Uma abordagem para avaliação da qualidade do processo de pesquisa em Contabilidade
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v13i4.2480Keywords:
contabilidade – pesquisa, produção científica, pós-graduação, qualidade da pesquisa, critérios de qualidadeAbstract
Objetivo: analisar o processo de construção da produção científica em Contabilidade ao associar atributos de qualidade de uma boa pesquisa descritos na literatura com aqueles percebidos nas práticas de pesquisadores da área.
Método: foi utilizada a Técnica Delphi Modificada, em duas rodadas, com questionários online e acesso personalizado. O painel foi composto por 41 docentes de 19 Programas de Pós-Graduação em Contabilidade brasileiros. Foi elaborada uma matriz de orientação com 53 atributos/relações vinculados a critérios gerais de qualidade e a nove características-chave, avaliados pelos respondentes de acordo com a aderência às suas práticas de pesquisa.
Resultados: aproximadamente 3/4 das proposições receberam nível forte de concordância. Entretanto, atributos que atingiram níveis baixo ou moderado incluem itens que podem comprometer a qualidade e integridade da pesquisa, como os relacionados aos princípios éticos, aos erros e vieses e aos impactos da participação da equipe sobre os resultados.
Contribuições: a avaliação da produção científica, concentrada nos resultados, é limitada para evidenciar aos pesquisadores da área suas possíveis falhas no processo de pesquisa. O estudo pode impactar o campo, ao ajudar pesquisadores a autoavaliarem suas pesquisas, identificarem deficiências e limitações, resultando em maior aceitação e encurtamento do processo de submissão aos periódicos.
References
Antunes, M. T. P., Mendonça Neto, O. R. de, Oyadomari, J. C. T., & Okimura, R. T. (2011). Conduta ética dos pesquisadores em contabilidade: diferenças entre a crença e a práxis. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 22(57), 319–337.
Aragão, I. R. B. N., Oliveira, J. R. S., & Lima, G. A. S. F. de. (2014). Resonance of articles and impact factor of Brazilian Accounting Journals. Revista de Educação E Pesquisa Em Contabilidade (Journal of Education and Research in Accounting), 8(1), 5–21.
Ballas, A., & Theoharakis, V. (2003). Exploring diversity in accounting through Faculty journal perceptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(4), 619–44.
Beck, C. T. (1993). Qualitative Research: The Evaluation of Its Credibility, Fittingness, and Auditability. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15(2), 263–266.
Brasil. Resolução 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012 (2012). Conselho Nacional de Saúde.
Brasil. Norma Operacional CNS No 001/2013 (2013). Conselho Nacional de Saúde.
Brinberg, D., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Validity and the research process. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Brinn, T., Jones, M., & Pendlebury, M. (2001). Why do UK Accounting and Finance Academics not Publish in Top US Journals? The British Acc. Review, 33(2), 223–232.
Brown, L. D., & Gardner, J. C. (1985). Using Citation Analysis to Assess the Impact of Journals and Articles on Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR). Journal of Accounting Research, 23(1), 84–109. http://doi.org/10.2307/2490908
Brown, L. D., & Huefner, R. J. (1994). The Familiarity with and Perceived Quality of Accounting Journals: Views of Senior Accounting Faculty in Leading U.S. MBA Programs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(1), 223–250.
CAPES, (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior). (2013). Documento de Área: Administração, Ciências Contábeis e Turismo, Avaliação Trienal 2013. Brasília, Brasil.
Carmona, S. (2006). Performance Reviews, the Impact of Accounting Research, and the Role of Publication Forms. Advances in Accounting, 22(6), 241–267.
Chan, K. C., Chang, C. H., Tong, J. Y., & Zhang, F. (2012). An analysis of the accounting and finance research productivity in Australia and New Zealand in 1991-2010. Accounting and Finance, 52(July 2011), 249–265.
Clarkson, P. M. (2012). Publishing: art or science? Reflections from an editorial perspective. Accounting & Finance, 52(2), 359–376.
Davidson, E. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: the nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. (Sage Publications, Ed.) (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide. Open University Press.
Doyle, J., & Arthurs, A. (1995). Judging the quality of research in business schools: the UK as a case study. Omega, 23(3), 257–270.
Dunbar, A. E., & Weber, D. P. (2014). What influences accounting research? A citations-based analysis. Issues in Accounting Education, 29(1), 1–60.
