We propose remedies to the dramatic reduction in the diversity of research topics within the academic accounting literature. As a basis for our recommendations, we apply institutional theory in the field of academic accounting research and propose that responses to identifiable institutional influences rather than competitive forces account for the current exclusion of nonfinancial accounting topics. All three processes of institutional isomorphism (mimetic, coercive, and normative) appear to shape the organizational field of accounting research. However, the field has reached a stage where it is primarily, but not exclusively, motivated by the normative isomorphism. As such, institutional pressures often eclipse theoretical relevance, individual research preferences, and practical applicability. These effects pervade aspects of the accounting academy beyond publishing. We outline programs and propose actions for enhancing diversity as prescriptions for countering the institutional forces acting within the field of academic accounting research.
Skip Nav Destination
Research Article| December 01 2007
Beyond Competition: Institutional Isomorphism in U.S. Accounting Research
Accounting Horizons (2007) 21 (4): 387–409.
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Brad Tuttle, Jesse Dillard; Beyond Competition: Institutional Isomorphism in U.S. Accounting Research. Accounting Horizons 1 December 2007; 21 (4): 387–409. doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2007.21.4.387
Download citation file: