Elliott L. Slocum
and
Ram S. Sriram GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY

ACCOUNTING HISTORY: A SURVEY OF ACADEMIC INTEREST IN THE U.S.

Abstract: A number of the reports by academicians and practitioners in the United States have called for significant change in accounting education and an enhanced role for accounting history in curricula and research. However, the survey results reported in this paper suggest that achieving wider acceptance of accounting history presents some perplexing problems. Doctoral faculty, especially assistant professors, report less interest in accounting history than nondoctoral faculty. Although a majority of academicians consider accounting history research to be acceptable for promotion, tenure and hiring decisions and a valuable aid to teaching, practitioners, students, doctoral faculty strongly believe that it is of less value than mainstream empirical research in accounting. Most academicians perceive that research in accounting history is not as methodologically rigorous as other branches of accounting research.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, numerous study groups have discussed problems associated with the current model of accounting education and research and their relevance to the 21 st century. The issue of relevance gained importance because of the changes in the business environment, a shift from manufacturing to a service economy, the impact of information technology, and greater communication across geographical boundaries and cultures [Mueller and Simmons, 1989]. Many academicians believe the accounting education model, which embraces both teaching and research dimensions, is outdated with little relevance to the changes taking place in the wider world [Elliott, 1991, Williams, 1991]. Others point out that accounting research produces results that are too technical and not relevant for practice. Thus accounting research, often, has very little effect on public or professional policy [Elliott, 1991; Sunder, 1991].

Both academicians and practitioners agree that if accounting is to serve a useful role in this changing environment, accounting education and accounting research should become broader based, dynamic, and not restricted or constrained by a single model or approach. Numerous committees formed by the American Accounting Association (AAA), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), and others have recommended significant changes in accounting education [AAA, 1986; Perspectives, 1989; AECC, 1990]. The consensus of these committees was that accounting education should include general knowledge, business knowledge, accounting knowledge, and the accounting curriculum should include a greater role for accounting history in both teaching and research [Coffman et al., 1993]. The American Accounting Association Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of the Accounting Profession (the Bedford Committee, AAA, 1986) stated that accounting education should develop “knowledge of the accounting profession including: history of accounting and its role as an information system in society” [p. 183]. “The Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the Accounting Profession” [Perspectives, 1989], a document issued by executives from public accounting firms, stated that accounting knowledge must include “the history of the accounting profession and accounting thought” [p. 8]. The Accounting Education Change Commission [AECC, 1990] also expressed similar views when it said, “knowledge of historical and contemporary events affecting the profession is essential to effective teaching” [p. 310] and “history of the accounting profession and accounting thought” [p. 311] are both essential to effective teaching.

We can point to two major changes last century that demand a greater understanding of accounting history — developments in information technology and the globalization of business. In addition to the U.S., countries such as the U.K., Germany, Japan, China, and a few Pacific Rim countries play a lead role in the global market place. Although culturally diverse, some of these countries are comparable to the U.S. in their business practices, technologies and organizational structures, while others have different economic systems. Some follow the free market system, while others follow systems ranging from mostly stateowned enterprises to a mixture of statesupported and free market enterprises. Some allow free flow of information, while others censor information. Each has its distinctive cultures. If these disparate countries have to realistically do business with each other, enter into agreements, or resolve disputes, they must understand each other’s cultures, history, and business systems. As Wallace [1990] points out, “The alternative solutions taken by various professionals, fields, countries, and economic styles should be presented and discussed” [p. 303].

Before we prescribe or evaluate how accounting techniques and practices must change or how accountants can be effective in this new technological and global environment, we must understand the evolution of accounting. As Roush and Smith [1997] point out, we should first understand how or why an accounting principle was adopted. What was acceptable practice before the changes were implemented, and what other alternatives were considered before adopting the new accounting principle? Whose interests were recognized by an accounting standard, and whose interests were subordinated? These are important questions that only a study of the history of accounting could answer. Answering these questions would help us understand how accounting concepts and techniques evolved contemporaneously with changes in technology and the world economy. Similarly, study of accounting history would help us observe how the changes in the world economy influenced changes in accounting institutions. For the longer term, studying the evolution of accounting practices would help us in understanding public policy; provide an acceptable basis for harmonization of accounting standards, or ideas for making cost measures more relevant.

