex post analysis of the accounting and finance journals," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 51(3), pages 809-836, 09.
  13. Lukka, Kari & Kasanen, Eero, 1996. "Is accounting a global or a local discipline? evidence from major research journals," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(7-8), pages 755-773.
  14. Ellis, Paul D. & Zhan, Ge, 2011. "How international are the international business journals?," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 100-112, February.
  15. Kam Chan & Carl Chen & Louis Cheng, 2005. "Ranking Research Productivity in Accounting for Asia-Pacific Universities," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 47-64, January.
  16. Ralph Adler & Gregory Liyanarachchi, 2011. "An empirical examination of the editorial review processes of accounting journals," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 51(4), pages 837-867, December.
  17. Burchell, Stuart & Clubb, Colin & Hopwood, Anthony & Hughes, John & Nahapiet, Janine, 1980. "The roles of accounting in organizations and society," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 5-27, January.
  18. Lee D. Parker, 2011. "The relationship between academic accounting research and professional practice," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(1), pages 5-14, January.
  19. Lee D. Parker, 2011. "Building Bridges to the Future: Mapping the Territory for Developing Social and Environmental Accountability," Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 7-24, April.
  20. Ana Isabel Melo & Cláudia S. Sarrico & Zoe Radnor, 2010. "The Influence of Performance Management Systems on Key Actors in Universities," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 233-254, March.
  21. Kam C. Chan & Jamie Y. Tong & Frank F. Zhang, 2012. "Accounting Journal Rankings, Authorship Patterns and the Author Affiliation Index," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 22(4), pages 407-417, December.
  22. Bonner, Sarah E. & Hesford, James W. & Van der Stede, Wim A. & Young, S. Mark, 2006. "The most influential journals in academic accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 663-685, October.
  23. Anthony Hopwood, 2008. "Changing Pressures on the Research Process: On Trying to Research in an Age when Curiosity is not Enough," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 87-96.
  24. Jane Broadbent, 2008. "Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual” accounting research," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 21(2), pages 129-169, February.
  25. Henk J. ter Bogt & Robert W. Scapens, 2012. "Performance Management in Universities: Effects of the Transition to More Quantitative Measurement Systems," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 451-497, February.
  26. Wai Fong Chua, 2011. "In Search of 'Successful' Accounting Research," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 27-39.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:51100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.