Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lindquist and Smith
Lindquist and Smith
Volume TVenty-One
2009 • I • '
pp. 249-292 , I
INTRODUCTION
T
his marks the 20th year for the Journal of Management Accounting Research
{JMAR), which is published by the Management Accounting Section of the American
Accounting Association. At this juncture, it is important to examine the role JMAR
has played in the management accounting arena. Periodically evaluating the accomplish-
ments of a journal is an important contribution (Brown and Huefner 1994). Meyer and
Rigsby (2001) suggest that after a journal is established, an analysis of its content
and citations provides a useful basis for understanding the direction of the publication.
They propose that such an evaluation is critical in determining a journal's stature and its
contributions to tbe literature.
We examine the content, .source disciplines, research methods, and contributors to
JMAR during the 20-year period (1989 to 2008) and provide an analysis of its citations.
Additionally, we examine international contributions of JMAR's authors and editorial par-
ticipants. Finally, we compare this research to other management accounting reviews and
citation analyses.
The authors thank Charles Davis, Joan Luft, Claire Smith, and Matthew Kelderman for their research assistance
on this manuscript. We also thank the participants of the American Accounling Association Annual Meeting in
Anaheim, California for their helpful comments, along with meaningful assistance from two anonymous reviewers
and Rick Young (editor).
249
250 Undquist and Smith
Review (TAR). Brown et al. (1987) analyzed Accounting. Organizations and Society (AOS),
and Smith and Krogstad (1984, 2003) compiled the accomplishments of Auditing: A Journal
of Practice & Theory. Meyer and Rigsby completed a content and citation analysis of
Behavioral Research in Accounting (BRIA) in 2001 while Mensah et al. (2004) examined
the impact of management accounting research in four journals published between 1986
and 2000. Most recently, Hesford et al. (2007) compiled a bibliographic review of man-
agement accounting research from 1981 to 2000 across ten journals, which is published in
the Handbook of Management Accounting Research (Volume 1).
Analysis of a journal's citations is recognized as an objective measure of the journal's
impact and influence (Brown and Huefner 1994). The procedure of analyzing citations is
regarded as less susceptible to perceptual bias and confines itself to a sample of known,
active, and successful peer-reviewed articles (Brown and Gardner 1985; Doyle et ai. 1996).
Citation analyses, however, are not without their critics. Croom (1970) notes that citations
often can be framed negatively, suggesting such work is cited neither for its correctness
nor for its value to the literature. May (1967) additionally suggests that research chosen
for citation often is influenced by the "halo effect" where certain authors or articles are
chosen more often because they are more popular and well known by researchers.
other topics. Within control, the second decade witnessed the most significant change in
topics, from budgeting and organizational control to performance measurement and eval-
uation. The dominant research method in this period was that of conceptual frameworks.
Hesford et al. (2(K)7) note frameworks studies involve the development of new concepts
and perspectives. These frameworks studies provide fresh insight to existing management
accounting issues. Frameworks method studies were followed closely by analytical, survey,
and experimental methods in popularity. The period from 1991 to 2000 was characterized
by a decline in conceptual frameworks and experiments and an increase in archival, case,
and field research methods. Economics was the dominant source discipline theory in this
group of management accounting research (43 percent) followed by sociology (40 percent),
and psychology (15 percent). Theories based in psychology decreased in the second period
of analysis and shifted more toward economics and sociology.
METHOD
This paper categorizes the contents, source disciplines (theory), research methods, au-
thors, and editorial contributions involved in the first twenty years of JMAR. Hesford et
ai.'s (2007) taxonomy of management accounting is used to examine 186 main articles
published in JMAR from 1989 to 2008. Hesford et al.'s (2007) taxonomy is an adaptation
of that used by Shields (1997). Contributions with referenced citations are analyzed in this
research. Not included are panel presentations, tributes, and comments.
Because JMAR currently is not included in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI),
WC manually created the following six databases in order to conduct the content and citation
analysis.
(1) Article Information: Contains author(s), year of publication, title, author affiliation
at time of publication, topic classification, theory employed, subject type, and re-
search method. Additional cross-tabulations are also compiled of classification by
method and subject by method. If a study employs archival data, the database
records whether that data is public or private.
(2) Citations for Each Article: Contains author(s), year of publication, title, type of
publication (journal, book, book chapter, working paper, etc.), and journal/book
title, for a total of 13,403 citations.
(3) Additional Author Information: Contains current school of affiliation and doctoral
granting institution.'
(4) Editorial Contributions: Contains intemationai editors, associate editors, and edi-
torial board members as identified by their school affiliation at time of journal
publication.
(5) JMAR Articles Cited in Eight Prominent Non-Management Accounting Journals.
(6) A Database of the Number of Management Accounting Research Publications in
Eight Prominent Non-Management Accounting Journals.
The 2008 Hasselback Accounting Faculty Directory was used to determine current affiliation of authors. TTiree
authors were not listed in the directory nor could any information be found aboul them on the web.
r~ -!+ T* en fN ^
tN sq sq so 00
r^ ir! f^ rn —•
•^ tN (N
^ m m f^t •—'
Ia
1
(sj _ _
ON
OS
— oo oo oo
m rN —I —
WS
I
90
So CO oc oo oo oo
Os OsCT^Os Os
o o
— 00 — 00
•^ o Os m ZI t
(VJ fN) — • w
%
%
g^ ^ ^ ^ ^
»O Os ^- oo SD
oo Tf •^ -- p tN tN
tN -îT Ö O s en Os "C
rf (N r^i tN —
OS m oo
ofN Os m —
1 a
oo 00 00 00 00 oo
o\ o Os o
Os £ Os o Os o
— <N o — (N -H fN
I I 1
Os
I
Os
.H b I I
OS
oo
Oí
Os u OO Os S U Os Os
OO CTs
^1 Os
— fN
Os
oc
Os
^"g
•C
-i
tsO
!
I H: 2 -g
U
w w w .g
O O n
•s-s -o
tN a.
o (U
•§"3 =
ë 1 •c -c •c "c
ß PU £ F a. ß
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
254 Lindquist and Smith
(31
<N <N <N (S CM
00
O <n O o o — (N — 5: - g
next
c
so m
ued
m m
00
m m S
ö Ö oo S oo m 00 V~l
(M
1
o m o o O —' iN ^
32)
32)
32)
32)
32)
32)
rs
m m m en
VI m — m — en t ^ '^ 0
^ ^ ^
\D m 00 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Os — \C p- m r- 00 o O «n
f^ — rn oc ly^ W-) (S
1 o^ rn o^ —
(S
r-i
—
rs —
— en
a
o
CN IT) m —I « m — m r-
(S Im
pa
^
5155
m —
(N oo
5555555
m oo fs r- (N V^ vu 00 00 ^ lO
r~; — 00 (N
(N 00 iT) rn — — rn VI
<N 00 v¿ ^ — 00 00 — o^
r- —
t S (N I
m —
00 00
ON o
73 a\ o
I O
c^
C« O
u O
O
il ^ o 2— O
Ucc I i fa
si c 5
u ,O
eu E-
Í2 g ^ 1^
< CQ ^
| O^0O —
— — I "Ti
— o >i~i\v~i — — Or-JOr— —I
1 — Os m m en
"o
•a (N
1
(po
tal Peri
S 00 — o I "^
O
Cu
o
o.
'S >.
u
sto
Q — OrJI —
rce
•a -â
I VD
cd
C
(D
•a
o "¡5 S o
peril
to ê •S
o o -^ fc- CQ 2 £ 3 f
tL, Pi un O
U u < U tu
oß
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
256 Lindquist and Smith
a e
sc
o
^ ^ ^
o r- ON Ö Q ON o ON r- ON
r-
NO OO
so ON
00
00
Os OO
o —
O O
O O
OO ^o OO r- OO 00
— NÛ — m — 00 1
^ ^
^ ^^^ ^
^
t> 00
It r^ gS8o o 8 ON o t~- o
O OO
— o r- o
^ ^ ^ 0^ G^ 5^ ^ S^ ^ S^ ^ ^ ü^
_____ •^ \O O N ON O Ö ^ O 00 O O r*
**
'O
o ON (N 00 O O O ON VI OC O O P^ O
•o u O O O 00 —'
s w
tin
0.
B
1
114'
EU
îriod 1)
TABL
49%
54%
66%
89%
72%
77%
13%
00%
89%
89%
77%
13%
¡f: ^
POM
>n o
•^ 00 OO m '^ — «o — o —
m
O m
O r- g o o i n i n m o m o o
OintNt— (N>nr-inin
O 00 O r- —
t^ ïi^
&- S^ ^
I.V
QÏ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
<n Q O VI O Vi V) V¡ à a <n Vi
(N p tn
r- o <N <N r-i o o
^ »n tN O o o m —
I d r-^ - ^ O O — ^ O O O — o
N4 ^ ^^
«n o «n
r N
^
a.
5 2
CN p
Ö -^ Ö o o o o o o o
— d
I I o m O m o o o m
í i V¡ (N >nr^pr-;pu-ípr-;
rj — d r n d f N d r n
I O O
uu
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
258 ' Lindquist and Smith
Budgeting
Target setting
Participative budgeting
Budget-related dysfunctional behaviors
Capital budgeting relates to investment and resource allocation decisions as well
as opportunity, and relevant and sunk costs
International control investigates the impact of national culture
(2) COST ACCOUNTING
Cost allocation
Overhead
Joint Costs
Cost driver analysis
Activity-Based Costing (ABC)
Capacity costs
Other cost accounting topics
Cost variance
Cost information for decision-making
Cost practices
Emergence, development or decline of cost systems over time or in
specific places
Multiple cost
(3) OTHER MANAGERIAL
Accounting ¡nfonnation Systems {AIS)
Benchmarking
Just-In-Time (JIT)
Research methods
Strategic management looks at links between organizational strategy and manage-
ment control systems
Transfer pricing
Multiple other managerial
Table 1 illustrates that the most common topic in JMAR in the last 20 years was
Management Control with n = 98 out of 186 articles (52.68 percent). Figure 1 (Panel A)
shows that in the last two decades articles on Management Control increased from 40.57
percent in Period I to 68.75 percent in Period 2. Table I (Panel A) and Figure I (Panel B)
show that within Management Control, performance measurement, and evaluation included
the most articles (n = 42, 42.86 percent) increasing from 37.21 percent in Period I to
47.27 percent in Period 2. These control investigations include the study of various aspects
of performance measurement and incentive system design as well as consequences for
organizational behavior and performance. The area second most common within Manage-
ment Control was organization control (n = 24, 24.49 percent) which included all other
research in Management Control not otherwise classifiable into control-specific categories.
