Interdisciplinary research by accounting scholars: An exploratory study

IF 2.3 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Francesco Giovanni Avallone, Alberto Quagli, P. Ramassa
{"title":"Interdisciplinary research by accounting scholars: An exploratory study","authors":"Francesco Giovanni Avallone, Alberto Quagli, P. Ramassa","doi":"10.3280/fr2022-002001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a growing consensus around the pivotal role of interdisciplinary research (hereafter IDR) in achieving innovative results and addressing the challenges of modern societies, whose solutions are often beyond the scope of a single discipline. This paper builds on this literature to explore the trends in IDR and its evaluation in research quality assessments in the context of accounting studies by Italian scholars, even in comparison with disciplinary research. This exploratory study covers a da- taset of all articles published by Italian accounting scholars in international journals indexed in Scopus from 1985 to 2015 (1,233 articles). We operationalise IDR as diversity in the subject area of journals where the articles are published and diversity in the disciplinary sector of coauthors. Thus, the novelty of this article is that instead of using a single indicator of IDR, we consider the interaction of two alternative perspectives of analysis. The main findings reveal a relevant increase in disciplinary and interdisciplinary articles, with a comparatively smaller increase for IDR. Additionally, we observe that IDR by Italian accounting scholars is strongly oriented towards medical publi- cations. Regarding quality evaluation, the findings show a significantly higher eval- uation of disciplinary studies compared to IDR according to the criteria followed by the national assessment exercise (VQR). This explorative study contributes to the debate on IDR in two different ways. On the one hand, our study shows a relatively low growth of IDR in the under-re- searched context of social sciences in a non-Anglo-Saxon setting, where national research evaluations have stimulated radical changes in the features and outlets of scientific production. On the other hand, our results are consistent with the view that papers with a clear disciplinary focus receive comparatively higher evaluations be- cause the standards established for assessment are usually defined within the disci- pline.","PeriodicalId":42044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Reporting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Reporting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3280/fr2022-002001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a growing consensus around the pivotal role of interdisciplinary research (hereafter IDR) in achieving innovative results and addressing the challenges of modern societies, whose solutions are often beyond the scope of a single discipline. This paper builds on this literature to explore the trends in IDR and its evaluation in research quality assessments in the context of accounting studies by Italian scholars, even in comparison with disciplinary research. This exploratory study covers a da- taset of all articles published by Italian accounting scholars in international journals indexed in Scopus from 1985 to 2015 (1,233 articles). We operationalise IDR as diversity in the subject area of journals where the articles are published and diversity in the disciplinary sector of coauthors. Thus, the novelty of this article is that instead of using a single indicator of IDR, we consider the interaction of two alternative perspectives of analysis. The main findings reveal a relevant increase in disciplinary and interdisciplinary articles, with a comparatively smaller increase for IDR. Additionally, we observe that IDR by Italian accounting scholars is strongly oriented towards medical publi- cations. Regarding quality evaluation, the findings show a significantly higher eval- uation of disciplinary studies compared to IDR according to the criteria followed by the national assessment exercise (VQR). This explorative study contributes to the debate on IDR in two different ways. On the one hand, our study shows a relatively low growth of IDR in the under-re- searched context of social sciences in a non-Anglo-Saxon setting, where national research evaluations have stimulated radical changes in the features and outlets of scientific production. On the other hand, our results are consistent with the view that papers with a clear disciplinary focus receive comparatively higher evaluations be- cause the standards established for assessment are usually defined within the disci- pline.
会计学者跨学科研究:一项探索性研究
关于跨学科研究(以下简称IDR)在取得创新成果和应对现代社会挑战方面的关键作用,越来越多的人达成共识,这些挑战的解决方案往往超出了单一学科的范围。本文在此文献的基础上,探讨了意大利学者在会计研究背景下IDR的趋势及其在研究质量评估中的评价,甚至与学科研究进行了比较。本探索性研究涵盖了1985年至2015年意大利会计学者在Scopus索引的国际期刊上发表的所有文章(1,233篇文章)。我们将IDR作为文章发表的期刊学科领域的多样性和共同作者学科领域的多样性来运作。因此,本文的新颖之处在于,我们没有使用IDR的单一指标,而是考虑了两种不同分析视角的相互作用。主要发现显示学科和跨学科文章的相关增加,而IDR的增长相对较小。此外,我们观察到意大利会计学者的IDR强烈倾向于医学出版物。在质量评价方面,研究结果表明,根据国家评估工作(VQR)所遵循的标准,学科研究的评价明显高于IDR。这项探索性研究在两个不同的方面为IDR的辩论做出了贡献。一方面,我们的研究表明,在非盎格鲁-撒克逊背景下,在重新研究的社会科学背景下,IDR的增长相对较低,在那里,国家研究评估刺激了科学生产的特征和出口的根本变化。另一方面,我们的结果与这样一种观点是一致的,即具有明确学科重点的论文得到了相对较高的评价,因为所建立的评估标准通常是在该学科范围内确定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Financial Reporting
Journal of Financial Reporting BUSINESS, FINANCE-
自引率
6.70%
发文量
19
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信