Discuss about the Defense of Positive Accounting Research ?
This report contains all the details regarding article of positive research accounting. In this article various facts and figures of positive accounting theory have been given. There is several methodology and models have been shown which reflects how humans would make decision in different situation based on prepared accounting frameworks. This article consist various models and frameworks which are useful to determine the effectiveness of positive accounting research practice.
Summary of article
With the help of this article, writers, researchers and other viewers could easily evaluate the merits and demerits of positive accounting research. This article contains the information on the human behavior and their cause and effect relation in positive accounting research practice. There are several viewpoints and assumptions have been taken into consideration which reflects the best accounting practice and standards set program to mitigate different accounting practice. In addition to this there are several casual theory and comprehensive viewpoints which reflects how accountant and auditors could come up with the common decision in preparing financial statements (Brown, Preiato, and Tarca, 2014).
Positive ontology and epistemology is the main major factors which provides how casus and effect relation could be used to determine the accountant and auditors decision making factors in positive accounting research practice (Ahmed, Neel and Wang, 2013). In addition to this, this article contains details regarding reciprocal behavior, Self interest theory and Positive ontology and epistemology which are used to make interpretation of qualitative data. For instance, reciprocal behavior helps in determine the cause and effect relation. Self interest theory also provides that persons will take care of their own interest before the interest of organization as a whole. In addition to this, behavior of free will establishes that each and every human take decision on the basis of his external and internal factors which result into variation of their decisions. These different decisions aroused due to different perceptions, factors and other models (Celestine and Maher, 2014). These models have helped accountants and auditors to classifying, recording and summarizing task and provide them understanding to cover all the requirement of positive accounting practice in effective manner (Way mire, 2014). Now it could be inferred that this article consisted with different human behavior based on the different factors and circumstances (Everett, Neu, Rahaman and Maharaj, 2015).
There are several questions which could be taken into consideration for preparing this article.
How positive accounting research practice could be different from Intellectual program?
What are the affecting factors which establish cause and effect relation in positive accounting research?
Which theories and models have been used in positive accounting research?
What are the possible effects of using ontology and epistemology in positive accounting research practice in positive accounting research?
This article is consisted with several models and frameworks which could be used in this positive accounting research practice. There are other models such as hypothetical test, ontology and epistemology frameworks. These all theories have been used to define the human behavior and other associated factors. (Engle and Hunton, 2015).
As per the views of Everett, Neu, Rahaman and Maharaj, 2015 it is given that auditors and accountant are two different persons who use different critical understanding to make effective decisions in their accounting works. There are several theories such as behavior of free will, cause and effect relation and other accounting frameworks which helps accountant and auditors to make their decisions effectively. It is observed that if accountants are using behavior of free will in their accounting models and decision then it would surely result into conflict of interest between auditors and accountants. There are other models and frameworks which could be used in accounting frameworks in this article either in Americana or international which reflects standard models for measuring human behavior.
There are other several basic concepts and theories in positive accounting theories such as reciprocal behavior and behavior of free will. In this article main focus in made on Darwin’s theory of evaluation which reflects qualitative assessment and measurement in positive research. This Darwin’s theory of evaluation could be bifurcated into following several parts. The first phase of Darwin’s theory of evaluation is related with collecting primary and secondary qualitative data. These collected data is deployed by Auditors other stakeholders to evaluate on what basis accountant has prepared financial statement (Dyckman and Zeff, 2014). In Darwin’s theory of evaluation, focus is made to identify type- 1 errors (Li, 2015). It is considered that Type-1 error is not possible to avoid for accountant as per followed realistic approach. It is observed that if auditor uses realistic model then it would result into basic level of errors (Type-1 errors) (Deegan, 2017). There are other several models which have been used in positive accounting research practice such as Hypothetical test and ontology and epistemology (Slater, et al. 2014).
Significant of positive accounting research
The main significant of this positive research accounting is related with how accountants make their decisions. This research has accompanied with the details which reflects the human behavior and their cause and effect relation. This study has been prepared with a view to provide the core aspect of positive accounting research. There are several important factors which have been reflected in this research. In addition to this, there are several factors which have been identified in this research that provides how positive accounting research practice could be useful for establishment of harmonization in accountant and auditors behavior. It is also observed that there are several frameworks and models used in this report which provides how positive accounting research practice could be used by accountant for effective accounting practice. There are several other rational and personal theories and practices have been used in positive accounting practice which is core factors for influencing human behavior. There are other rational and personal practice in positive accounting research have been evaluated which reflects the human behavior and factors which influence accountant behavior (Guan, 2014). In the end, it would be inferred that there are several methods and models in positive accounting research which are very useful for establishment of harmonization in accountant and auditors behavior.