Organization control held relatively stable (25.58 percent in Period 1; 23.64 percent in
Period 2). Research on budgeting was also common within Management Control (n = 20,
20.41 percent) including target setting, participative budgeting, and budget-related dysfunc-
tional behaviors and increased between the two periods (16.28 percent in Period 1; 23.64
percent in Period 2). Last, Management Control research in JMAR focusing on capital
FIGURE 1
Control, Cast, and other Managerial Classifícations
Productivity between Decades (Period 1 versus Period 2) in JMAR
Panel Â: Classification by Period | .
Period 1
Period 2
Otlier Managerial
47.27
.a so
5 37.21
S -•<> Z-'-'í^S 23,64 23.64 1 Perbd 1
A
16,28 16.28
•*. 2Ü I Perfod 2
o
3.63 4.65
ä 10 1.82
Í: O
^ Pert' Meas. & Eval. C>gan. Ctrl Butigeling Capital Budgeting an.
Management Control
Panel C: Witbin Cost Accounting by Period
« 90
w 76.92
- 80 70.96
I™
93
S 50 I Perbd I
I Perbd 2
23.08
16.13
S 2(1 9.68
u
u 10 3.23 0.00
^ 0
SI Allocation OtherCust ¡ Cosí Practices Multiple Cost
Cost Accounting
I 30 25.00
< 2S
1 20 I Period 1
12.50 IPerßd2
9.37 8.33
3.13
O.W)
UlheI Managerial
260 • I Lindquist and Smith
budgeting decreased frotn 16.28 percent (Period !) to 3.63 percent (Period 2) while inter-
national controls remained low for both periods (4.65 percent in Period 1; 1.82 percent in
Period 2).
Cost Accounting and Other Managerial were tied for second most common (n = 44,
23.66 percent). Figure 1 (Panel A) shows that Cost Accounting articles decreased from
29.24 percent in Period 1 to 16.25 percent in Period 2. Other Managerial also decreased
from 30.19 percent in Period 1 to 15.00 percent in Period 2. Table 1 (Panel A) and Figure
1 (Panels C and D) present changes by period for Cost Accounting and Other Managerial
topics respectively.
Research Methods
Figure 2 (Panel A) and Table 2 report summary data pertaining to the research methods
used in JMAR between 1989 and 2008. In congruence with Hesford et al. (2007), we divide
research methods into nine types: Analytical, Archival, Case, Experimental, Field Studies,
Conceptual Frameworks, Review, Survey, and Other (including simulations). Analytical
methods involve mathematical analysis including formal proofs, while Archival methods
analyze data in existing databases. Case studies investigate management accounting issues
within a single organization. Experimental methods, usually grounded in a source discipline,
entail human subjects completing a laboratory task. Field Studies consists of the investi-
gation of management accounting issues in two or more organizations. The Conceptual
Frameworks research method involves the development of new conceptual frameworks. It
combines multiple perspectives and information sources such as empirical facts, theoretical
or practical observations and prior literature (often in other disciplines) supplemented with
the authors' own synthesis and perspective (Hesford et al 2007). Review articles provide
reviews and syntheses of a prior literature. While Surveys are sometimes used in experi-
mental research, we treat Surveys as involving the collection of questionnaires completed
EIGURE 2
Research Methods Employed in JMAR
Panel A: Research Methods
15.58
Research Method
Research Method
32)
32)
32)
32)
32)
CN CN (N
m r'i m
m O r^ m (N m—
- S
(N
m
m fn fo rn m
5 5 • * - ^ • ^ ^ • *
(Nt— — — — r - O r - )
1
r ^ í N ' í i n — mr-ON—• ^ oooomc^, minooooo
cNOONCinoNintNOON v^ vO r*^ CN ro ^ i " ^ ^ NO ^D
(NONONCION'OOOSON
r^ ^ c^ ^ in ^ CN ON in fN -H -H
CN — — -H
t^^-rnO^-^CNOfim
O5 5
's oooooooooooooooooo rnmmmmf*"immm
Os ON ^ ON Î ^ ON ON ON O S
•^(NmrJ — omoofN C i t - w ^ ^r2,ocN —
ON m O m o inoomooinooQO"!
fN Tt — Tt CN ñS NOr-Jf<lu*)vûfNOONrn
T)-fN>nfN<NOr^.00(N 'fi" ^ es i n ^ NO O r*^ rN
— (N CN — —
—• fN " fN
^O ^O ^D ^O ^ ^ ^D ^D ^D ^»O ^D \O NO ^O ^O ^O ^P NO ND
S oooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooo
o r- -^ r- — r- o
m fN — (M -H tN —.
cMOOinONmr^ooin
3
rsmr^mrsr-ococ cNmmNomomoofN
ininin^inrninrn f i ^ ^ —^ ^ r^^ 00 ON r^
^i r*^ * ^ ^O ^i" 1^1 i^i i/*i -^ t^ ^ ^ ^ — r*-! ^ ^
— - ^ CM —•
or--'^r^rNt~-ooNO iNOO>nOf^rooo>n
mtN — (N — fN — (N — -H — — — — CN —
"S
c
o
t2
o :A d-rr C > C j= 3
— (N o o — O I fN
m m m rn
o o ^ o —
ß vO f>
O
r^
(^
ON
^
o- oo
r-
00 o O r*^ r-
r- r~~
i n o o ——o — —
(1/55)
(12/55)
(15/55)
(4/55)
(0/55)
(3/55)
(3/55)
(6/55)
(11/55)
!
