Undergraduate accounting students’ perception of a course in accounting research and theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to measure the response of undergraduate accounting students to a stand-alone course in accounting theory and research. The aim of the study was to gauge students’ perceptions of the usefulness of this course and to determine if exposure to this material would increase student interest in accounting research and in pursuing a career in academia. Design/methodology/approach Three cohorts of students enrolled in the course completed an in-class survey. The study was conducted from 2015 to 2017. Findings The results of the survey show that student interest in accounting research and theory increased substantially as a result of the course. Students felt that learning about accounting research and the theories used in accounting research enhanced their overall understanding of accounting and would be useful to them as accounting practitioners. This study also reports that students interested in pursuing a PhD and/or an academic career also increased. Research limitations/implications Data were only collected at a single university and represent student perceptions only. Practical implications The results of this study and the description of the course design will inform academics seeking to answer the American Accounting Association Pathways Commission’s call to integrate accounting research and education. This study also suggests a pathway towards addressing the chronic academic accounting faculty shortage. Finally, the results will be of interest to those designing undergraduate accounting curriculum. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature on the “teaching-research nexus” in accounting by providing evidence, from the perspective of undergraduate accounting students, of the usefulness of integrating research into undergraduate accounting education. While many accounting researchers view accounting research and teaching accounting as separate activities, the response from students suggests that there is value in fostering a more complementary relationship between these two activities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".