Elwyn, G., O’Connor, A., Stacey, D., Volk, R., Edwards, A., Coulter, A., … Whelan, T. (2006). Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 333(7565), 417.
European Science Foundation. (2011). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Strasbourg.
Evans, J. H., Feng, M., Hoffman, V. B., Moser, D. V., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2015). Points to Consider When Self-Assessing Your Empirical Accounting Research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3), 1162–1192. http://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12133
FAPESP. (2012). Code of good scientific practice. Sao Paulo: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo.
Jones, M. J., Brinn, T., & Pendlebury, M. (1996). Judging the quality of research in business schools: A comment from accounting. Omega, 24(5), 597–602.
Kelbaugh, B. M. (2003). Exploration of teamwork in extension: identifying indicators of success using a modified delphi study (Ph.D. dissertation). The Ohio State University.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.
Libby, R., Bloomfield, R., & Nelson, M. W. (2002). Experimental research in financial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8), 775–810.
Lowe, A., & Locke, J. (2005). Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: results of a web-based survey of British accounting academics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 81–98. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2004.05.002
Lowensohn, S., & Samelson, D. P. (2006). An Examination of Faculty Perceptions of Academic Journal Quality within Five Specialized Areas of Accounting Research. Issues in Accounting Education, 21(3), 219–239.
Martins, O. S., & Lucena, W. G. L. (2014). Produtivismo acadêmico: as práticas dos docentes dos programas de pós-graduação em contabilidade. Advances in Scientific and Applied Accounting, 7(1), 66–96. http://doi.org/10.14392/asaa.2014070103
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2006). Quality in qualitative health research. In Qualitative research in health care (3rd ed., pp. 82–101). London: Blackwell Pub./BMJ Books.
Mendonça Neto, O. R. de O., Riccio, E. L., & Sakata, M. C. G. (2009). Dez anos de pesquisa contábil no Brasil: análise dos trabalhos apresentados nos Enanpads de 1996 a 2005. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 49(1), 62–73.
Meyrick, J. (2006). What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(5), 799–808.
Michaelis. (2012). Michaelis Moderno Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa (versão online). Editora Melhoramentos.
Miranda, G. J., Azevedo, R. F. L., & Martins, G. de A. (2011). Teses das teses em contabilidade na USP. REPEC Revista de Educação e Pesquisa em Contabilidade, 5(2, mai/ago), 21–42.
National Institutes of Health. (1979). The Belmont Report. The Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, 4–6.
Northcott, D., & Linacre, S. (2010). Producing spaces for academic discourse: The impact of research assessment exercises and journal quality rankings. Australian Accounting Review, 20, 38–54. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00079.x
OADS. (2012). CDC Guidance on Scientific Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/docs/CDCSIGuide_021612.pdf
Reiter, S. A., & Williams, P. F. (2002). The structure and progressivity of accounting research: the crisis in the academy revisited. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(6), 575–607.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: a systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Schwartzman, S. (1988). Qualidade e relevância da pesquisa universitária: 10 teses para discussão. Retrieved from http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/10teses.htm
Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence A Quality Framework. Social Research, 108(21/08/05), 170.
Taylor, J. (2011). The assessment of research quality in UK universities: Peer review or metrics? British Journal of Management, 22(2), 202–217.
Valentine, J. C. (2009). Judging the quality of primary research. In H. Cooper, L. V Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (pp. 129–146). Russell Sage Foundation.
Van der Stede, W. a., Young, S. M., & Chen, C. X. (2005). Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: The case of survey studies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(7–8), 655–684. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.01.003
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26, xiii–xxiii. http://doi.org/10.1.1.104.6570
Weiss, C. H. (1997). Evaluation (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522–537.
Williams, P. F. (2014). The Myth of Rigorous Accounting Research. Accounting Horizons, 28(4), 869–887. http://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50880
Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: a guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Aragão, I. R. B. N., Oliveira, J. R. S., & Lima, G. A. S. F. de. (2014). Resonance of articles and impact factor of Brazilian Accounting Journals. Revista de Educação E Pesquisa Em Contabilidade (Journal of Education and Research in Accounting), 8(1), 5–21.
Ballas, A., & Theoharakis, V. (2003). Exploring diversity in accounting through Faculty journal perceptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(4), 619–44.
Beck, C. T. (1993). Qualitative Research: The Evaluation of Its Credibility, Fittingness, and Auditability. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15(2), 263–266.