•3
o
S
ß m
00 fs tN o
^
in v-i
ON 00
tN
• ^
o o O
M —I
o o
[•-..
m
(N (N
Cd
r-1 >n o m \o
O O o o o o O o O
00 oo oo 00 00 00 00 00 oo
00 r^ tN tN —
Total •
^^
in
O fN O O o in "n
o o o (N
fN «o CN (/-) 00 \O
tN tN
* OO (N <N .n
• 3 — —
ß
J2
.i, 'C aj dj u.
ON
ON
across periods within research method. Figure 2 (Panel B) indicates the research method
with the greatest decrease in use during the second period was Conceptual Frameworks
{Period 1, 21.70 percent; Period 2, 5.00 percent). Another method showing a noteworthy
decrease includes Field Research (9.43 percent in Period 1; 2.50 percent in Period 2).
Subjects Used
In the past 20 years, JMAR has published a total of 56 articles employing human
subjects: 27 experimental and 29 surveys. Figure 3 (Panel A) illustrates the number, using
as subjects, nonaccountant professionals, accounting professionals, graduate students and
undergraduate students. It shows the most commonly used subjects in Experiments
were undergraduates (n = 18). Graduate students made up the second largest subject pop-
ulation for Experimental studies (n = 7). Surveys, on the other hand, were predominately
conducted with nonaccounting professionals including managers, supervisors and other non-
financial personnel (n = 15). Accounting professionals (n = 13) made up the second largest
subject population for surveys. Figure 3 (Panels B and C) shows the greatest increase in
the experimental use of subjects came from graduate students (13.33 percent in Period I;
41.67 percent in Period 2). Undergraduate students showed the greatest decrease in use
(73.33 percent in Period 1; 58.33 percent in Period 2). For Surveys, nonaccountant profes-
sional subject populations increased the most in JMAR (44.45 percent in Period 1; 63.63
percent in Period 2). Interestingly, use of accounting professionals decreased the most
(55.55 percent in Period I; 27.27 percent in Period 2). The use of graduate students also
increased for Surveys (0.00 percent in Period I; 9.10 percent in Period 2). The average
sample size for JMAR Experiments is n = 95.^ The average sample size of JMAR Surveys
is n = 255.3
- Sample size for experimenls published in JMAR range from 5 to 549 subjects with a median sample size of 75
subjects. The average sample size for Period 1 is n = 108 and for Period 2 it Is n = 80.
^ The average sample size for surveys in Period ! is n ^ 255 and for Period 2 it is n = 253.
FIGURE 3
Subject Types in JMAR Experiments and Surveys
Panel A: Subjects Types x Research Method (Experiments versus Surveys)
2U 18
Surveys
SubjcclType
I Eîqîeriments Period 1
I Experiments Period 2
Subject Type
Panel C: Subject Types for Surveys by Period
63.63
55.55
• Surveys Period 1
27.27
• Surveys Period 2
9.10
0.00 0.00
V
w
s
Students
-o
su
-o
c
Subject Type
TABLE 3
Authors with at Least Three Articles in JMAR (1989-2008)
articles in JMAR in the last 20 years. A total of 373 authors appeared in JMAR at least
once within the 186 articles analyzed from 1989 to 2008. Authors arc presented by total
authorship (ties are presented in alphabetical order). Tied for having the most publications
in JMAR arc Mike Shields and S. Mark Young, each with 7 articles. Ramji Balakrishnan
and Rajiv Banker tied with 5 articles each for the second most prolific authorships.
TABLE 4
Current School Affiliation of JMAR Authors
(minimum of four articles)
University topped this list with 19 authorships, followed closely by the University of Pitts-
burgh (n = 17), Harvard University and Stanford University (n = 14), and then Carnegie
Mellon University (n = 12).
Schools whose faculty (Table 4) and doctoral alumni (Table 5) published in JMAR
likely have a strong management accounting doctoral program as well as an accomplished
current managerial faculty. Institutions appearing in both tables include, in alphabetical
order, Arizona State University. Indiana University, Manchester University, Stanford Uni-
versity, The Ohio State University, University of Colorado, University of Florida, The
University of Iowa, University of Melbourne, University of Pittsburgh, The University of
Washington, University of Waterloo, University of Wisconsin, and Virginia Tech University.
TABLE 5
School of Doctoral Degree of JMAR Authors
(minimum of four articles)
Citation Analysis
As mentioned above, analysis of a joumal's citations is an objective measure of its
impact and influence on the literature (Brown and Huefner 1994; Smith and Krogstad 1984;
Krogstad and Smith 2003). This study compiles a citation database of major articles ap-
pearing in JMAR with the above-mentioned exclusions. A total of 13,401 citations were
included in the database.
Authors Cited by JMAR 20 or More Times
Table 6 presents a list of the authors who were cited 20 limes or more in JMAR between
1989 and 2008. A total of 74 authors are included on this list. Robert Kaplan was cited
most (n = 301), followed by S. Mark Young (n = 129), Robin Cooper (n - 125), Rajiv
Banker (n = 123), Mike Shields (n = 120), and Dave Larcker (n = 106). It is interesting
to note that a number of behavioral researchers appear on the list whose main research
focus is not management accounting. This suggests many articles in the last 20 years of
JMAR were multi-disciplinary and were supported by theories in psychology, sociology,
and/or economics.
