the era: a brave new world of accountability for australian university accounting schools

The ERA: A Brave New World of Accountability for AustralianUniversity Accounting Schools

Paul de Lange, Brendan O’Connell, M.R. Mathews & Alan Sangster

Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder thanwe do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m awfullyglad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard. Andthen we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas.Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Deltachildren wear khaki. Oh no, I don’t want to play withDelta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They’re toostupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wearblack, which is such a beastly color. I’m so glad I’m aBeta.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (1946), Ch. 2

I n Huxley’s epic novel, an elite group called ‘theControllers’ removed most types of freedom andemphasised standardisation and advancement. The

Controllers created humans in factories and conditionedthem for their futures. When children grew to adulthood,they performed their destinies as part of one of five socialclasses, from the intelligent Alphas, who ran the factories,to the mentally challenged Epsilons, who did the mostmenial jobs (Napierkowski 1998). The above quotationfrom Huxley’s novel provides a thought-provokingentree to the present study in that the ERA may resultin standardisation of research with researchers fromparticular universities or paradigms being classified intocategories from which it will be difficult or impossibleto escape in the future, a fate that parallels Huxley’ssatirised world in which people were classified en masse.Notwithstanding this colourful analogy, proponents ofthe ERA argue that those researchers conducting qualityresearch will be recognised and rewarded, and in thatsense academia will be less imposed or pre-ordainedas was the case in this classic novel. Moreover, scarcefinancial resources for research will be more efficientlyallocated to those academics producing high-qualityoutputs.

The present study has two aims. First, to examinethe likely impact of the ERA on Australian accountingschools based on the current perceptions of Headsof Accounting Schools (HOS). Second, based on theperceptions of HOS, to evaluate the extent to whichthe looming ERA has driven changes in systemsand processes within Australian university accounting

This study examines the potential impact of Excellence inResearch for Australia (ERA) on Australian universityaccounting schools through a series of in-depth interviewswith Heads of Schools. Using an institutional theoryframework we find that the pending introduction of theERA has brought about changes in school structures,processes and systems. A creeping isomorphism isapparent as evidenced by a sector-wide movementtowards targeting publications in highly ranked NorthAmerican journals. While participants were generallypositive about the overall aims of the ERA many felt thatit would marginalise non-mainstream research.Furthermore, they were of the opinion that the ERA wouldlead to a reduction in the standing of accounting schoolswithin Australian universities relative to other disciplines.

CorrespondencePaul de Lange, RMIT University, Building 108, L 15, 239Bourke St, Melbourne VIC 3000. Tel: +03 9925 5766; fax: +039925 5142; email: [email protected]

doi: 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00078.x

24 Australian Accounting Review No. 52 Vol. 20 Issue 1 2010

The ERA P. de Lange, B. O’Connell, M.R. Mathews & A. Sangster

schools to date. These research aims are addressed byutilising semi-structured interviews with the HOS orDirectors of Research of 11 accounting schools drawnfrom a range of universities (Group of Eight (GO8),regional, large urban) and geographic areas withinAustralia.

Setting the Scene

In February 2008 Senator Kim Carr, the FederalMinister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Researchannounced the Australian government’s plans for aresearch quality evaluation system. Known as the ERA itsought to create a:

. . . transparent, workable system to assess the qualityof home-grown research . . . For the first time wewill be able to measure our achievements against ourpeers around the world, and plan the future researchinvestment. (Carr 2008, p. 1)

In an effort to promote an atmosphere of accountability,Senator Carr reminded key stakeholders that, ‘thegovernment invests billions each year in research. TheERA model will provide hard evidence that taxpayersare getting the best bang for their buck in this criticalarea’ (Carr 2008, p. 1).

The arguments put forward by Carr appear to bepersuasive to many stakeholders with the ERA imposedupon Australian universities ostensibly as an attemptto increase accountability to the public relating totheir research performance and to eventually lead to arationing of research funds towards those universitiesthat perform best in the area. This ‘new world’ ofaccountability in the university sector is neither newnor unique to Australia as similar research performancesystems have been in place for some years in anumber of countries including the UK (see HEFCE2001 and RAE 2006) and New Zealand (see TEC2003, 2004 and 2006a). In other countries where nosuch performance measurement systems have beeninstitutionalised, market forces are left to establisha ‘pecking order’ for scholars and universities. Inthe United States (US), for example, researchers andtheir outputs are ranked through market mechanisms(journal rankings, performance on league tables andother socialisation processes), which results in high-performing staff gaining access to better institutions andmore favourable employment opportunities (Fogartyand Jonas 2009; Gendron 2008).

Whether through formal or informal structures,systemic developments around the globe have served tomould government expectations regarding such areas asreporting of research outputs of various types, settingresearch performance standards for academics at theinstitutional level and establishing journal rankings toname a few. Universities, it would seem, have little

choice but to modify their systems and processes inthe research area to best position them for the ERAand to maintain their legitimacy with a key stakeholder,the government. Yet much concern, uncertainty andangst among academics and the sector generally appearsto exist (Hopwood 2007, 2008; Lee and Harley 1998;Gendron 2008). Moreover, the potential impact of theERA on accounting schools and programs is of particularconcern given that the discipline has not performedwell in some overseas equivalents such as in NewZealand (TEC 2004), and the well-documented heavyteaching burden and high student to staff ratios borneby these schools relative to other disciplines (see, forexample, Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC)2007). A product of this strong demand for businessprograms is high student to staff ratios which areamong the highest of all university courses (ABDC2007).

In Australia, there is already much discussion of howuniversities and the various schools and departmentswithin them might alter such mechanisms as staffperformance evaluations, reward systems, funding andrecruiting (see Fogarty and Jonas 2009; Hopwood2008; Gendron 2008) to reflect the impact of the ERAbased on overseas experiences with similar initiatives.Already bodies such as the ABDC have released ajournal ranking list that provides significant inputinto the Australian Research Council’s equivalentexercise.

Given the potentially significant impact of the ERA onthe operations and standing of accounting schools andprograms in Australian universities referred to above andthe lack of evidence to date as to what impact, if any, itis already having at the coalface, it is timely to examinethe views of the managers or leaders of these schools;namely, the HOS and Directors of Research.1

Accordingly, the present study seeks to contribute tothe literature in three ways. First, it is the only studyto our knowledge to examine the impact of a researchassessment exercise during its implementation phase.Previous studies have tended to be ex post analysesor comparisons (see, for example, Lee 2006). Second,it applies institutional theory in examining a researchassessment exercise which again is somewhat novel.Institutional theory, as discussed in the following section,provides insights into the process of isomorphismand how organisational structures and processes areimpacted by their external environment. This wouldseem to provide a useful lens for studying phenomenasuch as the introduction of the ERA. Third, the ERAwill undoubtedly have a significant impact on thefunding, status and operations of accounting schoolsin Australia in coming years and given that theseschools produce the majority of future accountantsthis is of great interest to the accounting professionnationally.

C© 2010 CPA Australia Australian Accounting Review 25

P. de Lange, B. O’Connell, M.R. Mathews & A. Sangster The ERA

Theoretical Framework

Our analysis of the impact of the ERA will drawon institutional theory, specifically new institutionalsociology (NIS), given the insights that it providesinto the forces that drive organisations to adapt totheir exogenous environment.2 As noted by DiMaggioand Powell (1983) ‘organisations compete not just forresources and customers, but for political power andinstitutional legitimacy, for social as well economicfitness’ (p. 150).

NIS posits that various components of formal or-ganisational structure, policies and procedures developfrom established societal attitudes of what constitutesconventional practice and the views of significantconstituents (Scott 1987; DiMaggio and Powell 1983;Bealing, Dirsmith and Fogarty 1996). Organisationsadopt these rules and structures to maintain and enhancetheir legitimacy, resources and survival capacities(Kondra and Hinings 1998). Institutional pressures workin combination with other factors such as competitionto influence many aspects of organisations’ structuresand processes. Organisational behaviour is inevitablylinked to a dynamic system of interrelated economic,institutional and ecological influences (DiMaggio andPowell 1983).

Meyer and Rowan (1977, p. 346) highlighted thatNIS classifies organisations as ‘dramatic enactmentsof the rationalized myths pervading modern societies’.They emphasised that a certain practice, approachor professional sphere can be codified into myth-likeform. Rules, accreditation processes and public opiniontogether make it critical or, at least, advantageousfor organisations to embrace the new structures.Furthermore, influential organisations or stakeholdersseek to impose their aspirations directly on the socialorder. By developing a formal configuration thatadheres to prescriptions of myths in the institutionalenvironment, an organisation displays that it is operatingon communally valued principles in a fitting andacceptable manner. Conversely, enterprises that excludeenvironmentally justifiable components of structure, ordesign distinctive structures, lack acceptable legitimatedrecords of their operations. Such entities are susceptibleto allegations that they are neglectful, irrational orredundant, and risk forfeiting stakeholder patronage.

These pressures to achieve legitimisation help toinitiate isomorphism. This is a process that forces oneunit in a population to resemble other units that face thesame set of environmental conditions (DiMaggio andPowell 1983). Institutional isomorphism promotes thesuccess and survival of organisations (Meyer and Rowan1977). Hence, enterprises vie not merely for funds andclients, but also for political influence and institutionallegitimacy, for social as well as economic correctness(DiMaggio and Powell 1983).

Boland, Sharma and Afonso (2008) highlighted thepivotal role of isomorphism in NIS:

[NIS] . . . focuses on the pressures and processesthat shape organisations. Such processes are explainedthrough three types of isomorphism: coercive, norma-tive, and mimetic . . . Furthermore, new institutionalsociology theorists argue that organizations are notonly pushed to achieve technical efficiency within theiroperations but also to accept and adopt the rules andexpectations of others outside the organization’ (p. 900).

Turning to the three sources of institutional isomor-phism referred to by Boland et al. (2008), coercivecomes from formal or informal pressures exerted byone organisation on another to change. It occurs whenan organisation depends on another for key resourcesor for long-term survival that implies the adoptionof specific attributes to be legitimated. Schools andhospitals are cited by Boland et al. (2008) as examplesof public entities subject to this form of isomorphism.Normative pressures to comply are based on valuesand professional norms, and come from within theorganisation itself (Zucker 1987 as cited in Bolandet al. 2008). University education and professionalnetworks are examples provided by DiMaggio andPowell (1983) of organisations subject to this type ofinstitutional isomorphism. Finally, mimetic pressureis essentially driven by a desire to replicate successfulorganisations through adoption of innovations that areoften promoted by consultants. This type of institutionalisomorphism has been cited as common in explainingthe adoption of new management techniques (DiMaggioand Powell 1983).

There are three main reasons that we have employedNIS as our theoretical framework. First, NIS hasbeen widely applied to the study of not-for-profitand government entities (see, for example, Bealing,Dirsmith and Fogarty 1996) including universities (see,for example, Townley 1997). Second, NIS has also beenwidely applied in the accounting literature (see, forexample, Abernethy and Chua 1996; Major and Hopper,2005), especially in the development of control systemswhich would seem to be related to development of anERA as a form of university disciple-focused assessment.Third, the isomorphism focus of NIS appears to beespecially relevant to understanding the potential forcesof change for universities given the strong institutionalenvironment they face as a result of their heavy relianceon government funding and patronage. As noted above,public educational institutions appear to face elementsof coercive and normative isomorphism worthy ofexamination in different settings.

A notable addition to the NIS literature is Oliver(1991), who focused on strategic responses to institu-tional processes. Oliver (1991, p. 145) argued that the

26 Australian Accounting Review C© 2010 CPA Australia


institutional literature lacked explicit attention to thestrategic behaviours that organisations employ in directresponse to the institutional processes that affect them.She noted that researchers have tended to limit theiranalysis to the effects of the institutional environmenton structural conformity and isomorphism, and thusoverlooked the role of active agency and resistance inorganisation-environment relations.

NIS would appear to potentially provide valuableinsights into understanding the behaviour and actionsof Australian universities in the face of the ERA.Universities are heavily reliant on government fundingfor a significant albeit declining portion of their funding.This makes them deeply susceptible to the influence ofexternal stakeholders such as the federal government.As part of the broader university model each accountingschool competes to improve its standing within the sector(see Hopwood 2008; Fogarty and Jonas 2009). In othercountries where research assessment exercises have beenimplemented (UK and New Zealand), observers havecommented on the development of a new competitivelandscape that has seen some universities change theirstructures, processes and systems to respond to the newworld order of government-imposed accountability forresearch and to maintain legitimacy (Hopwood 2008;Lowe and Locke 2006).

It is within this context that the present study seeksto uncover the impact if any, of the looming ERA onthe following important issues. First, have accountingschools altered their performance standards, incentiveschemes and recruitment processes for academics asit pertains to research? Second, is there evidence ofcreeping isomorphism as it pertains to what types ofresearch are valued and rewarded at the school level?Third, have systems, processes and reporting approachesaltered and to what extent is success in the ERA actingas the catalyst for any such convergence?

Background to the ERA

Description of Comparative Systems

The ERA announced by the Australian governmentin 2008 is the second proposed research assessmentexercise envisaged for the Australian university sector.Its predecessor, the Research Quality Framework (RQF),was announced by the Howard Liberal governmentin 2004. The newly elected Rudd government actionwas swift with its withdrawal of the RQF and thelaunch of the ERA in February 2008 (Carr 2008).With ERA ‘trials’ in 2009 and full implementation duein 2010 (see Anonymous 2009), Australia’s initiativeis well behind New Zealand in terms of its researchassessment exercise. New Zealand implemented itsPerformance Based Research Fund (PBRF) in 2003 and

completed its second assessment in 2006 (TEC 2003,2006a).

