A narrative on integrating research and theory into undergraduate accounting curriculum
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
Purpose This paper aims to describe an effort to integrate accounting research and theory into an undergraduate accounting education program through the development and delivery of a fourth-year course. Informing ideas for the course design and content are discussed, and feedback from the students and instructor is provided. Design/methodology/approach This paper takes the form of a commentary and offers the authors’ opinion based on the experience of designing and teaching the course. An in-class survey was conducted in three separate offerings of the course. Findings Student response to the course and material was more positive than anticipated, indicating that undergraduate accounting students are receptive to learning about research and theory, even when it is not required for entrance into a professional certification program. Also, many students often went above and beyond the course requirements in the work they submitted. This indicates that there is an appetite for engaging with material that presents accounting as a social phenomenon rather than solely as a technical activity. Research limitations/implications While the data were collected over multiple years, the survey was conducted at a single university. These findings have implications for the design of undergraduate accounting education programs and, potentially, for addressing the gap between accounting research and practice. Originality/value This review contributes to the discourse on integrating research into undergraduate accounting education as recommended by the AAA Pathways Commission. It describes one method of doing so and identifies the literature that informed the approach taken. This paper also contributes to the accounting education literature by providing evidence of student reaction to a course that uses research and theory as a subject matter rather than a pedagogical tool. This evidence may also inform the teaching –research nexus discourse.
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 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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