Does academic management accounting lag practice? A cliometric study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The schism between accounting practice and the accounting academy has been a lament of accountants for many decades. This schism has two aspects – the schism between research and practice and the schism between education and practice. This article focuses on the later schism and uses a statistical approach to compare the dates of introduction of new management accounting concepts into accounting education and the professional body of knowledge over the period 1967 to 1997. The results indicate that, on average, accounting education lags practice and the length of the lag has increased since the early 1980s. The study contributes to the growing use of cliometrics (quantitative analysis) in accounting history, provides new empirical data on the accounting schism and offers insights for the profession and academy on the pattern of knowledge transfer. The use of new sources and a different research method offer additional insights on the established themes of “relevance lost” and the “accounting lag” in the management accounting and accounting history literatures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it