Like New Zealand, Australia’s ERA owes its origins,3

with regards to purpose and agenda, to the UK’sResearch Assessment Exercise (RAE), which has amuch longer history and development dating backto 1986 (Otley 2010). The RAE has gone through anumber of iterations with subsequent assessments in1989, 1992, 2001 and 2008. The main function ofthe RAE is to, ‘produce ratings of research qualitywhich will be used by the higher education fundingbodies in determining the main grant for research tothe institutions they fund’ (HEFCE 2001). It appearsthe government views Australia’s ERA as fulfilling asimilar function to that of the UK version as evidencedby the government committing A$35.8 million to theERA initiative in 2009. According to Senator Carr, thisgovernment’s financial support reaffirms the importanceof the ERA initiative in ‘providing the nation withan accurate and useful measurement of the quality ofAustralian research, upon which a reliable foundationfor improved research planning can be based’ (Carr2009). In addition, unlike the UK’s RAE, which relies ona panel review of submitted articles (Broadbent 2010),the ERA is committed to the quality of research outcomeswhere output will be measured against internationalbenchmarks (Carr 2008).4

Studies into Research Assessment Exercises

The real impact of the ERA initiative will be directly feltby universities through the potential change in allocationof government research funds. This possible reallocationof resources may cause a change in behaviour of marketparticipants; in this case, universities and academic staff.This movement in the market may be immediate forsome and delayed for others, as intended governmentpolicy becomes a reality. The impact of changes ingovernment policy on disciplines and universities canbe studied ex ante, so in the interests of informeddebate, we examine the outcomes from other researchperformance ranking schemes; namely, the RAE andPBRF.

A number of criticisms have been made of the RAE,with not everyone considering it to have had a beneficialimpact upon research overall. For example, Lee (2006)contended that it has resulted in a greater emphasison mainstream research within schools and on thetargeting of a narrow group of publication outlets.5

Accounting schools have not performed well in researchassessments when compared to their counterparts in themore traditional research clusters of the natural sciences,medicine and engineering. A telling example of the poorperformance of the accounting group is that provided bythe PBRF where accounting as a discipline ranked 34 out



of 41 and 32 out of 42 in 2003 and 2006 respectively (TEC2006b). Associated with these poor research rankingsis the flow of research funds away from business toother faculties. The effort to regain improved researchstatus and funding for accounting schools has led to theaforementioned increased concentration on mainstreamresearch (Lee and Harley 1998).

This narrowing of research focus as Hopwood (2007,2008) and others have observed may stifle creativeinquiry as scholars opt to target a small range ofhighly ranked journals,6 which is likely to result in areduction in non-mainstream research. The narrowingof the discipline’s research agenda may be a very realconcern if isomorphic pressures (see DiMaggio andPowell 1983) drive conformance across all levels ofinstitutions (Fogarty and Jonas 2009).

We may in effect observe a form of academic cloningwhere the ‘rules of the academic game’ clearly articulatewhat constitutes an academic performer and whatresearch paradigm should be followed in a universitysetting (see Gendron 2008; Hopwood 2008). Somecommentators claim (see, for example, Lee and Harley1998; Fogarty and Jonas 2009) that the RAE and PBRFhave led to academic ‘gaming’ where research-effectivestaff are ‘traded’ through formal and informal marketsamong institutions. It appears these staff movements areparticularly noticeable in the 12 months prior to thenext research assessment exercise (Gendron 2008; Lee2006). As academic stars help in assessment exercises,those faced with hire and fire decisions will seek outthose individuals who are most likely to boost researchperformance. Furthermore, these isomorphic pressuresfind their way into honours and PhD programs tothe extent where those candidates contemplating non-mainstream research topics are guided into ‘less risky’mainstream topics by experienced mentors as ‘quality’research outputs are more likely (Fogarty and Jonas 2009;Williams, Jenkins and Ingraham 2006).

Research assessment exercises are ‘dual-edged swords’in that they reward the academic performer but areambivalent towards those who are not. It has beensuggested that those institutions that are well resourcedand wish to perform well in research assessments altertheir staffing profiles so that research active staff are wellrewarded in terms of both money and time off from non-research activities. This approach leaves the remainderof academic staff to take up higher teaching loads andmore administrative duties (Gendron 2008).

Method

In an effort to explore the evolving impact of the ERA,the present investigators selected a qualitative researchapproach designed to gather in-depth perceptions ofacademic leaders across a range of Australian universityaccounting schools. We used semi-structured interviews

in order to establish how participants perceived andunderstood the pending introduction of the ERA.

This design consisted of a series of semi-structuredinterviews with Heads of School (HOS) and other keyplayers such as School or Faculty Directors of Researchstratified by university type (GO8, regional, large urban).This categorisation reflects the stratification of theuniversity sector in Australia and is consistent withthe approach outlined by Zikmund and Babin (2009),who suggested that it is appropriate to partition thetarget population into discrete groups in order to betterunderstand group diversity. The HOS and directors ofresearch were selected as their role within the universityis that of line managers with the former responsible foroversight of a range of budgeting, teaching, research andadministrative functions; and the latter accountable forresearch at the school or faculty level. Accordingly, theseindividuals are as likely to possess the influence andcapacity to be drivers of such change at the school/facultylevel.

A qualitative approach is as appropriate given the aimof obtaining in-depth insights into a range of questionsabout the potential influence of the ERA in the contextof the diversity of Australian universities, which maymean that there will be differential impacts of the ERAon accounting schools. This research approach is similarto that advocated by Sekaran (2002) and Zikmund andBabin (2009) who suggested interviews are an acceptablemeans of uncovering diversity of views on a range ofissues.

Semi-structured interview questions for use in thisstudy were developed by the research team based onkey issues articulated in the literature (Hopwood 2007,2008; Gendron 2008). As an example, one questionasked for views on how the ERA has or might affectacademic staff turnover. The basis of this questionwas articulated in the paper by Hopwood (2008) whosuggested that there had been an increase in poachingof research active staff in the UK as a consequence ofthe introduction of the RAE. Another question soughtthe views of interviewees in relation to institutionalpressures to follow prescribed research paradigms andpreferred research topics. This question was a productof the commentary provided in the articles by Fogartyand Jonas (2009) and Gendron (2008). A full listof the final ten interview questions is included inAppendix 1.

Broadly, questions focused on the impact to date ofthe ERA on university systems and processes, as well asinterviewees’ expectations concerning the ERA’s impacton operations in the future. Prior to administering theinterview schedule, draft questions were pilot tested onfour accounting academics who, due to their roles withinthe university, had knowledge of the ERA guidelines.This review resulted in a number of modifications toquestions. For example, it became clear to us that



funding and reporting requirements were importantconsiderations to our pilot testing group, so questionswere inserted in an attempt to explore these concerns.

After being granted university ethical approval, atotal of 11 interviews were conducted. Given resourceand time constraints it was not possible to interviewrepresentatives of all of Australia’s 39 publicly fundeduniversities. Accordingly, a stratified approach wasemployed in an attempt to capture the inherent diversityof accounting schools within the sector. By way ofbreak-down, interviews were conducted across five statesin Australia, with two at GO8 universities, four atregional universities and five at large urban, non-GO8universities.

The interviewers sought to develop a rapport andput the participant at ease during the interview. Toachieve this purpose, the structure of the interviewquestion instrument moved from questions builtaround a general understanding of the ERA and otherinternational research measurement systems to morespecific questions relating to implementation of the ERA.Throughout the interviews participants were free to raisein any new issues they felt impacted on their assessmentof the ERA and related issues.

