Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Accountants need research?
Refreshing new approach to scientific research from a couple of journals in accounting.
Similar distinctions apply in other disciplines. Meteorologists make precise measurements of the weather without aiming for a result. Then Crimatologists come in and FIDDLE with the numbers to achieve their desired result of slaughtering the maximum number of Deplorables.
= = = = =
**Later: Took a quick look at some articles in JAR. They aren't really discussing theories. They're comparing the consequences of different styles and modes of reporting numerical results. Do corporations and governments behave differently depending on the methods and modes of the report?
Accountants aren’t known for taking risks. So a new experiment from Journal of Accounting Research stands out: an upcoming conference issue will include only papers that were accepted before the authors knew what their results would be. That’s very different from the traditional academic publication process, in which papers are published -- or not -- based largely on their results. The new approach, known as “registered reports,” has developed a following in the sciences in light of the so-called reproducibility crisis. But JAR is the first accounting journal to try it. At the same time, The Review of Financial Studies is breaking similar ground in business. “This is what good accountants do -- we make reports trusted and worthy of that trust,” said Robert Bloomfield, Nicholas H. Noyes Professor of Management at Cornell University and guest editor of JAR’s registered reports-based issuePretty good definition of scientific method. METROLOGY. Judge the work strictly on its methods and verifiability. This new standard will only help with research that isn't directly funded by a grant. When a researcher applies for a gov't or NGO grant, the result MUST be known in advance, and MUST agree with the goals of the gov't or NGO. Accepting a paper solely by its methods and design won't purify the motivation in that case. Must admit (1) that I didn't realize accountancy was an academic subject needing research. How can you have alternate theories** about moving numbers around? Must admit (2) that my own direct experience of CPAs doesn't match the ideal. When I was bookkeeper for a construction company in the '70s, my job was to follow precise and checkable methods to reach a set of sums and balances, without trying to achieve a specific result. METROLOGY. Every quarter the CPA came in and FIDDLED with my precise sums to achieve maximum tax evasion. He moved big arbitrary amounts from one column to another, without any attention to the meaning of the amounts.
Similar distinctions apply in other disciplines. Meteorologists make precise measurements of the weather without aiming for a result. Then Crimatologists come in and FIDDLE with the numbers to achieve their desired result of slaughtering the maximum number of Deplorables.
= = = = =
**Later: Took a quick look at some articles in JAR. They aren't really discussing theories. They're comparing the consequences of different styles and modes of reporting numerical results. Do corporations and governments behave differently depending on the methods and modes of the report?
Labels: Carbon Cult, Metrology
¶ 3:01 AM