This paper examines whether the greater emphasis placed by the various committees on the need to include accounting history in accounting curriculum have indeed translated into (1) more accounting courses with a predominant history content in U.S. business schools, and (2) interest among U.S. academicians in historical accounting research. Our study is U.S. centric because, as Slocum and Roberts [1986] suggests, in the past, U.S. academicians there have been less receptive to implementing courses with a history content and researching and publishing articles with a historical focus. We examine whether significant changes in perceptions have occurred since 1985 regarding the feasibility of conducting research in areas with an accounting history content. The paper first addresses the changes in the area of teaching and follows this with a report on the changes in expressed interest in accounting history research. In both cases, the study compares doctoral institutions with nondoctoral institutions. Additionally, perceptions of accounting faculty regarding the relevance of history research in promotion and tenure decisions are contrasted between individuals at doctoral and nondoctoral institutions and among faculty from various ranks.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In 1985, Slocum and Roberts conducted a survey of academicians to examine the provision of courses in accounting history, degree of interest in teaching and doing research in accounting history, and the perceptions about the usefulness of accounting history research in promotion and tenure decisions. During 1997, we reexamined some of the issues identified by Slocum and Roberts to find out how perceptions about accounting history have changed since 1985. However, while we make references to the earlier survey results, we do not report specific data from the 1985 study, because differences in the wording between the two surveys preclude a direct comparison of the results in absolute terms.

Our questionnaire was mailed to academicians listed in the 1997 “PrenticeHall Accounting Faculty Directory” compiled by James R. Hasselback. We selected all the doctoralgranting institutions in the United States (with the exception of Georgia State University) and a random sample of nondoctoral granting institutions that contained accounting departments with five or more faculty holding at least two of the three faculty ranks of professor, associate professor, and assistant professor. We identified 255 institutions, 86 of which were doctoral institutions and 169 were nondoctoral institutions. We sent out a total of 935 surveys to heads of accounting units and individual accounting faculty employed in these 255 institutions and received 377 usable surveys, resulting in a 40% response rate. The response was 36% for faculty from doctoral institutions and 41% for faculty from nondoctoral institutions. Table 1 provides a profile of the respondents to the survey. The doctoral and nondoctoral institution dichotomy was used because prior research has shown that the evaluation standards and publication requirements at these institutions differ significantly [Campbell et al., 1983; Cargile and Bublitz, 1986; Milne and Vent, 1987; Schulz et al., 1989].

The survey mailed to faculty asked for responses on three subjects: (1) information on the number of accounting courses with history content taught in their schools and their interest in history research; (2) perceptions of their institutions’ views regarding the current status of historical research in accounting

TABLE 1 Profile of Respondents to the Survey

Type of Institution Faculty Rank Years of Service

Head Full Asso. Asst. Total < 6 710 1120 > 20 Total
Doctoral 28 29 33 34 124 20 19 39 46 124
NonDoctoral 61 75 56 61 253 23 37 99 94 253
Total 89 104 89 95 377 43 56 138 140 377
Males 74 89 70 53 286 25 33 97 131 286
Females 15 15 17 42 89 18 23 38 10 89
Total 89 104 87 95 375* 43 56 135 141 375*
* Two individuals in the associate rank did not indicate their sex.

and how it is valued for hiring, promotion, and tenure purposes; and (3) perceptions regarding the status of historical research in accounting. Changes in emphasis over time were interpreted by comparing the average 1997 responses to the responses generated by the 1985 Slocum and Roberts survey.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Interest in Accounting History: Analysis of the survey data involved both descriptive tables and statistical tests for differences between the two types of institutions and faculty ranks using a chisquare procedure.

First, we asked the faculty to indicate their level of interest in accounting history on a scale of 0 to 10 (with 0 = no interest and 10 = significant interest). This is significant because, although an institution may recognize the importance of including historical content in accounting courses, it must find faculty to teach the curriculum, who have interest in teaching accounting history and conducting historical research. Furthermore, if faculty have no expressed interest in accounting history, they are not likely to encourage their institutions to offer a course in accounting history or even at a minimum, to include historical content in their traditional accounting courses.

We examined faculty interest in accounting history according to two variables: type of institution in which employed and academic rank. We used these categories because we expected research and publication focus to differ between doctoral and nondoctoral institutions. We expected faculty from doctoral institutions to engage in mainstream research (for example, marketbased research) that is publishable in toptier accounting journals such as The Accounting Review or The Journal of Accounting Research.