Interviews were conducted by three of the members ofthe research team on a ‘one-to-one’ basis. Each interviewlasted approximately 45 minutes and a written recordof each interview was taken. Interviews, most of whichwere conducted face to face and some via phone, werenot audio-taped as it was felt that doing so mightimpede the interviewee’s willingness to answer suchquestions on a somewhat controversial and potentiallycompetitive issue in a forthright manner. Written recordswere subsequently transcribed by a research assistant onto an appropriate software package.

Thereafter, the research team met on a number ofoccasions after the interviews to discuss the sentimentof the responses. From these meetings, team membersindividually extracted the main threads and themes foreach question from individual interview transcripts, andthen conducted a cross-sample analysis of responsesfor common themes. The main ones extracted by eachresearcher were then compared by the researchers forconsistency. Where differences emerged the analysis wasrevisited. Through this process the main themes wereidentified and inform the discussion that follows.

Results and Discussion

Question one sought interviewees’ views on the featuresof the ERA that are of greatest relevance to theirindividual schools. This question was designed to setthe tone for the investigation and comments focused onthe notions of a uniform emphasis on quality researchoutputs where these were measured in terms of journal

rankings (A∗ to C), and to a lesser extent the valueof nationally competitive research grants (AustralianResearch Council (ARC) and others). Most interviewees(10 out of 11) indicated a reasonable level of supportfor the overall concept of the ERA as indicated by thefollowing typical comments:

[It’s] making clear the value of journals and researchcriteria. [It also] makes it clear that just publishing isnot important . . . makes it easier to see quality.

[It] forces us to recognise our research obligations,allocate resources better, prepare to do things that [we]should be doing anyway. Provide explicit performancemeasures.

However, not all participants exhibited the same level ofenthusiasm for particular aspects of the ERA, perceivingthat some of the measures were uni-dimensional andunfair (4 out of 11):

Ranking [of] journals is too harsh and conservative.[There is] not enough A∗ journals. . . .

Some direction is provided by rankings, which arenot necessarily good or proper influences. Measures ofquality would be good if they were appropriate. Negativeaspects . . . not relevant to the research interests ofthe school . . . pressures towards mainstream [research]which could be flawed.

In sum, interviewees acknowledged that the ERApossessed some positive attributes, but identifiedquestionable operational issues relating to the journalrankings and other measures of performance.

The interviewer then moved on to the secondquestion, which sought responses on: What do youknow about the experiences of overseas universitieswith research assessment exercises? The majority ofinterviewees (9 out of 11) commented on the UK’sRAE and to lesser extent the PBRF in New Zealand.Interestingly, most interviewees (8 out of 11) highlightedthe negative impacts of these initiatives. Some (3 out of11) were concerned about the poor ranking of business(and therefore accounting) in overseas experiences:

[In] NZ our discipline shot itself in the foot . . .

accounting came low in the research output measures.

More troubling was the view that the ERA may leadto a misuse of human effort and resources thoughefforts to game the system through ‘renting the CVs’ ofprominent researchers who, in return for a retainer couldbe included on the assessment list for a given school evenif their direct involvement in the life of that school may bevery limited in practice. Such efforts were seen as directproducts of research quality assessment exercises and of



little real benefit to academia or society in general. Theproblem of creating two classes of academic staff wasalso seen as an issue in that those who are unwillingor unable to undertake research at an acceptable levelwere likely to be given higher teaching loads. Effectively,higher teaching loads could be seen as a punishmentfor research inactivity. A number of interviewees (5 outof 11) highlighted their perception of the dysfunctionalattributes of such behaviour. Examples included:

Operationally this is very problematic . . . subjectto gaming by university to improve ranking. Forexample, renting of CVs, distorting staff profiles sothat some academics are reclassified into teaching oradministration only positions.

The RAE in UK created poaching of good researchstaff. [The] jury is still out on benefits of it in theUK. For example, super tutors being employed to takeaway student queries from academics so that they canconcentrate on research.

Question three asked interviewees about their views onhow the ERA has or is likely to affect staff assessment,recruiting and workload planning at their school.Interviewees at a majority of universities (6 out of11), especially the large, urban non-GO8 universities,indicated that the ERA is already having some influenceon these areas. Moreover, the focus and attitudes ofacademic staff are being changed. For example, oneinterviewee at a large, urban university noted:

[It is having a] . . . direct impact on workloadassessments of staff and the workload model. It is alsohaving a direct impact on hiring.

[It] . . . creates three staff types: research intensive . . .

low teaching load but goals for research output . . .

teaching intensive high teaching load . . . middle band. . . potential researchers; for example, PhD students orthose with accelerated progress on their PhD who havea teaching load in the middle.

There seems to be less impact at regional and GO8universities. For example, at one regional university camethe following comment:

Our performance against ERA is not operationalisedbecause of high existing teaching loads.

At a GO8 the response was as follows:

Objectives of the University are above the bar in termsof the ERA. We never chased DEST points.

Question four explored interviewees’ views on how theERA has or is likely to impact on their school’s reporting

requirements. All interviewees felt that the ERA will leadto increased reporting requirements both within andexternal to their university:

[There is a] direct impact on our school’s reporting. TheKPIs are linked to ERA measures now!

Just another reporting requirement, more to come . . .

administrative burden. [There is now a] focus on report-ing performance rather than enhancing performance.

Research administration has been ramped up and theycreate work as they need it . . .much more data collectionand analysis. [We] used to have one person doingresearch administration for a couple of days a week,now that person is almost full time.

However, some schools, especially regional universities,were less likely to have seen an impact on their reportingpractices to date:

[There is] likely to be a realignment of reports to reflectquality, but no real change as yet.

Question five sought participants’ perspectives onhow will or has the ERA affected staff turnover forresearch active and inactive staff. This question reflectedsome overseas evidence (see Gendron 2008; Lee 2006),suggesting that these types of schemes can lead tostaff poaching of academics with strong research trackrecords. Findings of this study show that most actionto date has been in schools seeking to deal with researchinactive staff through voluntary redundancies or throughincreasing their teaching loads:

People are already set in their ways, but it might meanin the future that research inactive staff may be movedon or asked to retire in the future. At some universitiesthese people have already been shown the door . . . GO8especially. Others are putting some on higher teachingloads.

There has been no sackings at this stage for inactivestaff, maybe redundancies in the future if we have tobudget. . . . more funds will go to staff who are ERAproductive.

Research inactive staff were offered packages resultingin a reduction in teaching skills [as teaching only staffdepart]. Staff are also being affected by budgetary andrestructuring issues.

In response to question five, some interviewees (6 outof 11) expressed concern about staff shortages and thatgaming may occur as a consequence of the ERA:

We already have huge problems attracting staff and littlestaff turnover.



There has been no effect as yet, but gaming may lead tothis . . . for example, renting out CVs.

