Using Public Inquiries as a Data Source for Accounting Research: A Systematic Review

Abstract

This paper aims to bring to the attention of the accounting research community the opportunities and challenges associated with using public inquiry data for accounting research. We have conducted a systematic review of prior contributions in accounting that incorporate public inquiry data, and identify trends in the types of inquiries, data, and analytic techniques used within the existing literature. Extending out of this analysis, we identify three broad lines of enquiry within accounting research that can be informed by public inquiry data, and provide guidance for future research in the form of specific research topics, questions, and exemplars that illustrate the possibilities of this empirical approach. Finally, we articulate the limitations of public inquiry data and identify strategies researchers may use to realize these possibilities in their own research endeavors.

Keywords:

• Public Inquiries
• Data Source
• Accounting Research
• Systematic Literature Review

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge comments on earlier versions of this work by Beatriz García Osma (Editor), three anonymous reviewers, and participants in a research workshop at UTS Spring 2020 and the Monforma2020 biannual management accounting conference.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplemental Data and Research Materials

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the Taylor & Francis website, doi:10.1080/09638180.2023.2180765.

Appendix Table A1. Accounting journals searched, results, number of articles reviewed, and comparison across the ABDC List, the AJG Rankings and the SJR Quartiles for accounting

Appendix Table A2. Empirical studies of public inquiries in the accounting literature, including inquiry details, types of data, techniques of analysis, and theories and constructs

Notes

1 Well known examples of public inquiry subjects include the failed Challenger mission (Rogers, 1986); the Hillsborough disaster (Taylor, 1990); the collapse of Enron (Powers et al., 2002); and the Volkswagen emissions scandal (Gieseke & Gerbrandy, 2017).

2 For a seminal systematic review guideline, see Aromataris and Munn (2020). For explanation of the systematic review methodology in the context of accounting and management, including how it differs to other forms of literature review, see Massaro et al., 2016 and Linnenluecke et al., 2020.

3 For the full ABDC list, see https://abdc.edu.au/research/abdc-journal-quality-list/. For a full description of the ABDC’s ranking methodology, see its recent review report (Australian Business Deans Council, 2019).

4 For the AGJ, see https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2021/. For SJR, see https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php.

5 See Appendix Table A1 in the online Supplemental Material to this paper for a full list of journals searched, the search string used, databases used, results, number of papers reviewed, plus the comparison across the three journal ranking systems.

6 Two papers are from Accounting, Business & Financial History (the former name of Accounting History Review) and one paper is from Australian Accounting Review, both of which are ranked B in the ABDC List – see Appendix Table A1 in the online Supplemental Material to this paper.

7 See, for example, two recent Special Issues in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal on ‘Accounting for modern slavery, employees and work conditions in business’ (Vol 33, No 7, 2020, guest edited by Katherine Christ, Roger Burritt and Stefan Schaltegger) and ‘Accounting, accountability, and assurance: Blockchain and new forms of digital currency’ (Vol 35, No 7, 2022, guest edited by Rosanna Spanò, Maurizio Massaro, Luca Ferri, John Dumay, Jana Schmitz).

8 As noted in Section 2, the membership of different types of inquiries can vary. Generally, members of parliamentary inquiries are senators or members of parliament, sometimes with experts from the civil service, but usually no other stakeholders are included. In contrast, the membership of non-parliamentary inquiries, such as royal commissions, does not usually include members of parliament, but often consists of retired members of the judiciary and experts, with a fairly broad representation of interested parties and no members affiliated with political parties.