Among the faculty ranks, we expected heads of departments and assistant professors from doctoral institutions to show less interest in accounting history than associate professors or professors. Similar to Ettredge and WongonWing, [1991], heads of departments of doctoral institutions may view mainstream research publications (e.g. empirical, marketbased research) in the topranked journals as more prestigious and as creating greater recognition for their faculty and department than accounting history research. Consequently, untenured assistant professors would follow the lead of their heads of departments and would show low interest in historical research. We believe, however, that tenured and senior faculty would be more inclined to pursue research that interests them, even if it is not mainstream or popular (e.g. history research). Table 2 reports the responses.

We interpreted means below 3 as slight or no interest in accounting history, between 3 and 6 as moderate interest, and above 6 as significant interest. The results indicate that the interest shown by faculty to accounting history is, at most,
TABLE 2 Level of Interest in Accounting History

Faculty Classification Type of Institution+ ChiSq. (pvalue)

Doctoral NonDoctoral Total

No. Mean No. Mean No. Mean

Head 28 3.75 61 3.93 89 3.88 9.768 (0.461)
Professor 29 4.11 75 4.58 104 4.54 10.510 (0.397)
Associate 33 4.03 56 3.96 89 3.98 10.935 (0.363)
Assistant 34 2.62 61 4.23 95 3.65 16.121 (0.096)**
Total 124 3.67 253 4.21 377 4.03
*The responses were provided on a scale of 0 to 10 (with 0 = no interest and 10 = significant interest).
**Significant at the 0.10 level.
+ We also tested response differences between types of institutions and did not find the results to be statistically significant (ChiSq. = 28.932 and p = 0.521)

moderate. This is true for faculty from both doctoral and nondoctoral institutions and for the various faculty ranks. However, faculty from nondoctoral institutions, in general, appeared to show more interest in accounting history than faculty from doctoral institutions.

Responses of faculty from various ranks support our expectations. Heads of departments of doctoral institutions indicated only moderate interest (3.75) and similarly, assistant professors from doctoral institutions indicated slight or even no interest in accounting history (mean = 2.62). While the responses of the heads of departments and assistant professors from nondoctoral institutions are higher, the level of interest can only be defined as moderate. Associate professors and professors from both doctoral and nondoctoral institutions indicated slightly more interest in accounting history. The level of interest in history research indicated by assistant professors from doctoral institutions compared to faculty from nondoctoral institutions was statistically significant (at the 0.10 level for assistant professors). When compared to the responses to the 1985 survey, the interest of heads of doctoral institutions in accounting history has declined. Assistant professors continued to show low levels of interest in accounting history.

Courses with a history focus: We followed the questions on the interest of individual members of faculty in accounting history with questions concerning their institution’s interest in accounting history. Since various academic and practitioner groups have recommended use of historical content in accounting curriculum, we asked the faculty to provide information on the number and level of courses involving accounting history in their accounting program. Table 3 reports the responses.
TABLE 3 Accounting Courses with a History Focus

Course Level: Type of Institution Total N=216

Doctoral
N=70 Nondoctoral N=146

Undergraduate 2 0 2
Masters 4 7 11
Doctoral 7 0 7
Total 13 7 20

The results do not indicate that academic institutions are taking the recommendations of the AECC and others seriously by implementing courses with a history focus. When compared to the 1985 survey results, in doctoral institutions, the number of courses with an accounting history focus has actually declined. In nondoctoral institutions, courses with a history focus have shown a marginal increase.

The respondents were also asked to indicate whether their institution had either added or deleted a course with a history focus and whether there are any plans in their institution to add a course with a history focus. Since 1985, no course with a history focus was deleted, and only one doctoral institution has added an undergraduate course with a history focus. There were no plans in any institution to add a course with history content.

Accounting History Research Publications in Hiring and Promotion/Tenure Decisions: Numerous outlets are available for publishing accounting history research. However, unless academicians perceive that accounting history research is recognized by their peers as quality research and is rewarded with promotion and tenure, they are unlikely to engage it and take advantage of publication opportunities in the field. The institution’s perceptions about what constitutes acceptable research during promotion/tenure is bound to influence an academician’s choice of research area and publication intentions.

Academic institutions tend to hire an individual if a good match exists between the institution’s expectations about acceptable research and publications and the applicant’s current publication record and research interests [Schroeder and Saftner, 1989; and Holland and Arrington, 1987]. Similarly, the individual would most likely accept a job offer from the institution that s/he perceives will offer the reward of promotion and tenure based on publications derived from current research interests. We therefore requested academicians to convey their perceptions about the usefulness of accounting history research in two distinctive areas: (1) promotion and tenure and (2) hiring of new faculty.