TABLE 6
Authors Cited by JMAR 20 or More Times
Author
Kaplan. R. 301
Young, S. M. , • 129
Cooper, R. 125
Banker, R. 1^
Shields, M. 120
Larcker. D. 106
Ittner, C. 87
Merchant, K. 83
Brownel!, P. 78
Govindarajan, V. 71
Foster, G. 'm
Johnson, H. T. 68
Chow, C. 65
Demski, J. 65
Datar, S. . .
Baiman, S. 54
Gupta, M. $1
Anthony, R.
Norton, D.
iö
50
Milgrom, P.
Holmstrom. B.
m
46
Horngren. C. AS
Hopwood, A.
Simons, R. m
44
Balakrishnan, R. 43
Atkinson, A. '" 39
Potter, G. 39
Locke, E.
Waller, W.
n
Otiey, D. T.
m
37
Chenhall, R.
Evans, H. as
36
Murphy, K. 36
Feltham, G. ••^ é
Roberts, J, Ä5
Shank, J. .'j'
Lambert, R. 34
Zimmerman, J. 34
Hirst, M. 33
Covaleski, M.
Sivaramakrishnan. K. n
31
(continued on next page)
TABLE 6 (continued) ^-
Author . I
Fisher, J. . 30 -,
Selto, F. 30
Anderson. S. - ^^ i
Bimberg, J. ^ '"
Jensen, M. 29
Luft, J. 28
Noreen, E. 26 • ' "~
. Scapens, R. 26
Dirsmilh, M. 25
Gupta, A. 25
Hofstede, G. 25
Sunder, S. 2S
Abernethy. M. 24
Antle, R. 24
Latham, G. 24
Rajan, M. TA
Vollmann, T. 24 ^ •
Argyris. C. 23 -^
Srinivasan, D. 23
Bonner. S. 22 '
Campbell, D. 22 : '
Simon, H. 22
Anderson, E 21 '• ,
Bruns, W. 21
Innes, J. 21
Lukka, K. 21
,' . Sprinkle, G. 21
; , Gordon, L. 20
' Hambrick, D. 20 ,
Hamson, G. 20
'. - Hughes, J. 20 *
Porter. M. 20
Schroeder. R. 20
JMAR is Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting by H. Thomas
Johnson and Robert Kaplan (1987) (n = 28). Two books. Advanced Management Account-
ing by Anthony Atkinson and Robert Kaplan and Case Study Research: Design and Meth-
ods by Robert Yin, tie for the second most cited book in JMAR (n = 15).
I
CO
B a:
Oí) ,
^^ o
t.. -' Q
^!*
_' ca c on "S
2 .s 2
upt
C U ;; —
O "o a. > p. s ai a
& O X CÛ
S.
«- .2
"1 " *
es 00 oo
oo
Os
o
a^ r Ov CO Ov 00 r-
O\
oo
Ov
^ Ov ON
lis ov ov
•^ a
il 60
a;
I -c
I
[A
a: a: -S O
eu OQ w
c c S u
• c •—
3 c JJ XI
u o
-o
o
i< 3
Où ii
C Ofl
•u g
Wî 3
ra
S E2 S
m r-i —
il
zu
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
Content and Citation Analysis of the First 20 Years 273
'S
ex
o S Cíí a:
ri I-; ..a . bit w
3 îi
.o £
W-1 — —
ON o ON ON oo £C? oo oo
00
ON 5 ON ON
u 'S fNl — —
"a c
3 5l
CQ OS
S
a
1 6
o
s s Z •o
X!
u u
"í •o
•c Pä g § 1
td C •c
E, •a
c U 1
X
3
O o
c
o u P u
(D O I CQ
¿>
•o
rt
i •a
•c u
i I
u u « 5:
a
"H.
B UÛ
•o -g
111 Ü
OU
u .i .2 '*- rt Û- •o I 3^
I
o u. 00 tí 2 'Ô
u ri
2 25™ CÛ
•a
U
o <
U
c
o
aj o. a
Íí c -S,
"S •§ I •S5
c:
O
S O c o U — CL, C C =«
^ _o -3 C rt
c BÛ 3
(A ri O -3
1(3 1
rt ^ n -í «Î Sí? S3
C
u CQ •5;
g f>—
i ' ij-
(D Ert C
COEr " rtu
C ^ 3 O
E5< U U S S
< oa u
^ — o
e a:
Q
^1
QÍ
'S h o o
o c "S
o '> a.
es S
CÜ
.2 o o
X
I
CQ
.s:
s
o '.S (N 00 00 j
r-
o-
ON
00 ON s; 00
ON
00 r-
ON
00
ON
ON
ON
s:
I
C
-C
•a
cl u
o o 'ë •g
the
•a u O '5. CL
(/)
CQ
•S 3
O
UJ
I CQ
&0
3 Si DO
c ^ E •a
c
o
3
3 o M
o CA
CQ S
ta
M O
u
'S
U
ä "o
.S U (J
00
•a ¿ri 2 0)
u
_ o
.e-xj
111 •f| s| c
•a
c
O
m
ou 4>
Ü
jj¿ yi
13 C
u •a
ou
S ^ > c u c -Tí C •=
c
rfoi
Q, in
CQ §§ U 3 «
os o 3
(U
- jc (J < U CQ
o O
2 C H ÊS < U
Ov Ov ON ON ON oo 00 00 OC
II
zu
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
Content and Citation Analysis of the First 20 Years 275
d
ai..u x3
SE
•a
i
Gos
~— ysQ-ö er!
