This study investigates the interrelations between accounting research and the IASB activity. Prior research shows a significant gap between academia, the standard setters and the accounting profession and underlines the failure of academic papers to contribute to accounting practice. Although we find some evidence of the intention of the IASB to fill the gap between accounting theory and practice, our analysis confirms the existence of a significant distance between financial accounting research and the IFRSs. The IASB ‘due process’ definitely influences the academic activity, but the accounting literature does not seem to represent a cornerstone for the IFRSs. Particularly, during the ‘due process’ steps that precede the P.I.R. phase, the IASB only quotes few papers. With the P.I.R. process, the number of research papers analysed by the IASB significantly increases, but it is not yet clear how this ex-post activity might really influence the IFRSs statements. Finally, we find that the traditional academic ranking systems are not a key factor driving the IASB selection of the articles to analyse during the P.I.R. process. This evidence sheds light on the risk of an unfruitful self-referentiality of the accounting academic literature and on the self-feeding nature of the academic world.
Keywords: Academic research, academic ranking systems, accounting practice, standard setting, post-implementation review
Michele Pizzo, Nicola Moscariello, Claudio Teodori, Monica Veneziani, Laura Rocca, Alberto Quagli, Elisa Roncagliolo, in "FINANCIAL REPORTING" 1/2016, pp. 77-94, DOI:10.3280/FR2016-001005