As prior literature indicates, what counts as acceptable research significantly differs among institutions, and specifically between doctoral and nondoctoral institutions. Doctoral institutions are more selective about what is acceptable research for tenure/promotion decisions than nondoctoral institutions [Bazley, 1975; Brown and Gardner, 1985; Schulz et al., 1989].

We do not imply that research deemed acceptable for hiring or promotion/tenure decisions is indicative of the quality or worth of that research. However, there is greater risk for an academician who, in the early part of a career, pursues research considered not to be mainstream.

Whether an institution views certain types of research as mainstream and whether certain publications are acceptable for hiring or promotion/tenure decisions are often influenced by the opinions of the head of the department, the dean, and a few influential faculty within the department. Although academicians may agree or differ on what types of research are interesting or useful, on a more pragmatic note, they would be compelled to pursue the types of research that are acceptable to their institutions. However, on a more personal level, a faculty member’s views on research may differ from the institutional views. Analyzing the differences between the faculty’s perception of the institution’s views and their personal views about history research would be informative for the following reasons. If there were no differences in the perceptions between academicians and their institutions about the usefulness of history research and publications during promotion, tenure, and hiring, it would suggest that faculty support their institution’s view about history research. On the contrary, if academicians’ personal perceptions significantly differ from their institution’s perceptions about the usefulness of history research and believe that it should be given greater weight during promotion, tenure, and hiring, it would indicate their reluctance to conduct history research is guided by more strategic reasons than by perceived intrinsic value.

We first requested faculty to respond on what they believed was their institution’s views about the usefulness of history research during hiring and promotion/tenure decisions. We then requested the faculty to respond on their personal views about historical research and the relative value of accounting history publications compared to other academic publications. In both instances, the questions elicited respondents’ perceptions about their institution’s views on the worth of accounting history research and publications in promotion/tenure decisions (equal to other empirical publications or equal to other practitioner publications) and during hiring (history publications are equally acceptable as other publications). The responses were obtained on a fivepoint Likert scale where, 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; and 5 = strongly agree; and 9 = unsure. However, in the interest of brevity, we grouped the results thus: (1) disagree (scales 1 and 2); agree (scales 4 and 5); and no opinion (scales 3 and 9). Table 4, provides descriptive data on the perceptions of the faculty about the value of history research comparing the institutional and individual perceptions.

TABLE 4 Usefulness of History Research During Promotion,
Tenure and Hiring: Institutional and Individual Perceptions (percentages)*

Institutional Perception Individual Perception
(by institution) (by rank) Total
Doc Non Total Head Full Asso. Asst.
toral doctoral
Acceptable for
Promotion and
Tenure
Disagree 24 8 14 8 4 11 8 8
Agree 54 82 72 84 80 77 75 79
No opinion 22 10 14 8 16 12 17 13
Worth equally as
other empirical
research during
promotion and
tenure
Disagree 64 33 43 36 25 27 30 29
Agree 22 51 41 48 50 44 50 48
No opinion 14 16 16 16 25 29 20 23
Worth equally as
other practi
tioner research
during promo
tion and tenure
Disagree 22 20 21 23 20 14 20 19
Agree 53 64 60 68 64 67 60 65
No opinion 25 16 19 9 16 19 20 16
Is acceptable
during hiring
Disagree 11 17 8 5 6 6 20 9
Agree 59 73 68 79 81 80 62 74
No opinion 30 10 24 16 13 14 18 17
The responses were grouped as follows: Disagree (scales 1 and 2); Agree (scales 4 and 5); and No opinion (scales 3 and 9).

As the results in Table 4 indicate, more than one in two academicians from both doctoral and nondoctoral institutions (54% and 82%) believe that during promotion and tenure, history publications are acceptable to their institution as evidence of research productivity. However, when asked to respond whether history research is given equal weight as other academic empirical publications during promotion and tenure, at least twothirds (64%) of doctoral faculty disagreed (in contrast, only 33% of nondoctoral faculty disagreed with this statement). More than one in two academicians (53% and 64%) stated that history research is given equal weight as practitioner publications only during promotion and tenure decision. The final question related to acceptability of history research publications in a person’s resume during recruiting. Academicians from both doctoral and nondoctoral institutions agreed that history research and publications are acceptable to their institutions during hiring (59% and 73% respectively).