Question six was an extension of the previous line ofquestioning where interviewees’ views were sought onany observed modifications in the behaviour of theirstaff that appear to be driven by the ERA. Findingsfrom this inquiry were somewhat mixed and linked tothe institutional setting from which they originated. Atregional universities, the general feeling (3 out of 4) wasthat they felt somewhat powerless in terms of competingeffectively in the ERA contest, given their shortage ofresources, lack of scale and difficulty in attracting qualitystaff. Consequently, the new processes were not seen to beredefining their staff profile at this stage. One intervieweesuggested:

No, as most [staff] are still undertaking research degreesand the ERA is less influential at present.

Conversely, those in large urban universities were ableto observe a noticeable change towards greater researchactivity and an increased focus on quality as defined bythe journal ranking list (5 out of 5). Notable commentsincluded:

Some yes and some no. Newer and younger staff aremodifying their behaviour to suit the ERA guidelines.Some older staff are moving towards research as part oftheir daily work ‘diet’.

Yes – they are more inclined to look at rankings ofjournals. Staff are being counselled not to set their sightstoo high or too low for any given work [research].

Yes, people are very aware of where they target andpublish.

While the overall message was a feeling of changeat many universities, the two interviewees from GO8universities suggested that the ERA would not resultin major change at their institutions as they have beenplaying the ‘quality game’ for some years and as suchthis has already been reflected in their hiring decisions.Interviewees put this position clearly when theystated:

No real change in our staff behaviour . . . all staff areresearch active.

Not specifically as our staff are already research focused.Journal rankings [are a] gaming mechanism. Staffshould submit to appropriate journals.

Question seven addressed the potentially controversialissue surrounding changes to funding allocations forschools brought about by the ERA. Specifically, it

asked how interviewees felt that the ERA wouldor has impacted on funding allocations to theirschool/university? A majority of participants (6 outof 11) took a micro perspective on this questionin that they observed changes from within schoolsand faculty budgets. The main issue emerging fromresponses to this question was that the pursuit ofuniversity goals would see rewards favouring qualityat the expense of lower ranked research outputs.Specifically:

[Our] university, college and school are all taking moneyoff the top [of the budget] to support ERA initiatives.

Staff have funds based on active indicators. Points willaffect funding.

Faculty incentives mean funding for publications at theright level. A sliding scale [is used] based on the statusof staff member and journal.

Those who took a more macro perspective of thefuture funding allocations felt that accounting as adiscipline would be adversely affected. The tone ofresponses suggested that the ERA was governmentpolicy that ‘stood between the accountants and theirmoney’. They suggested that an over reliance on teachingthrough large numbers of international students woulddistract staff from the pursuit of quality researchoutputs leaving other disciplines at a competitiveadvantage in the quality stakes. The overall impact ofsuch distractions for accounting would be felt in theform of reduced research funding. Specific commentsincluded:

No impact as yet as international student fee income isthe main driver at present.

School of Accounting [will be impacted] negatively untilit gets more key researchers.

A funding model that has an increased focus on researchoutputs will disadvantage business.

Of note was that a majority of interviewees fromall university categories (6 out of 11) supported theview that funding implications from the ERA for theaccounting discipline would be negative.

It is claimed that an ERA will deliver improvedresearch outcomes in the national interest (see Carr2008). Question eight explored interviewees’ views onthis key feature of the ERA. The question soughtparticipants’ views on whether or not they thoughtthat the ERA would result in positive outcomes foraccounting research in the national interest.

Some interviewees (4 out of 11) felt that any systemwhich measured quality, would by definition produce



better research and that would be in the national interest.One participant indicated:

[The ERA is] good for the message it is sending . . .

the link between teaching, research and industry. Itreinforces the idea of an academic. The amount of redtape may be a negative. Overall, [the impact is more]positive than negative.

This positive sentiment was not shared by a vocalmajority of interviewees (7 out of 11). These intervieweesfelt that from an accounting perspective the ERA wouldnot generate improved research in the national interest.Overwhelmingly, interviewees felt that the ERA researchquality matrix sends the wrong signals to the market.These signals could transfer into research agendas thatmay not be in the national interest. Some (3 out of11) pointed to the fact that none of the accounting A∗

journals were published in Australia, with four of the fivepublished in North America. Further it is well knownthat these journals are more pre-disposed to publisharticles of a neoclassical economics research paradigmthat features North American data.

It intuitively follows that a question remains: Howis Australia’s national benefit best served by its bestaccounting academics concentrating their efforts onusing North American data to produce studies thattarget a narrow sphere of mainly North Americanjournals? Such views have previously been articulatedby prominent researchers who complained of anarrowing and an Americanisation of the researchagenda (Hopwood 2007). Contrary to this view of aninstitutionalised preferred research agenda set in stone,Lowe and Locke (2005) present data on journal rankingsfrom 149 interviewees in the UK. Key findings withinthe context of their study suggests that although the‘top 10’ accounting journals appear to be consistent overa period of 12 years or so, it is the within group orrelative ranking that has changed. The most significantchange in the perception of journal quality was that ofAccounting Organisations and Society (AOS) where: ‘Inour survey AOS has moved to number one position tosupplant three of the “elite” US journals in the ranking.An extraordinary coincidence is the perfect re reversingof order of the top four journals between the two surveys’(Lowe and Locke 2005, p. 90).

Some examples of comments from interviewees in thepresent study annunciate a somewhat pessimistic viewof the direction in which accounting research seems tobe heading:

[It] may not lead to the national benefit as no Australianjournal is ranked A∗ . . . we are privileging US journalsand just accepting their paradigm. What is relevant toAustralia may not be focused on. Once you get a rankingas a journal it is hard to change . . . it’s self fulfilling. [TheERA is] contrary to challenging the status quo which is

what academics are about . . . stifling academic thoughtand new journals.

[There are] positive outcomes but whether it’s in thenational interest is debatable. For example, academicjournals are not read by practitioners.

Question nine sought interviewees’ views on whetherthe ERA was forcing a narrowing of the research agendawithin universities and was stated as: Is there anyevidence of approved research areas, topics, methodsby superiors, and if so is this new direction related to theincoming ERA?

This line of inquiry yielded a mixed response, wheresome of the regional university interviewees (3 out of 4)felt somewhat powerless to the extent that change wouldbe incremental and slow. Those of this view indicated:

Not at this stage . . . Poor leadership without anunderstanding of the ERA and its implications.

More generally, interviewees spoke of a greater align-ment of their departments’/schools’ strategic directionbrought about by ERA guidelines. The sentimentconveyed was one of increased competition to publish ina select range of quality journals, to build critical massin specific areas thus resulting in a narrowing focus ofresearch. Some felt that this narrowing focus of researchwill produce a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it wouldfurther drive funding allocations and staff hiring in adirection designed to better achieve ERA imperatives(see Gendron 2008). This sentiment was articulatedas:

Yes within the uni and college. [We will] pursue areas ofstrength. This is feeding into recruitment decisions andresearch. Also research centres are more popular. ERAis about critical mass.

The establishment of centres limits options . . .

new researchers have increased difficulties in beingaccepted . . . especially in accounting . . . politicalinfluences within the university.

School will identify research clusters to establishparticular strengths and consolidate and develop thosestrengths.

