Summary of Panel Discussion
Current Issues in Accounting and Auditing
Behavioral Research
One of the two opening panel
sessions at the conference was Current Issues in Accounting and
Auditing-Behavioral Research. The panel was moderated by Rich Houston (The
University of Alabama) and panel members were Joan Luft (Michigan State
University) and Todd DeZoort (The University of Alabama). Rich Houston opened
the session by addressing a variety of topics, including research opportunities
provided by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other related developments. He mentioned
that many open questions lend themselves to essays or survey methods. In
addition, because the Act makes so many changes, well-designed behavioral
experiments can be used to examine which changes affect various issues,
including user confidence in financial statements. Rich also talked about
nontraditional resources (e.g., business columns in the New York Times
and New Yorker magazine) as well as opportunities related to replicating
prior findings.
Panel on Current
Issues in Accounting and Auditing-Behavioral Research
Joan Luft's talk focused on
management control issues. In addition, she discussed how researchers could
take advantage of their intellectual capital (e.g., knowledge about judgment
and decision making, ethics, values) to address a variety of research issues.
Joan highlighted research opportunities related to decision makers' decisions
about what people learn from accounting reports as well as how these reports
are used for monitoring. Todd DeZoort and Joan, at this point, also discussed
the importance of examining the interaction between expertise and ethics,
perhaps considering the interaction of such important dimensions as integrity,
objectivity, knowledge, and ability. For example, it may be that, when
expertise is insufficient, decision makers will rely on ethics.
Joan also addressed several issues
related to performance measures, including mental models within which measures
are interpreted, and matters related to causation, tradeoffs, and judgments in
an environment in which there are multiple imperfect measures of the same
items. Joan also mentioned research possibilities involving leading indicators
of performance in reward systems and decision making. She also stated that
field studies can contribute much in the way of institutional knowledge,
because we as researchers often do not know enough about how businesses work
and how accounting information is used. Such knowledge could allow us, as
researchers, to design and conduct better experiments.
Todd DeZoort highlighted the need to
define what corporate governance is, highlighting the Institute of Internal
Auditors' definition of governance as a "four-legged table." He also
mentioned the need to understand changes in how corporate governance operates,
including internal auditors' roles and methods. Research also does not address
adequately how groups and teams function in corporate governance settings,
including issues such as negotiation and compromise. Todd also cited the need
to develop better measures of ethics and morals, highlighting the need to move
beyond the Defining Issues Test (DIT) as a measure for morals. He also
mentioned how technology (e.g., the Internet) can be used to obtain research
participants or perhaps make it easier for participants to participate in
experiments. He finished his talk by stating that certain theories require
additional testing in accounting settings (e.g., prospect theory, attribution
theory, pressure), and how behavioral theories can be used in archival
studies.
The open discussion focused on data
collection and research method issues, including data collection and how to
obtain participants. People also discussed the pros and cons of Internet or
email versus paper research materials, and various issues related to human
subjects committees. A question from an audience member led to a discussion of
field studies and their generalizability. People agreed that field studies can
provide interesting insights, but that researchers should be careful when
generalizing from field studies to larger populations.
|