ta S> <_] i¿ c^ tO¿
r- r- VI %D
O\ ON 00 Ç\ OO ON 00
Os o^ Os O\ Os
g s: ^
S ^
u
I
o
u -S E
•â
•a
tu I
Q
U g OJJ o
s <! ÎO 13
*j U «
OU J=
E C Î;
S H
¿H 0«
c
ii^i
•S M ^ 3:"
« C Cl- 2 S -,
Où u
3 -c
CL
c E
E5 H
o
II
1.1
Z
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
276 Undquist and Smith
S*
I
o c c
o o
c c
.ü; LÍ aj <L> -*-'
N UU
en 00
00 OO
ON ON
"2 .S
8 s
os
S
^
G
'a
gs
Q - 1
tu
O
U
o -£2
y c
a.
S
D.
a
<
!>¿
UJ
^1^ ai o
m M-l
m r- Ov 00 OV Ov ON o Ov
00 Ol Ov ov ON Ov Ov Ov
ov ON
0 0 22
II
0»
1
pil ^ oi
c
EQ _o
(0 '.3
c S3
g
ntu;
îctu
ofit
u os
S ai 00
•a
"cd •c 3
C
O DU
o
o ^ 'S 2 "§
™ Ul
'S o Ü
1
o
rvi
u îi, u
u o
O
T3
C
aj
u c -a 11 U
;£
M
"o
c o
M
P y Iû.
S U
tis
§ § c
u eu on O ^ Í3 o
c u -a
ca u
rpor;
stotr
dget
• ~ — . " ^
3 3
CQ o U Z O
U
ZU
I.
ci ce
I a: •
u
o' Q
(U
§1 ah 'Ö0
5b'—'
u
ill rt (0 u &i
arc
tne
inu
CO
CQ CQ CQ
o
Qd; a
oa 00 ^ ON O r~- OO rO
¡5 ON oo m
ON ON Ç^ OO O ON ON 00
ON ON ON ON O\ ON O Os ON CT- Sï
—. « (^ — _ _-
g» ^ ^
s '%
I s
^
a.
u 0
>• o
3
I I u
ô
u T3
CQ
o
P
u I
O
•o
u O
s _ u
P£ Q rt
u 1 u U
3
5 55 o
I I •s •s Cû ^ J
o
1 •f ^ "g; U
o I
•o
rt trQ riÑ 'a^ 3^
ai 00
T3
.„ -3 c p
H
o
o
u T3
00
B
•C
a
I CQ
c "O • - bù
u
00
o 2 o
CO
u rt >^ 5 .2 n £ 0 n E
U.3 -a CO S u
se ^ . 2 ^I
— O
3 3
rt iî5 I Ü ä ^ ri
Srt
S-5 DO.y
a. o 3
< « U
eu ^ 1
>ë 'a D.
t c u OJ f— u
o C- cG XI
H
vO -o "O
ZU
oa
o
«il
a. u.
• D—aj .2< é
< o I-* 1 ë.g I I ¡vi-s^ s§ i l i Ö'B'-S°= i;ix: £
1 CQÜ 2 Ü CQ¿
ON CN
^r fS
00
ON
ON
ON
ON 00 oo ON
ON
ON ^o
00
ON ON
Os ON
ON
O\ Ov ON ON
s
•s o ^
ig i
Sí 5
1 03
U
o •5b
sa
c
aË C/5 ë
CQ 3 .2 13
O
a. •S
3
a. O
c E U O"
00 o a: W 13
U -3 00 §
bO
•O
3
a. o
I e c
o i2 a
> s 00 a
O
.s e s . 2
CQ
^-1
O
-J u
<u
tu [J
1
CQ
c .>:
O
CQ •3 o c¿
o aj _j
•a
M
00
•c
•S I
00 P
B B £ S a o
'Ë
KJ
ç B
X u
CQ U> .|
ao .2
5 .Ë
m < B 3
"2 tM
3 o Sí OÛ Ë
Ë B
ttj ox) u ÎJ ' u ^
is § 3 U 00 k. oo ap rtt f-s
u- u w CQ OD' c •a 3 ^ 3 3 c4 UJ
< < < 3 pa CQ CQ u u
CQ
«- .2
00 m li-i ^
ON Os CTs Os oo tw oo 00 Ov oo
Os ON ON s; 8ï ON OS ON Os O> Os
a; 8
'S
9
O G 2
•a Q
c s
o
•a
u
u
CQ
g Q
's <
13 C 'S
3 U
CÛ E
U
ma
c
C
oa. •a
Oí 3
13 E oil
ta ai
_4J B c5
• > »
•§§
n .5 O -^
a tu '•?? c
U
CL I uÎ 13
n a
o .S"
rsh
0)
•r: X
2 u o
c:
T3
ra 0
tu
ë
X -J
tel
S
zu
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
Content and Citation Analysis of the First 20 Years 281
o CO
Id
•C È >. aJ :=! Ë
~ eu 2 - -Ë
J3 .ïï r- aJ .- — ^ -s
mi UÛ eau cû Q
u ^
«-.2
ONO m o o o f M o o r i
ON ooos CTvoooor— o o o
ONON O N O S O N O N O N O
*—1 f—1 ï^H ^iH i-H i-H ^.H Ç^
^ 9
eu
05 0=
S
•a
9
I
td
CQ
00
c
•a
o
U
u ¿J a
•T3
c
o o .
u u^
.M >^ s
U
1.^
zu
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
282 Lindquist and Smith
.s
CÛ
<u ^ o
y i o' (3 o -=:
mua:: Z UÛ
o 00
ON
s;
13
s c
CA
"M ¡r"
-£3 ^
ion
tie
£
H N
•Si •a
•y .E 3 ::-2
£?