The final question sought interviewees’ views on: Doyou think that the status of the accounting discipline interms of research will be enhanced or otherwise by theERA process? In many respects interviewees’ perspectiveson this question seemed to suggest the ERA model andprocess were driven by politics rather than a genuinedesire to improve accountability. In arriving at thisconclusion some participants (3 out of 11) suggestedthat the very nature of the research matrix employedby the ERA would disadvantage any discipline that was



characterised by large international student numbers. Itwas argued that:

Hard to see the impact at this point [as] all accountingschools are burdened with income generation and thiswon’t change under the ERA, so [accounting] many slipdown the pecking order within universities.

This will bring down the status of all professions . . . bytaking such a harsh stance on A∗ we [accounting] all willsuffer.

It was the perception of the interviewers that intervieweeshad thought long and hard about the impact of theERA and its influence on the accounting discipline. Weconcluded that those responsible believe the post-ERAenvironment would not be favourable to the discipline,and accounting has little to gain as a discipline within theuniversity political environment under ERA guidelines.Indeed, the history of the RAE and PBRF seems to suggestthat accounting will not perform well in ERA rankings(TEC 2006a).

Insights from Institutional Theory

Institutional theory posits that organisations adoptacceptable structures and processes to stakeholders orrisk forfeiting their patronage. The above findingspoint towards coercive, mimetic and normative forcesfor isomorphism at work to accommodate the newparadigm flowing from the ERA. Clearly, universitiesand accounting schools believe that they have littlechoice but to respond as best they can to therules, measures and procedures of the ERA imposedupon them from the federal government throughthe ARC, which is conducting the assessment on itsbehalf. This evidence points to coercive sources ofisomorphism in the form of formal and informalpressures (Boland et al. 2008). Formal pressures includethe rules, measures and procedures required by theARC,7 while informal pressures include the threat thata poor performance in this exercise will likely leadto diminished research funding for the institutionover time and loss of status if the ERA leads to apoor performance research ranking. While informalnetworks and processes within universities may notchange dramatically as a consequence of the ERA, theseentities do need to be seen to conform. Hence, formalsystems and processes are being adapted to providethe best opportunity for the university to convince amajor stakeholder, the federal government through theauspices of the ARC, that it is allocating research fundingefficiently and at a world-class level. For example,there is a convergence of staff hiring and performanceappraisal criteria towards highly rated outcomes suchas competitive external grants and prestigious journals.

Even if individuals within schools are sceptical about thenational benefit of a system that focuses efforts towardsparticular research paradigms favoured by the elitejournals, they nevertheless feel obliged to follow theirpeer universities in this process in an effort to achieve theexternal recognition. Some interviewees even pointedto specific benchmarking activities that their universityhad already conducted to see how they were performingagainst their peers in metrics such as ARC competitivegrants success and journal outputs by category.

These activities are clearly driven by the need toperform well in the ERA and are examples in part ofmimetic sources of isomorphism as defined by DiMaggioand Powell (1983). Universities mimic their academicpeers and peer universities through benchmarking,reliance on journal rankings and other related activities.Our findings indicate that the middle tier universities inparticular are attempting to mimic the GO8 universitiesin their research focus as evidenced by comments aboutan increased focus on quality research outcomes.

There is also some evidence from our findings ofnormative sources of university isomorphism; that is, atendency for institutions to employ similar strategies todeal with new challenges. This source is associated withprofessionalisation and is brought about through seniorpersonnel across a range of organisations viewing issuesand problems in a similar fashion (Townley 1997). Mostinterviewees mentioned the ACBD research journalrankings list as influencing their school’s publicationfocus. The major body representing Australian andNew Zealand accounting and finance academics, theAccounting and Finance Association of Australia andNew Zealand (AFAANZ), was also referred to by someinterviewees because it has lobbied on some ERA matterson behalf of the discipline. However, the major account-ing bodies such as CPA Australia and the Institute ofChartered Accountants in Australia were not mentioned,suggesting that their attitudes to research in Australianaccounting schools have not been influential in promot-ing adherence to a particular approach to research.

Turning to Oliver’s (1991) emphasis on strategicresponses to institutional environments, we find limitedevidence of active agency and resistance to the ERA bysome accounting schools. For example, some regionaluniversities appear to have resisted adopting majorreforms to address ERA imperatives at the time of ourstudy. This resistance can be contrasted with the largeurban, non-GO8 universities that have on the most partmade changes to performance criteria to reflect qualityindicators emphasised by the ERA.

Accounting schools have also increased their levels anddepth of reporting of research outputs both within theuniversity (to research services within the university, forexample) and to external stakeholders (government andindustry bodies) as mechanisms to appease stakeholders.This is in accord with institutional theory (see, for



example, DiMaggio and Powell 1983), with the needto continue to justify performance via various reportingmechanisms as a prerequisite for continued patronage.Moreover, there is now more focus on adoptingformal structures such as research centres and researchconcentrations that demonstrate research expertise andscale. This approach again accords with institutionaltheory, which posits that institutions will employrationalised myths and formal structures that mimicothers and appeal to key stakeholders (Scott 1987).

Conclusions

As noted earlier, this is the first study to ourknowledge that examines the impact of a researchassessment exercise in its implementation phase, and todraw on institutional theory in such an examination.Results of this study show that the ERA is alreadyhaving a major effect on accounting schools andtheir staff, even before it is fully implemented. Giventhat these schools produce the majority of Australia’sfuture accountants this should be of great interestto the accounting profession nationally. While mostinterviewees have a positive attitude towards theoverall objective of the ERA, it is clear that thereare many concerns about the operationalisation ofthis initiative, its capacity to produce undesirableoutcomes such as gaming behaviour, and its potentialto concentrate research efforts on a narrow groupof North American journals and to marginalise non-mainstream research. Accounting schools are also seenas being especially vulnerable to poor performance inthis exercise given their large student-to-staff ratios andhigh proportions of developing researchers relative toother disciplines. Interviewees were generally aware ofthe poor performance of the accounting discipline insome similar overseas exercises such as in New Zealand.

There is significant scepticism among many HOSsabout whether the ERA will produce tangible researchoutputs in the national benefit, given that most ofthe highly ranked journals are North American andso will emphasise studies that utilise data from thatregion and particular research approaches and theories.Another concern raised by many interviewees is that anarrowing of research could stifle creativity and motivateresearchers to opt for low-risk projects that are likely tobe acceptable to mainstream researchers. Unorthodoxor highly innovative research that explores problems ofspecial interest to Australasia may be discouraged.

In terms of coercion, accounting schools face heavyinternal and external pressures to react to the ERA,such as potential loss of research funding and status.Moreover, interviewees recognised the threat of the lossof internal allocations of funds for their schools if theresearch performance of the school is not competitive

with other disciplines. Mimetic pressures include thedesire of many middle-tier accounting schools torespond to the ERA in a way that will replicate theresearch approaches and focus of many of the GO8universities; for example, a greater focus on highlyranked journals and the research paradigms they favour.Normative pressures are evidenced by the influence ofprofessional associations such as the Australian Councilof Business Deans with their journal rankings.

