Exploiting comparative advantage: A paradigm for value added research in accounting information systems

Following the lead of recent papers by Demski [Demski J. Is Accounting an Academic Discipline? Account Horiz 2007;21(2): 153–157], Fellingham [Fellingham J. Is Accounting an Academic Discipline? Account Horiz 2007;21(2): 159–163] and Hopwood [Hopwood A. Whither Accounting Research? Account Rev 2007;82(5): 1365–1374] which questioned the direction and value added of non-AIS accounting research, we discuss the state of research in Accounting Information Systems. AIS researchers face a significant hurdle in undertaking value added research given that the financial and human resources that industry devotes to research and development of AIS technology dwarf the capabilities of academic researchers. In these circumstances, we put forward a paradigm for AIS research based on the principle of comparative advantage, which is the powerful economic force that ensures that trade can take place even between parties where one has an absolute superiority over the other. It is our contention that if AIS academics are to succeed in creating value added research then they have to identify what they can do that the AIS industry, despite all its financial and human resource advantages, cannot or will not do. And what economic theory indicates is that such opportunities to add value always exist — if only academics are willing to seek them out. We illustrate our paradigm by analyzing three potential sources of comparative advantage for AIS researchers and discussing illustrative examples of research in each of these areas.

[1]  Joel S. Demski,et al.  Is Accounting an Academic Discipline , 2007 .

[2]  F. Black,et al.  The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities , 1973, Journal of Political Economy.

[3]  Steve G. Sutton,et al.  The changing face of accounting in an information technology dominated world , 2000, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[4]  James V. Hansen,et al.  Inducing rules for expert system development: an example using default and bankruptcy data , 1988 .

[5]  Miklos A. Vasarhelyi,et al.  Feasibility and Economics of Continuous Assurance , 2002 .

[6]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Evidence , 2020, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence.

[7]  A. Hopwood,et al.  Whither Accounting Research , 2007 .

[8]  Miklos A. Vasarhelyi,et al.  Continuous monitoring of business process controls: A pilot implementation of a continuous auditing system at Siemens , 2006, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Steve G. Sutton Editors comments: Rediscovering our IS roots , 2004, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  Belief-Function Formulas for Audit Risk , 2008, Classic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions.

[11]  Edward I. Altman,et al.  FINANCIAL RATIOS, DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS AND THE PREDICTION OF CORPORATE BANKRUPTCY , 1968 .

[12]  Ramesh Sharda,et al.  Bankruptcy prediction using neural networks , 1994, Decis. Support Syst..

[13]  Steve G. Sutton,et al.  The role of AIS research in guiding practice , 2005, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Miklos A. Vasarhelyi,et al.  Reengineering Business Reporting Creating a Test Bed for Technology Driven Reporting , 2008 .

[15]  Rajendra P. Srivastava Belief Functions and Audit Decisions , 2006 .