{"title":"Enhancing the Interface between Standard-setters and Academic Research","authors":"Matt Pinnuck, Kevin Stevenson","doi":"10.1111/auar.12343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article points to gaps between academic research and the needs of accounting standard-setters. In part it attributes those gaps to the academic literature seeming to be inaccessible and oriented to ideas apparently unrelated to the policy-making issues facing standard-setters. As a means of partially reducing that perceived inaccessibility, the paper provides a way for standard-setters to identify and classify the various forms of academic accounting research so that they can evaluate their usefulness. Two prominent strands of research (agency theory/costly contracting and value relevance) are, as illustrations, analysed so that standard-setters can see how they might approach those strands. The paper suggests a users’ needs/demand driven approach to improving understanding, rather than a supply (by academics) driven approach. Finally, the paper explains how the performance metrics faced by academics can be inconsistent with the readiness expressed by standard-setters to have academics assist them. The paper provides a suggestion as to how there could be some alignment of academic performance metrics and standard-setters’ needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51552,"journal":{"name":"Australian Accounting Review","volume":"31 3","pages":"169-185"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/auar.12343","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Accounting Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/auar.12343","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
Abstract
This article points to gaps between academic research and the needs of accounting standard-setters. In part it attributes those gaps to the academic literature seeming to be inaccessible and oriented to ideas apparently unrelated to the policy-making issues facing standard-setters. As a means of partially reducing that perceived inaccessibility, the paper provides a way for standard-setters to identify and classify the various forms of academic accounting research so that they can evaluate their usefulness. Two prominent strands of research (agency theory/costly contracting and value relevance) are, as illustrations, analysed so that standard-setters can see how they might approach those strands. The paper suggests a users’ needs/demand driven approach to improving understanding, rather than a supply (by academics) driven approach. Finally, the paper explains how the performance metrics faced by academics can be inconsistent with the readiness expressed by standard-setters to have academics assist them. The paper provides a suggestion as to how there could be some alignment of academic performance metrics and standard-setters’ needs.