Our analysis across institutions suggests that theremight be three broad groupings of Accounting schoolsin terms of the influence of the ERA on their operations,systems and processes. The GO8 universities and a smallnumber of well-resourced urban universities generallydo not appear to have significantly altered their focus,activities or strategic objectives in the research area as aconsequence of the ERA. This is because they generallyhave already had a heavy emphasis for a prolongedperiod on the high-status journals and other indicatorsof prestige such as ARC grants. Thus the ERA impact tothem is minimal, and mainly confined to extra reportingrequirements. For example:

No real change in staff behaviour, as all of our staff areresearch active already.

No real impact because we always focus on quality.

The second group would appear to consist of mainlylarge, urban universities that are not GO8. Many ofthese institutions have been developing research profilesand research activity on a serious scale only for thepast 10 to 15 years. Findings suggest that this groupis being significantly impacted by the ERA. A previousemphasis on quantity of research outputs withoutexternal reference to quality seems to have been rapidlyreplaced by reward systems, hiring decisions, promotioncriteria and reporting systems that emphasise theprimary measures captured by the ERA; namely, A∗ andA category journals and external research grants. Studyparticipants highlighted variations in staff teaching loadsdepending on research performance, hiring approachesthat target academics with research outputs highlyweighted by the ERA such as ARC grant success, bonusesfor achieving high-quality outputs and key performanceindicators reflecting the ERA as evidence of the shiftingclimate. For example:

Our workload model now reflects journal ranking.

People are becoming very aware of where they arepublishing.

The third group includes some regional universi-ties that appear to be somewhat resistant to thechanged assessment environment. While reasons for this



resistance are not clear, it appears a lack of resources,problematic leadership on the issue, a strong emphasison teaching and an incapacity to attract and retainprolific researchers mean that these institutions appearresigned to an indifferent performance in the ERA.Examples of comments from regional universities thatreflect this observation include:

There needs to be a shift in the culture, but I am notsure it will happen.

Our attention is given primarily to teaching.

However, it should be noted that this demarcation ofgroupings is debatable and is purely based on a cross-case comparison of a limited sample. If this analysis isaccepted by the reader, then the Brave New World ofresearch assessment would appear to be already well onthe path to differentiating the Alphas from the Epsilons(Huxley 1946).

Turning from the implications for universities andacademe, we briefly consider some implications ofthe ERA for the accounting profession as a whole.First, evaluation of researchers’ outputs will occurthrough so-called Research Evaluation Committees.These Committees will be established at the disciplinecluster level and ‘comprise distinguished researcherswith expertise in research evaluation’ (ARC 2009).Accordingly, the assessment of research excellence inaccounting in Australia appears to have little or no inputfrom the accounting profession itself. This disjunctioncontrasts with that of the UK, where assessmentpanels are comprised of a broad range of stakeholders,including academics, professional bodies, industries andgovernment. Moreover, these user groups have directinput into the panel selection process (Otley 2010).Second, the Australian evaluation system, as previouslynoted, relies heavily on journal rankings in comparisonto overseas equivalents such as the UK RAE, whichdid not make rankings the specific focus of assessingresearch quality (Broadbent 2010). Given that none ofthe top-ranked journals are Australian, the professionshould question the likelihood of practice-based researchbeing recognised in such a regime. Third, the overseasexperience suggests that universities divert significantresources and effort towards achieving success in theseforms of research assessment exercises such as throughefforts to target researchers who are likely to enhancean institution’s performance (Broadbent 2010). It ispossible that the standing of teaching and learning inAustralian universities, and its resourcing, could sufferfrom this process.

We conclude with some words of caution ininterpreting our findings, given three major limitationsof our research approach. First, the research designemployed in the present study relied on a sample

of HOS and research directors from 11 of Australia’s39 universities. Hence, despite the stratified approachtaken the sample represents a cross-section rather thanthe entire population of influential stakeholders inaccounting schools. Second, the main findings representthe views of how participants expect the future to unfold.Participants’ perceptions of the future impact may proveto be flawed. For example, a shift in the political agendaor a change in the federal government may radicallytransform the ERA from its current status to a newreality. Academics working in the university sector in2006 will recall when universities expended considerabletime and resources in preparing for the implementationof the RQF, which was never implemented due to achange in federal government. Third, while universitiesand schools within them may seek to adapt to thechallenge presented by the ERA, individual academics arehighly skilled individuals with internalised professionalnorms tend to be critical of administrative systemsand authoritarian regulations. Accordingly, resistanceto meaningful change may occur in some cases at theindividual level.

Paul de Lange, Brendan O’Connell and M.R. Mathews areemployed at RMIT University. Alan Sangster is at MiddlesexUniversity, UK. The authors wish to acknowledge the supportof the special guest editor, Professor Ralph Adler, and the twoanonymous referees in developing this paper.

Notes

1 In the spirit of a succinct discussion we use the label ‘AccountingSchool’ to represent the collective mass of those involved inthe delivery of accounting programs. We appreciate that someuniversities use ‘Accounting Department’ for their grouping andsome may involve other sub-disciplines in their combination,leading to names such as ‘School of Accounting and Finance’ or‘School of Business’.

2 There are several branches of institutional theory: ‘oldinstitutional theory’, ‘new institutional sociology’ and ‘neo-institutional theory’. For a review of these different branches seeDambrin, Lambert and Sponem (2007); and Boland, Sharmaand Afonso (2008).

3 We acknowledge that the ERA and PBRF are different to the RAE.What we are suggesting is that some feel that there has been amore efficient allocation of research funds as a result of the RAEand policymakers have in part drawn on the RAE to justify aresearch ranking system.

4 It is not our intention to produce a descriptive account of thenuances of the ERA as part of Australian government policy.For those interested in these discussions please see Carr 2008,Anonymous 2009 and the ARC website (<www.arc.gov.au>).

5 By mainstream research we mean the type of accounting researchreferred to by Williams, Jenkins and Ingraham (2006) as the‘neoclassical economics based research paradigm’ (p. 783), whichapplies an ever-narrowing perspective on the application offinancial economics to the study of accounting phenomena.Individual behavioural aspects of accounting decision-makingare largely ignored other than at a macro level. Williams, Jenkinsand Ingraham (2006) contended that this trend towards a muchnarrower focus emanates from factors such as a concentration



of power and influence in a small number of US universitiesthat espouse this perspective. Not surprisingly, Australianaccounting schools that aspire to publishing in elite journalssuch as the Journal of Accounting Research and the AccountingReview have moved towards an emphasis on this paradigm. Asnoted by Gendron (2008): ‘In a context which emphasises thequest for measurable performance, individual researchers areencouraged to carry out research projects and write manuscriptsin terms that are likely to be acceptable to high-performingjournals, thereby, diminishing researchers’ motivations toinnovate in pursuing novel but riskier lines of thought’(p. 100).

6 While the notion of journal rankings is subjective Lowe and Locke(2005 and 2006) provide a well-informed discussion regardingthe nature and state of flux around accounting journal rankingswithin a context of research assessment exercises specifically inthe United Kingdom (UK), New Zealand and to a lesser extentAustralia.