O
.S
¿2
tin
o
lg c ir.
's "^
I o ëîj ZU
1.^
ZU
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
Content and Citation Analysis of the First 20 Years ' . 283
TABLE 8
Journals Cited Most Often by JMAR
1989-2008
A citation analysi.s of leading psychology journals including Psych Bulletin and Journal of Applied Psychology
found no references to JMAJi articles.
CE:
1
•a
o
et tí o
z
< ^
c
'is
a ll .^
Cl- c
aj
ap
U slû< U N m u
o
CL,
H
t
o
S
o
T3
'S, 00
o
o
ca Ul
B<£
2 "S
a iD
cO 3
— .Ü o-
? sc
B pu u
00 1/1 ap
3 y «
»
O
E i' a o.
ONONONONOOOO 0000
zu
Í u
00
(/J •H
u
u Û
S'T. Iu t/3
N 00 •o .
O CQ I
CO
X -J CO
o;
:
ci
k, 1
tski
ren
Ë ^^ a s« 9 Ü c
o
¡- G S O
Pa .Í2 ttJ
(J Q x: l n
O
<Ü<5
.3
Û
«-.2
o s ^ o o t a. 0 0 m r- ^ Q ^
so oo ON ON in ON 00
OS ON ON ON — Os OS ^
S= 3 x: 3 OSONOS 3 ON
Ov
Os
ON
"C
ON
-*" 9
fi.
aa
VD ^ <n>nin »o in "nin
1.^
ZU
Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2009
286 Lindquist and Smith
TABLE 10
JMAR Articles Cited by Eight oiher Non-Management Accounting Journals"
1989-2008
TAR. It is important to note that in recent years JMAR articles have been cited in leading
management journals such as Decision Sciences and the Academy of Management Journal.
The 2008 edition of the Journal of Accounting Uterature {JAL) had not published at the time of this research
study.
II
- U^ -
es
C
3
O
oou-imov —
OC
.9
c
o
u
03
oor~-r— Ov — o i r - f N O o o r - — (N —
B
G
C 5
O
Z
0«
( N < N t N ( N — • m m — —
«
— v o o O f N O r s t N — u-jcNr-ior— —
1—1 • -
CÛ o
<3
to
in ov
on
B
e
si
0£
e
sS
— O —
2I
O O — O O — — O — O O O
II
•0 3
c —
3-5:
Ovo — CNcoTTinvor-ooov
OCOvO^O^Ov^2'^^S'Ov
Os Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov ON OV
MuIti-Cultural Impact
International Authorship
Implications of differences in national culture on the effectiveness of management ac-
counting procedures and controls is recognized in academic accounting research (Chow et
al. 2001; Salter and Sharp 2001; Williams and Seaman 2001; Brody et al. 2006; Wong-on-
Wing and Lui 2007; Noravesh et al. 2007). The literature finds that what works effectively
in one country as a management control may not work effectively in another. JMAR is a
U.S.-based publication but its audience is international. Thus, contributions of its authors
and editors are amplified when more culturally diverse paradigms and perspectives are
employed. The input of varied cultural perspectives allows a journal to present new tech-
niques and conceptual frameworks of thought.
Table 12 presents the international authorships in JMAR by national region: Canada
(CA), European Union (EU), Asia (A), Africa (AF), Australia/New Zealand (A/NZ), and
Israel (IS). As mentioned earlier, total authorships counted the number of times an individ-
ual author published in JMAR (including co-authorships). Table 12 shows the greatest num-
ber of international authorships came from the European Union, whether based on current
affiliation (n = 41) or doctoral granting institution (n = 41). There appears to be no clear
trend regarding international authorships, although Period 2 had more international involve-
ment than Period 1. There were spikes in international authorship, notably 1998 (44.40
percent) and more recently 2006 (62.50 percent), and 2008 (40.00 percent).
Finally, an analysis of the article content of international authors found no substantive
difference from the content of total JMAR authors. Research on Management Controls
seemed to represent a majority of international journal articles, with an equal distribution
of the remainder between Cost Accounting and Other Managerial.
^ j o o o o o o o o o o o o o o —
— O O O O O O O ^ C N - r r — C N O C N O r s l O O TT I ON
1 O O O O O O O C — O O O — O O O O O O O I r J
z • < | O O m O O O O O O O O O O O O
— CNt^cNvicN • ^ I —'
O O m O O — O — O O C N O O O O O - H i r i | " < t
M ^ QO
- «5 O
tú M n
CQ £ s
•n o
ON ON
m O
oo O
in
ON
O $î
ON \C
m r-n in r- o r-
CN
•*
m o mrs
O ON
o n tN tN
m
¿ e^ m
— • *
H o^
5 CN (N —'
s
s ° — O O O O C O O O O O O O I - *
p .2
E I N
— O O m i r -
1 -
o
'S s:
O O O O O O O O ^ O O O O O O O O O O O I —
e «
— O - ^ O O O O O — O — C J O O O — O O O —
P rN O —
tú
O N Q — cNm-rfw-ivor-ooON
OOONONONONOVONONONONON
O O O O O O O O O O O
TABLE 13
International Composition of the Editorial Contributions to JMAR by National Region
1989-2008
social science theories often are implemented in management accounting research, namely
Psychology and Sociology. This concurs with Mensah et al.'s (2004) conclusion that eco-
nomics need not be the dominant underlying source discipline for all management account-
ing research. Hesford et al. (2007) also investigated the impact management accounting
research had on non-management accounting journals. They found tJiat among journals that
were not devoted primarily to management accounting. AOS published the most manage-
ment accounting research. This study finds the same to be true. Finally, Mensah et al.
