Antecedents of the international association for accounting education and research (1966–1983): A review of early initiatives to develop an international academic accounting association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interest in this topic followed examination of new data discussing several antecedent proposals for establishing an international academic accounting association in the period 1966–1983, culminating in the 1984 formation of the International Association for Accounting Education and Research (IAAER). Relevant correspondence between several academics is now publicly available in the R.J. Chambers Archive at the University of Sydney. This enables justified statements to be made about the pre‐1984 antecedents of the IAAER, thereby filling a vacuum in our understanding of the history of the organization. We initially discuss Ray Chambers’ and others’ desire for, and attempts to promote an international approach to accounting research and practice. Chambers unsuccessfully attempted to organize an international think‐tank, beginning in the mid‐1960s with something like the International Economic Association of that time. He persisted, through participation in the Accounting Researchers International Association, an elite accounting society. Eventually, those proposals were discarded as he and others like Adolf Enthoven and David Solomons proposed an international confederation of accounting educators and researchers in 1977 and 1978. Efforts of other leading accounting academics of that time, in particular Norlin Rueschhoff and Seigo Nakajima, are also shown to have influenced the eventual formation of the simplified 1984 IAAER body with, initially, its individual‐based membership and objectives. Later, IAAER would become much more like the international confederation of accounting educators and researchers that Chambers had proposed in the 1997 Berlin International Conference on Accounting Education.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".