We examined personal views among the various ranks of faculty. Specifically, we were interested in the responses of heads of departments who have significant input into promotion and tenure decisions and in the responses of junior faculty who are especially affected by hiring, and promotion and tenure decisions. Both heads of departments (84%) and assistant professors (75%) overwhelmingly agreed that history publications are acceptable for promotion and tenure. Professors (80%) and associate professors (77%) also expressed similar views. As to the question, are history publications equal to other empirical research, there was less support. Only 48% of the heads of departments agreed with the statement and indicated that history publications are equal to practitioner publications (68%). Assistant professors held very similar views as the heads of departments, with 50% agreeing that history research counts as equal to empirical research and 60% agreeing that history research counts as equal to practitioner research. As to the acceptability of history publications on a person’s resume during recruiting, over twothirds of the faculty from all ranks believed that they are acceptable.

A chisquare analysis was performed on the responses to the questions on the usefulness of history research during promotion/tenure and hiring. Our analyses were conducted on the following dimensions: (1) personal and institutional perceptions, regardless of whether a faculty is employed in a doctoral or a nondoctoral institution, (2) personal and institutional perceptions of faculty from doctoral institutions, (3) personal and institutional perceptions of faculty from nondoctoral institutions, (4) personal perceptions of faculty from doctoral institutions and nondoctoral institutions, and (5) institutional perceptions of faculty from doctoral and nondoctoral institutions. The results are reported in Table 5. The chi square results for all five dimensions analysis were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The results show that the perceptions of doctoral and nondoctoral institutions on the usefulness of history research during promotion, tenure, and hiring are significantly different and significant perceptional differences also exist among individual academicians and their institutions regardless of whether they are employed by a doctoral or a nondoctoral institution.

TABLE 5
Usefulness of History Research During Promotion,
Tenure and Hiring Institutional and Individual
Perceptions: Statistical Analyses

Differences in Perceptions — Individuals and Institutions Chisq (pvalue)

Individuals vs. Institutions Individuals vs. Doctoral Institutions Individuals vs. Nondoctoral Institutions Individuals from Doctoral vs. Individuals from Nondoctoral Institutions Doctoral vs. Nondoctoral institutions
Acceptable for Promotion and Tenure 138.31 (0.00) 62.83 (0.00) 64.33 (0.00) 18.967 (0.00) 33.55 (0.00)
Worth equally as other empirical research during promotion and tenure 185.57 (0.00) 73.38 (0.00) 107.01 (0.00) 22.87 (0.00) 35.28 (0.00)
Worth equally as other practitioner research during promotion and tenure 183.92 (0.00) 65.41 (0.00) 116.69 (0.00) 9.975 (0.01) 5.79 (0.05)
Is acceptable during hiring 171.08 (0.00) 62.47 (0.00) 101.98 (0.00) 9.026 (0.01) 7.97 (0.02)

Academic Perceptions of the Value of Accounting History Research: In the previous section, we reported the views of academicians on the status of history research from an institutional and individual perspective during hiring and promotion/ tenure decisions. We then asked academicians to express their views on four other important issues that indicate the perceived value of history research: the importance of history research to the profession, teaching, practitioners, and accounting graduates. We considered that the responses would help us in assessing the perceived value of history research when viewed without the constraints of hiring and promotion/tenure decisions. If significant numbers of faculty perceive that history research is important to teaching, practice, and the profession, it might encourage heads of departments, deans, other faculty, and journal editors to be more receptive to this type of research. In the long term, recognition of the value of history research would also translate into greater weight being assigned to history publications during hiring and promotion/tenure decisions.

Academicians stated their personal views on a fivepoint Likert scale where, 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; and 5 = strongly agree; and 9 = unsure. As before, in the interest of brevity, we grouped the results into three groups: (1) disagree (scales 1 and 2); agree (scales 4 and 5); and unsure (scales 3 and 9). Table 6, provides descriptive data on the perceptions of the faculty about the value of history research, comparing institutional and individual perceptions.

The results show that academicians from both doctoral and nondoctoral institutions agree (70% and 80% respectively) that accounting history research is important to the profession. Academicians expressed similar supporting views on the question of history research as a valuable aid to teaching (55% and 59% of doctoral and nondoctoral institutions respectively); valuable to practitioners (67% and 75% of doctoral and nondoctoral institutions respectively), and valuable to accounting graduates (62% and 72% of doctoral and nondoctoral institutions respectively).