7 The following link to the website of the ARC details thevarious measures and rules being applied to the ERA exercise:<http://www.arc.gov.au/era/current consult.htm>.

References

Abernethy, M.A. and Chua, W.F. 1996, ‘A Field Study ofControl System Redesign: The Impact of Institutional Processeson Strategic Choice’, Contemporary Accounting Research, 13:569–606.

Anonymous 2009, Discovery: ERA Update, Australian ResearchCouncil Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Au-tumn, p. 9.

Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) 2007, Submissionto the Review of the Impact of Higher Education Support Act2003 (HESA) ‘Funding Cluster Mechanism’, February.

Australian Research Council (ARC) 2010, ‘Research EvaluationCommittees (RECs)’, accessed 1 February 2010, available at:<http://www.arc.gov.au/era/recs.htm>.

Bealing, W.E., Dirsmith, M.W. and Fogarty, T. 1996, ‘EarlyRegulatory Actions by the SEC: An Institutional TheoryPerspective on the Dramaturgy of Political Exchanges’,Accounting, Organisations and Society, 21, 4: 317–38.

Boland, R.J., Sharma, A.K. and Afonso, P.S. 2008, ‘DesigningManagement Control in Hybrid Organizations: The Role ofPath Creation and Morphogenesis’, Accounting, Organisationsand Society, 33: 899–914.

Broadbent, J. 2010, ‘The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Per-formance Measurement and Resource Allocation’, AustralianAccounting Review, no. 52, 20, 1: 14–23.

Carr, K. 2008, Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)Initiative, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT.

Carr, K. 2009, Discovery: ERA Update, Australian ResearchCouncil Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Au-tumn, p. 1.

Dambrin, C., Lambert, C. and Sponem, S. 2007, ‘Controland Change – Analysing the Process of Institutionalisation’,Management Accounting Research, 18: 172–208.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. 1983, ‘The Iron Cage Revis-ited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality inOrganizational Fields’, American Sociological Review, 48: 113–23.

Fogarty, T.J. and Jonas, J.A. 2009, ‘The Hand thatRocks the Cradle: Disciplinary Socialization at theAmerican Accounting Association’s Doctoral Consortium’,presented at the AAA Annual Meeting, New York,1–46.

Gendron, Y. 2008, ‘Constituting the Academic Performer: TheSpectre of Superficiality and Stagnation in Academia’, EuropeanAccounting Review, 17, 1: 97–127.

HEFCE 2001, Research Assessment Exercise: The Outcome,accessed 14 July 2009, available at <www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/4 01>.

Hopwood, A.G. 2007, ‘Whither Accounting Research?’, TheAccounting Review, 82, 5: 1365–74.

Hopwood, A.G. 2008, ‘Changing Pressures on the ResearchProcess: On Trying to Research in an Age when Curiosity is notEnough’, European Accounting Review, 17, 1: 87–96.

Huxley, A. 1946, Brave New World, Harper & Brothers, NewYork.

Kondra, A.Z. and Hinings, C.R. 1998, ‘Organizational Diversityand Change in Institutional Theory’, Organization Studies, 19,5: 743–67.

Lee, F.S. and Harley, S. 1998, ‘Peer Review, the ResearchAssessment Exercise and the Demise of Non-mainstreamEconomics’, Capital & Class, 66, Autumn: 23–51.

Lee, F.S. 2006, The Research Assessment Exercise, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, UK.

Lowe, A. and Locke, J. 2005, ‘Perceptions of Journal Quality andResearch Paradigm: Results of a Web-based survey of BritishAccounting Academics’, Accounting Organisations and Society,30, 1: 81–98.

Lowe A. and Locke J. 2006, ‘Constructing an “EfficientFrontier” of Accounting Journal Quality’, British AccountingReview, 38: 321–41.

Major, M. and Hopper, T. 2005, ‘Managers Divided: Resistanceand Consent to ABC in a Portuguese TelecommunicationsCompany’, Management Accounting Research, 16: 205–29.

Meyer, J.W. and Rowan B. 1977, ‘Institutional Organisations:Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, American Journal ofSociology, 83, 2: 340–61.

Napierkowski, M.R. (ed.) 1998, ‘Brave New World: In-troduction’, Novels for Students, Vol. 6. Detroit: Michi-gan, Gale, retrieved from: eNotes.com, 31 August 2009,<http://www.enotes.com/brave-new-world/introduction>.

Oliver, C. 1991, ‘Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes’,Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–79.

Otley, D. 2010, ‘Research Assessment in the UK: An Overviewof 1992–2008’, Australian Accounting Review, no. 52, 20, 1:3–13.



RAE 2006, 2008, Panel Criteria and Working Methods: Panel I ,RAE 01/2006 (I). RAE, Bristol.

Scott, W.R. 1987, ‘The Adolescence of Institutional Theory’,Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 493–511.

Sekaran, U. 2002, Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach, 4th edn, John Wiley and Sons, Singapore.

Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) 2003, Performance-Based Research Fund: Evaluation Strategy Proposed by theMinistry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission,TEC, Wellington, 14 August.

Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) 2004, Performance-Based Research Fund, Overview and Key Findings: The 2003Assessment , TEC, Wellington, April.

Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) 2006a, Performance-Based Research Funding Guidelines 2006 , July 2005, TEC,Wellington.

Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) 2006b, Performance-Based Research Funding Evaluating Research Excellence, The2006 Assessment, Annual Report, July 2008, TEC, Wellington.

Townley, B. 1997. ‘The Institutional Logic of PerformanceAppraisal’, Organization Studies, 18, 2: 261–85.

Williams, P.F, Jenkins, J.G. and Ingraham, L. 2006, ‘TheWinnowing Away of Behavioral Accounting Research in theUS: The Process for Anointing Academic Elites’, Accounting,Organizations and Society, 31, 8: 783–818.

Zikmund, W. and Babin, B.J. 2009, Business Research Methods,8th edn, Cengage Learning, Chicago.

Zucker, L. 1987, ‘Institutional Theories of Organization’,Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 443–64.

Appendix 1: Interview Questions ERA

Name of Interviewee

University & Campus Location

1. What do you see as the features of the ERA that areof greatest relevance to you and your school?

2. What do you know about the experiences of overseasuniversities with research assessment exercises?

3. How will the ERA affect or has it affected your staffassessment, recruiting and workload planning?

4. How will the ERA affect or has it affected yourSchool’s reporting requirements?

5. How will the ERA affect or has it affected staffturnover for research active/inactive staff?

6. Have you observed modifications in the behaviourof your staff that appear to be driven by the ERA?

7. How do you think the ERA will impact orhas impacted funding allocations to your school/university? (short- and long-term effects)

8. Overall, do you think that the ERA will re-sult in positive outcomes for accounting re-search in the national interest? (good and badattributes)

9. Is there any evidence of approved research ar-eas, topics or methods by superiors, and if sois this new direction related to the incomingERA?

10. Do you think the status of the accounting disciplinein terms of research will be enhanced or otherwiseby the ERA process?


the era: a brave new world of accountability for australian university accounting schools

Documents