Space for accounting and accountability: realising potential management accounting research contributions to the space sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The contribution of accounting research to the space sector has arguably been less discernible, less visible and less appreciated than that made by STEM disciplines. This paper aims to ascertain the nature and extent to which management accounting can contribute to interdisciplinary advancements of the space sector. This is accomplished by investigating possible contributions realised by management accounting research to the space sector and identifying the opportunities and challenges facing interdisciplinary accounting researchers in making a contribution. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative empirical study draws on interviews with 25 academic researchers and practitioners from Australia, the USA, the UK, Canada, Europe, India and China, with research or practitioner experience on accounting issues germane to the space sector. The purpose is to seek their perceptions of how interdisciplinary management accounting research can solve contemporaneous problems in the space sector. Findings The potential contribution that management accounting research can make in the space sector is grounded in the inherent interdisciplinary of the discipline. The propensity to draw on other disciplines, theories, methodologies and methods is a strength of management accounting, as it is arguably by such interdisciplinarity that “wicked problems’ such as those presented by space exploration, policy and research can be solved. Originality/value This is one of the first papers to explore the role and contribution management accounting research can offer to what has traditionally been a STEM-dominated field. In so doing, it underscores the central importance and value-added by an interdisciplinary approach to management accounting research.
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 | 0.055 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".