会计期刊研究实践差距?主题建模方法

IF 1.1 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Accounting Literature Pub Date : 2023-08-18 DOI:10.1108/jal-03-2023-0047
F. Federsel, Rolf Uwe Fülbier, Jan Seitz
{"title":"会计期刊研究实践差距?主题建模方法","authors":"F. Federsel, Rolf Uwe Fülbier, Jan Seitz","doi":"10.1108/jal-03-2023-0047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeA gap between research and practice is commonly perceived throughout accounting academia. However, empirical evidence on the magnitude of this detachment remains scarce. The authors provide new evidence to the ongoing debate by introducing a novel topic-based approach to capture the research-practice gap and quantify its extent. They also explore regional differences in the research-practice gap.Design/methodology/approachThe authors apply the unsupervised machine learning approach Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to compare the topical composition of 2,251 articles from six premier research, practice and bridging journals from the USA and Europe between 2009 and 2019. The authors extend the existing methods of summarizing literature and develop metrics that allow researchers to evaluate the research-practice gap. The authors conduct a plethora of additional analyses to corroborate the findings.FindingsThe results substantiate a pronounced topic-related research-practice gap in accounting literature and document its statistical significance. Moreover, the authors uncover that this gap is more pronounced in the USA than in Europe, highlighting the importance of institutional differences between academic communities.Practical implicationsThe authors objectify the debate about the extent of a research-practice gap and stimulate further discussions about explanations and consequences.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to deploy a rigorous machine learning approach to measure a topic-based research-practice gap in the accounting literature. Additionally, the authors provide theoretical rationales for the extent and regional differences in the research-practice gap.","PeriodicalId":45666,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Literature","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research-practice gap in accounting journals? A topic modeling approach\",\"authors\":\"F. Federsel, Rolf Uwe Fülbier, Jan Seitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jal-03-2023-0047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeA gap between research and practice is commonly perceived throughout accounting academia. However, empirical evidence on the magnitude of this detachment remains scarce. The authors provide new evidence to the ongoing debate by introducing a novel topic-based approach to capture the research-practice gap and quantify its extent. They also explore regional differences in the research-practice gap.Design/methodology/approachThe authors apply the unsupervised machine learning approach Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to compare the topical composition of 2,251 articles from six premier research, practice and bridging journals from the USA and Europe between 2009 and 2019. The authors extend the existing methods of summarizing literature and develop metrics that allow researchers to evaluate the research-practice gap. The authors conduct a plethora of additional analyses to corroborate the findings.FindingsThe results substantiate a pronounced topic-related research-practice gap in accounting literature and document its statistical significance. Moreover, the authors uncover that this gap is more pronounced in the USA than in Europe, highlighting the importance of institutional differences between academic communities.Practical implicationsThe authors objectify the debate about the extent of a research-practice gap and stimulate further discussions about explanations and consequences.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to deploy a rigorous machine learning approach to measure a topic-based research-practice gap in the accounting literature. Additionally, the authors provide theoretical rationales for the extent and regional differences in the research-practice gap.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45666,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Accounting Literature\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Accounting Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jal-03-2023-0047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jal-03-2023-0047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的研究和实践之间的差距在整个会计学术界普遍存在。然而,关于这种脱离程度的经验证据仍然很少。作者通过引入一种新的基于主题的方法来捕捉研究实践差距并量化其程度,为正在进行的辩论提供了新的证据。他们还探讨了研究实践差距的地区差异。设计/方法论/方法作者应用无监督机器学习方法潜在狄利克雷分配(LDA)来比较2009年至2019年间来自美国和欧洲六家主要研究、实践和桥接期刊的2251篇文章的主题组成。作者扩展了现有的文献总结方法,并制定了指标,使研究人员能够评估研究实践差距。作者进行了大量的额外分析来证实这些发现。研究结果证实了会计文献中与主题相关的研究实践差距,并证明了其统计学意义。此外,作者发现,这种差距在美国比在欧洲更为明显,这突出了学术界之间制度差异的重要性。实践含义作者将关于研究实践差距程度的争论客观化,并激发对解释和后果的进一步讨论。原创性/价值据作者所知,这是第一篇采用严格的机器学习方法来衡量会计文献中基于主题的研究实践差距的论文。此外,作者还为研究实践差距的程度和地区差异提供了理论依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Research-practice gap in accounting journals? A topic modeling approach
PurposeA gap between research and practice is commonly perceived throughout accounting academia. However, empirical evidence on the magnitude of this detachment remains scarce. The authors provide new evidence to the ongoing debate by introducing a novel topic-based approach to capture the research-practice gap and quantify its extent. They also explore regional differences in the research-practice gap.Design/methodology/approachThe authors apply the unsupervised machine learning approach Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to compare the topical composition of 2,251 articles from six premier research, practice and bridging journals from the USA and Europe between 2009 and 2019. The authors extend the existing methods of summarizing literature and develop metrics that allow researchers to evaluate the research-practice gap. The authors conduct a plethora of additional analyses to corroborate the findings.FindingsThe results substantiate a pronounced topic-related research-practice gap in accounting literature and document its statistical significance. Moreover, the authors uncover that this gap is more pronounced in the USA than in Europe, highlighting the importance of institutional differences between academic communities.Practical implicationsThe authors objectify the debate about the extent of a research-practice gap and stimulate further discussions about explanations and consequences.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to deploy a rigorous machine learning approach to measure a topic-based research-practice gap in the accounting literature. Additionally, the authors provide theoretical rationales for the extent and regional differences in the research-practice gap.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The objective of the Journal is to publish papers that make a fundamental and substantial contribution to the understanding of accounting phenomena. To this end, the Journal intends to publish papers that (1) synthesize an area of research in a concise and rigorous manner to assist academics and others to gain knowledge and appreciation of diverse research areas or (2) present high quality, multi-method, original research on a broad range of topics relevant to accounting, auditing and taxation. Topical coverage is broad and inclusive covering virtually all aspects of accounting. Consistent with the historical mission of the Journal, it is expected that the lead article of each issue will be a synthesis article on an important research topic. Other manuscripts to be included in a given issue will be a mix of synthesis and original research papers. In addition to traditional research topics and methods, we actively solicit manuscripts of the including, but not limited to, the following: • meta-analyses • field studies • critiques of papers published in other journals • emerging developments in accounting theory • commentaries on current issues • innovative experimental research with strong grounding in cognitive, social or anthropological sciences • creative archival analyses using non-standard methodologies or data sources with strong grounding in various social sciences • book reviews • "idea" papers that don''t fit into other established categories.
期刊最新文献
Ontological basis of the creative accounting phenomenon as a financial misstatement The valuation and determinants of franking account balances Unveiling the hidden symphony: board dynamics and carbon emission disclosure – a meta-analysis study in the realm of developed markets Trade-based money laundering: a systematic literature review Theories underlying environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure: a systematic review of accounting studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1