Once again, we examined the response difference among faculty ranks. There was support from all ranks on the importance of history research to the profession (77%), valuable aid to teaching (58%), effective functioning of practitioners (71%) and valuable for graduates (73%). The responses appear to support the view of the Accounting Education Change Commission [AECC, 1990] that “knowledge of historical and contemporary events affecting the profession is essential to effective teaching” [p. 310] and “history of the accounting profession

TABLE 6
Faculty’s Perception About the Value of History Research:
Comparison of Institutional and Individual Perceptions
(percentages)*

Institutional Perception Individual Perception
(by institution) (by rank) Total
Doc Non Total Head Full Asso. Asst.
toral doctoral
Is important to
the profession
Disagree 9 5 6 9 6 8 5 7
Agree 70 80 77 70 82 80 74 76
No opinion 21 15 17 21 12 12 21 17
Is a valuable aid
to teaching
Disagree 12 13 14 19 14 9 12 14
Agree 55 60 58 53 58 62 58 58
No opinion 33 27 28 28 28 29 30 28
Is valuable for
the effective
functioning of
the practitioners
Disagree 5 6 6 6 6 3 5 5
Agree 67 75 72 65 75 76 69 71
No opinion 28 19 22 29 19 21 26 24
Is valuable for
graduates to
appreciate the
body of knowl
edge
Disagree 10 5 7 10 0 8 9 6
Agree 62 72 68 61 78 72 66 71
No opinion 28 23 25 29 22 20 25 23

The responses were grouped as follows: Disagree (scales 1 and 2); Agree (scales 4 and 5); and No opinion (scales 3 and 9).
and accounting thought” [p. 311] are both essential to effective teaching.

In Table 7, we report the statistical analyses. We compared the responses on three dimensions: (1) responses of various ranks from all institutions; (2) responses of various ranks from doctoral institutions; and (3) responses of various ranks from nondoctoral institutions. Differences in these responses were not statistically significant. Academicians from all ranks were

Slocum and Sriram: Survey of Academic Interest in U.S.

TABLE 7 Value of History Research During Promotion,
Tenure and Hiring Individual Perception (by rank)

Differences in Perceptions Among Individuals and Institutions Chisq (pvalue)

Individuals from all Institutions By rank Individuals from Doctoral institutions By rank Individuals from Nondoctoral institutions By rank
Is important to the profession 2.91 (0.820) 3.98 (0.679) 3.24 (0.778)
Is valuable aid to teaching 11.18 (0.083) 8.83 (0.183) 6.94 (0.326)
Is valuable for the effective functioning of the practitioners 7.81 (0.252) 7.58 (0.270) 4.64 (0.59)
Is important to the profession 5.19 (0.519) 7.91 (0.245) 8.49 (0.204)

more emphatic about the value of history research for the effective functioning of practitioners and its value to graduates. The results, with greater consensus on the value of history research, was in contrast to the results reported in Table 4 on the usefulness of history research during promotion, tenure and hiring with significant differences among the respondents. We believe that these contrasting results are indicative of the academic environment in the U.S. where some research is considered mainstream by the institutions and where some publications are acceptable for promotion and tenure decisions. The environment compels the faculty to more actively engage in research that would secure promotion and tenure and encourages faculty to ignore other research that would be valuable for the longterm development of the profession, teaching, or its graduates.

Academic Perceptions about the Contribution and Methodological Rigor of Accounting History Research: We finally asked the academicians whether they considered that accounting history research and publications offered a significant contribution to the accounting literature and whether accounting history research was comparable in terms of its methodological rigor to contemporary accounting research. We expected responses to these two questions would complement earlier responses to questions on the usefulness of history research during promotion, tenure, and hiring and value of history research to the profession. We asked faculty to respond to the contribution and rigor of history research from the institutional and individual perspectives. The responses were obtained on a fivepoint Likert scale where, 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; and 5 = strongly agree; and 9 = unsure but were reclassified into three groups: (1) disagree (scales 1 and 2); agree (scales 4 and 5); and no opinion (scales 3 and 9). Table 8, provides descriptive data on the perceptions of the faculty about the contribution and rigor of history research comparing the institutional and individual perceptions.