(2004) found a decrease in the rate of citations of management accounting research in
accounting and nonaccounting disciplines. This study found, however, an increase in the
percent of citations in non-management accounting journals, of articles published in JMAR.
Shields (1997) predicted that future management accounting research might come from
various sources. He felt management accounting research might continue along a traditional
route and extend previous work. We found this to be true for research published in JMAR
in the 12 years since his study. As mentioned, much research has focused on management
controls, especially involving principal-agent approaches to performance measurement. He
also thought new theories and research might unfold in management accounting research.
However, we did not find that to be the case for the majority of work published in JMAR.
Economic theory continued to dominate published research and the use of Psychology
theories decreased in the last ten years. Especially discouraging was the growth of unsup-
ported research not grounded in any source discipline. Shields (1997) also believed issues
REFERENCES
Bailas, A., and V. Theoharakis. 2003. Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal per-
ceptions. Contemporary Accountinfi Research 20: 619-644.
Brinn, M.. and M. Pendlebury. 1996. U.K. accountanls' perceptions of research joumal quality.
Accounting and Busitiess Research 26: 265-278.
Brody, R., L. Suming, and S. Sailer. 2(K)6. Merit pay, responsibilily, and national values: A U.S.-
Taiwan comparison. Journal of International Accounting Research 5: 63-79.
Brown, L.. and J. Gardner. 1985. Applying citation analysis to evaluate the research contributions of
accounting faculty and doctoral programs. Accounting Review 60: 262-278.
, , and M. Vasarhelyi. 1987. An analysis of the research conUibutions of accounting,
organizations and society, 1976-1984. Accounting. Organizations and Society 12 (2): 193-204.
and R. Huefner. 1994. The familiarity with and perceived quality of accounting journals:
Views of senior accounting faculty in leading U.S. MBA programs. Contemporary Accounting
Research: 223-250.
Chow, C , T. Lindquist, and A. Wu. 2001. National culture and the implementation of high stretch
performance standards: An exploratory study. Behavioral Research in Accounting 13: 85-96.
Crooni. D. 1970. Dangers in the use of the science citation index. Nature (London) 227: 1173.
Doyle, J., A. Arthurs, L. Mcaulay. and P, Osborne. 1996. Citation as effortful voting: A reply to Jones,
Brinn, and Pendlebury. Omega 24: 603-606.
Dyckman, T., and S. Zeff. 1984. Two decades of the Journal of Accounting Research. Journal of
Accounting Research 22: 225-297.
Foster, G., and M. Gupta. 1990. Manufacturing overhead cost driver analysis. Joumal of Accounting
and Economics 12: 309-337.
Heck. J., and W. Bremser. 1986. Six decades of The Accounting Review: A summary of authors and
institutional contributors. The Accounting Review 61: 735-743.
Hesford, J., S. Lee, W. Van der Stede, and S. M. Young. 2007. In Handbook of Management
Accounting Reseanh. edited by C. Chapman, A. Hopwood, and M. Shields, Chap. 1, pp. 3 -
26. Burlington. MA: Elsevier Publishing
Johnson, H., and R. Kaplan. 1987. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Krogstad, J., and G. Smith. 2003. Assessing the influence of "Auditing: A journal of practice &
theory: 1985-2000." Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory: 195-204.
Lowe, V., and J. Locke. 2005. Perceptions of joumal quality and research paradigm: Results of a
web-based survey of British accounting academics. Accounting, Organizations and Society 30:
81-98.
May, K. 1967. Abuses of citation indexing. Science: 890.
Mensah, Y., N. Hwang, and D. Wu. 2004. Does managerial accounting research contribute to related
disciplines? An examination using citation analysis. Journal of Management Accounting Re-
search 16: 163-82.
Meyer, M., and J. Rigsby. 2001. A descriptive analysis of the content and contributors of behavioral
research in accounting 1989-1998. Behavioral Research in Accounting !3: 253-278.
Noravesh, I., Z. Dilami, and M. Bazaz. 2007. The impact of culture on accounting: Does Gray's
model apply to Iran? Review of Accounting and Finance 6: 254-272.
Salter, S., and D. Sharp. 2001. Agency effects and escalation of commitment: Do small national
culture differences matter? The International Journal of Accounting 36: 3 3 ^ 5 .
Shields, M. 1997. Research in management accounting by North Americans in the 1990s. Journal of
Management Accounting Research 9; 3-61.
Smith, G., and J. Krogstad. 1984. Impact of sources and authors on Auditing: A Journal of Practice
& Theory^A citation analysis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 4: 107-117.
Williams, J., and A. Seaman. 2001. Predicting change in management accounting systems: National
culture and industry effects. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26: 443-460.
Wong-on-Wing, B., and G. Lui. 2007. Culture, implicit theories, and the attribution of morality.
Behavioral Research in Accounting 19: 231-246.