Limitation of Positive accounting research
In this article various methodologies and theories have been used which only provides standards set based on the normal accountant behavior. Therefore, only after considering some theories and models it would be hard to gauge the human decision making process. In addition to this, there are several models and theories have been used in these articles which are consisted with hypothetical test and other auxiliary assumptions. Therefore, it becomes complex to determine the level of certainty of positive accounting research functions. Authors in this article have also not suggested any possible level of escalations and remarks which should be used to readers to evaluate the certainty and uncertainty of models used in this article for positive accounting research practice. In addition to this, the most critical factors in this article are related with the behavior of free will. It is observed that if a human is having free will to take his decisions then it would result into several contradictions and complexity. For instance, if accountant has used a spate decision making process in his accounting frameworks then auditors may have conflict with his accounting practice which he opted as per his free will. This article is also accompanied with large set of information and cumbersome process which made hard for researcher to understand the facts and human decision process models in effective manner. There are limitation which could be evaluated such as relevancy of data, justification for assumptions and models taken and set format and path for determining human decision making (Bedtime, Darrough and Xue, 2017).
Human decision varies person to person and based factors. In addition to this, in order to justify the facts and theories used in this article hypothetical test have been taken into consideration. This hypothetical test make effectiveness on the result oriented human decision behavior. These all theories and models are the critical factors to establish harmonization in the accountant and auditors behavior in their accounting decisions. The main impact on positive accounting research aroused from the type one error. This type of error is unavoidable and accountant and other auditors tend to make these mistakes. As per the positive accounting research, these types of errors could be mitigated if double cross check system is implemented. In addition to this, interchangeable factors given in various models and theories such as Darwin’s theory of evaluation, behavior of free will and cause and effect relation provides how humans take their decisions and what complexity they face in their accounting decisions. In the end it would be inferred that all the test and statistics under the null hypothesis is based on auxiliary assumptions which is considered as limitation of this article. All the accountant and auditors should take less assumption and hypothetical data to avoid possible mistakes and errors.
Ahmed, A.S., Neel, M. and Wang, D., 2013. Does mandatory adoption of IFRS improve accounting quality? Preliminary evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(4), pp.1344-1372.
Bertomeu, J., Darrough, M. and Xue, W., 2017. Optimal conservatism with earnings manipulation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(1), pp.252-284.
Brown, P., Preiato, J. and Tarca, A., 2014. Measuring country differences in enforcement of accounting standards: An audit and enforcement proxy. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 41(1-2), pp.1-52.
Deegan, C., 2017. Twenty five years of social and environmental accounting research within Critical Perspectives of Accounting: Hits, misses and ways forward. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 43, pp.65-87.
Dyckman, T.R. and Zeff, S.A., 2014. Some methodological deficiencies in empirical research articles in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 28(3), pp.695-712.
Engle, T.J. and Hunton, J.E., 2015. Retraction: The Effects of Small Monetary Incentives on Response Quality and Rates in the Positive Confirmation of Account Receivable Balances. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(3), pp.201-201.
Everett, J., Neu, D., Rahaman, A.S. and Maharaj, G., 2015. Praxis, Doxa and research methods: Reconsidering critical accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 32, pp.37-44.
Fang, J., Haw, I.M., Yu, V. and Zhang, X., 2014. Positive externality of analyst coverage upon audit services: Evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 21(2), pp.186-206.
Guan, K., 2014. Corporate Growth, Audit Quality and Accounting Conservatism: Empirical Evidence from Public Companies in China. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5(005).
Klemstine, C.F. and Maher, M.W., 2014. Management Accounting Research (RLE Accounting): A Review and Annotated Bibliography. Routledge.
Li, X., 2015. Accounting conservatism and the cost of capital: An international analysis. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 42(5-6), pp.555-582.
Slater, R.A., Koren, S., Ramot, Y., Buchs, A. and Rapoport, M.J., 2014. Interpreting the results of the Semmes?Weinstein monofilament test: accounting for false?positive answers in the international consensus on the diabetic foot protocol by a new model. Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 30(1), pp.77-80.
Smith, M., 2014. Research methods in accounting. Sage.
Waymire, G.B., 2014. Neuroscience and ultimate causation in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 89(6), pp.2011-2019.