TABLE 8

The Contribution and Rigor of Historical Research: Institutional and Individual Perceptions (percentages)*

Institutional Perception Individual Perception
(by institution) (by rank) Total
Doc Non Total Head Full Asso. Asst.
toral doctoral
Contributes to
accounting
literature
Disagree 13 8 10 5 5 6 5 5
Agree 60 77 72 76 84 67 68 78
No opinion 27 15 18 19 11 27 27 17
As rigorous as
other contempo
rary accounting
research
Disagree 41 27 32 28 28 23 23 26
Agree 15 35 28 28 34 32 32 33
No opinion 44 38 40 44 38 45 45 41

The responses were grouped as follows: Disagree (scales 1 and 2); Agree (scales 4 and 5); and No opinion (scales 3 and 9).
As the results in Table 8 indicate, there was strong support for the statement “history research contributes to accounting literature” from the institutional perspective (72%) and from the individual perspective (various ranks) (78%). However, when asked to respond whether history research is equal in

Slocum and Sriram: Survey of Academic Interest in U.S.

127

methodological rigor as other contemporary accounting research, there was very weak support from doctoral institutions (15%) and only limited support from nondoctoral institutions (34%). Similarly, on an individual basis, faculty from various ranks, showed only limited acceptance of the rigor of history research (ranging from 28% for heads of departments to a high of 34% for full professors).

We then compared the response differences relating to contribution and rigor on the following dimensions: (1) personal and institutional perceptions, regardless of whether a faculty is employed in a doctoral or a nondoctoral institution, (2) personal and institutional perceptions of faculty from doctoral institutions, (3) personal and institutional perceptions of faculty from nondoctoral institutions, (4) personal perceptions of faculty from doctoral institutions and nondoctoral institutions, and (5) institutional perceptions of faculty from doctoral and nondoctoral institutions. The results are reported in Table 9.

The chisquare results for the first three dimensions, comparing the perceptions of the individuals with their institutions,
TABLE 9

The Contribution and Rigor of Historical Research:

Statistical Analyses of Institutional and Individual Perceptions

Differences in Perceptions — Individuals and Institutions Chisq (pvalue)
Individuals vs. Institutions Individuals vs. Doctoral Institutions Individuals vs. Nondoctoral Institutions Individuals from Doctoral vs. Individuals from Nondoctoral Institutions Doctoral vs. Nondoctoral institutions
Contributes to accounting literature 194.73 (0.00) 88.76 (0.00) 105.48 (0.00) 16.62* (0.10) 0.59* (0.99)
As rigorous as other contemporary accounting research 284.15 (0.00) 80.07 (0.00) 203.82 (0.00) 4.06* (0.67) 3.56* (0.73)

* Not statistically significant at the 0.05 level

were significant at the 0.05 level. The results indicate significant differences between the individual perspective and the institutional perspective on both contribution and methodological rigor. However, when we analyzed the response differences between individuals from doctoral institutions and nondoctoral institutions and differences between doctoral and nondoctoral institutions, the results were not significant. That is, there was greater consensus between individuals and institutions on

(1) the contribution of history research to the accounting literature and
(2) history research does not have the same rigor as other contemporary accounting research.

The response of individuals from nondoctoral institutions that history research was not equal in rigor to contemporary empirical research was surprising. Earlier, individuals from nondoctoral institutions responded with greater support than their counterparts in doctoral institutions on the questions of usefulness and value of history research. The skepticism expressed by academicians of all ranks and from all institutions over methodological rigor should be noted by accounting researchers. We do not suggest that history researchers should resort to indiscriminate replication of current empirical methodology. However, where applicable, if history research could increase its methodological rigor, in the long run, it will enhance its acceptability to all institutions and its contribution to the accounting literature.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study surveyed the perceptions of U.S. accounting faculty to ascertain their interests in accounting history and accounting history research. Specifically, the study examined whether the emphasis placed by the AECC and others on the importance of historical content in the accounting curriculum and the greater opportunities in terms of resources and publication outlets available to publish accounting history research have resulted in

(1) more accounting courses with a history content in the U.S. business schools, and
(2) greater interest among U.S. academicians in accounting history research. Analyses of the survey responses indicate that neither of these has happened.

The number of courses with history content has declined in the U.S. business schools during the period 19851997. Although several accounting education committees have recommended that accounting education should include history of accounting in the accounting curriculum, we did not find evidence of such changes in academic institutions in the U.S. While individual academicians in the U.S. seemed to appreciate the importance of accounting history to the profession, practitioners and graduates and its contribution to accounting literature, their institutions were not responding by making appropriate changes to the accounting curriculum.

As for interest in accounting history research, academicians from doctoral institutions, more so than academicians from nondoctoral institutions, indicated that history research is less likely to be rewarded during hiring, tenure, or promotion than other empirical research. When asked to express their personal views on the importance of accounting history research, there was some support that accounting history research is useful and should be treated as equal to other empirical research. We interpret the greater recognition of the value of accounting history research and yet, reluctance of academicians to pursue accounting history research as indicative of a reward system for promotion, tenure, and hiring that prevails in the U.S. which emphasizes that some research is more mainstream than other types of research.

We also elicited the views of the academicians on the rigor and contribution of accounting history research. Unlike responses to questions on the usefulness and value of history research, there was greater consensus among doctoral and nondoctoral faculty that accounting history research is not equal to other empirical research in its methodological rigor. The overwhelming perception among U.S. academicians that history research lacks methodological rigor is a matter for concern. Regardless of whether the perception is correct or not, we believe that this is an important issue and should be discussed and dealt with by the academic community, the Academy of Accounting Historians, accounting history researchers, and the professional and academic institutions.

REFERENCES

American Accounting Association (AAA) (1986), Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Education (The Bedford Committee), “Future Accounting Education: Preparing for the Expanding Profession,” Issues in Accounting Education, Spring: 168195.
Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC) (1990), “AECC Urges Priority for Teaching in Higher Education,” Issues in Accounting Education, Fall: 330331.
Bazley, J. D., and L. A. Nikolai. (1975), “A Comparison of Published Accounting Research and Qualities of Accounting Faculty and Doctoral Programs,” The Accounting Review, July 1975: 605610.
Brown, L. D., and J. C. Gardner. (1985). “Using Citation Analysis to Assess the Impact of and Articles on Contemporary Accounting Research,” Journal of Accounting Research, Spring: 84108.
Campbell, D. K., J. Gaertner, and R. P. Vecchio. (1983), “Perceptions of Promotion and Tenure Criteria: A Survey of Accounting Educators,” Journal of Accounting Education, Spring: 8392.
Cargile, B. R., and B. Bublitz. (1986), “Factors Contributing to Published Research by Accounting Faculties,” The Accounting Review, January: 158178.
Coffman, E. N., R. H. Tondkar, and G. J. Previts. (1993), “Integrating Accounting History into Financial Accounting Courses,” Issues in Accounting Education, Spring: 1839.
Elliott, R. K. (1991) “Accounting Education and Research at the Crossroad,” Issues in Accounting Education, Spring: 18.
Ettredge, M., and WongonWing, B. (1991), “Publication Opportunities in Accounting Research Journals: 19701988, Issues in Accounting Education, Fall: 239247.
Holland, R. G., and Arrington, C.E. (1987), “Issues Influencing the Decisions of Accounting Faculty to Relocate,” Issues in Accounting Education, Spring: 5771.
Milne, R. A., and Vent, G.A. (1987), “Publication Productivity: A Comparison of Accounting Faculty Members Promoted in 1981 and 1984,” Issues in Accounting Education, Spring: 94102.
Mueller, G. G., and Simmons, J.K. (1989), “Change in Accounting Education,” Issues in Accounting Education, Fall: 247251.
Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the Accounting Profession (1989) (New York: Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main & Co., Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross).
Roush, M. L., and Smith, G.S. (1997), “Consultative Teaching: International Examples.” Issues in Accounting Education, Spring: 199213.
Schultz, Jr., J. J., Meade, J.A. and Khurana, I. (1989), “The Changing Roles of Teaching, Research, and Service in the Promotion and Tenure Decisions for Accounting Faculty, Issues in Accounting Education, Spring: 109119.
Schroeder, N. W., and Saftner, D.V. (1989), “Accounting Faculty Promotion and Quality Institutions,” Issues in Accounting Education, Fall: 252264.
Slocum, E. L., and Roberts, A.R. (1986), “Accounting History in the Academic Environment: Some Initial Findings of a Survey,” Collected Papers of the American Accounting Association’s Southeastern Regional Meeting, April: 250253.
Sunder, S. (1991), “Measuring Research Accomplishments,” Issues in Accounting Education, Spring: 134138.
Wallace, W. A. (1990), “One Educator’s View of How to Respond to the Challenges Faced by Higher Education in Business,” Issues in Accounting Education, Fall: 302308.
Williams, D. Z. (1991), “The Challenge of Change in Accounting Education,” Issues in Accounting Education, Spring: 126133.