Brasil. Resolução 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012 (2012). Conselho Nacional de Saúde.
Brasil. Norma Operacional CNS No 001/2013 (2013). Conselho Nacional de Saúde.
Brinberg, D., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Validity and the research process. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Brinn, T., Jones, M., & Pendlebury, M. (2001). Why do UK Accounting and Finance Academics not Publish in Top US Journals? The British Acc. Review, 33(2), 223–232.
Brown, L. D., & Gardner, J. C. (1985). Using Citation Analysis to Assess the Impact of Journals and Articles on Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR). Journal of Accounting Research, 23(1), 84–109. http://doi.org/10.2307/2490908
Brown, L. D., & Huefner, R. J. (1994). The Familiarity with and Perceived Quality of Accounting Journals: Views of Senior Accounting Faculty in Leading U.S. MBA Programs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(1), 223–250.
CAPES, (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior). (2013). Documento de Área: Administração, Ciências Contábeis e Turismo, Avaliação Trienal 2013. Brasília, Brasil.
Carmona, S. (2006). Performance Reviews, the Impact of Accounting Research, and the Role of Publication Forms. Advances in Accounting, 22(6), 241–267.
Chan, K. C., Chang, C. H., Tong, J. Y., & Zhang, F. (2012). An analysis of the accounting and finance research productivity in Australia and New Zealand in 1991-2010. Accounting and Finance, 52(July 2011), 249–265.
Clarkson, P. M. (2012). Publishing: art or science? Reflections from an editorial perspective. Accounting & Finance, 52(2), 359–376.
Davidson, E. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: the nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. (Sage Publications, Ed.) (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide. Open University Press.
Doyle, J., & Arthurs, A. (1995). Judging the quality of research in business schools: the UK as a case study. Omega, 23(3), 257–270.
Dunbar, A. E., & Weber, D. P. (2014). What influences accounting research? A citations-based analysis. Issues in Accounting Education, 29(1), 1–60.
Elwyn, G., O’Connor, A., Stacey, D., Volk, R., Edwards, A., Coulter, A., … Whelan, T. (2006). Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 333(7565), 417.
European Science Foundation. (2011). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Strasbourg.
Evans, J. H., Feng, M., Hoffman, V. B., Moser, D. V., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2015). Points to Consider When Self-Assessing Your Empirical Accounting Research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3), 1162–1192. http://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12133
FAPESP. (2012). Code of good scientific practice. Sao Paulo: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo.
Jones, M. J., Brinn, T., & Pendlebury, M. (1996). Judging the quality of research in business schools: A comment from accounting. Omega, 24(5), 597–602.
Kelbaugh, B. M. (2003). Exploration of teamwork in extension: identifying indicators of success using a modified delphi study (Ph.D. dissertation). The Ohio State University.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.
Libby, R., Bloomfield, R., & Nelson, M. W. (2002). Experimental research in financial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8), 775–810.
Lowe, A., & Locke, J. (2005). Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: results of a web-based survey of British accounting academics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 81–98. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2004.05.002
Lowensohn, S., & Samelson, D. P. (2006). An Examination of Faculty Perceptions of Academic Journal Quality within Five Specialized Areas of Accounting Research. Issues in Accounting Education, 21(3), 219–239.
Martins, O. S., & Lucena, W. G. L. (2014). Produtivismo acadêmico: as práticas dos docentes dos programas de pós-graduação em contabilidade. Advances in Scientific and Applied Accounting, 7(1), 66–96. http://doi.org/10.14392/asaa.2014070103
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2006). Quality in qualitative health research. In Qualitative research in health care (3rd ed., pp. 82–101). London: Blackwell Pub./BMJ Books.
Mendonça Neto, O. R. de O., Riccio, E. L., & Sakata, M. C. G. (2009). Dez anos de pesquisa contábil no Brasil: análise dos trabalhos apresentados nos Enanpads de 1996 a 2005. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 49(1), 62–73.
Meyrick, J. (2006). What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(5), 799–808.
Michaelis. (2012). Michaelis Moderno Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa (versão online). Editora Melhoramentos.
Miranda, G. J., Azevedo, R. F. L., & Martins, G. de A. (2011). Teses das teses em contabilidade na USP. REPEC Revista de Educação e Pesquisa em Contabilidade, 5(2, mai/ago), 21–42.
National Institutes of Health. (1979). The Belmont Report. The Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, 4–6.
Northcott, D., & Linacre, S. (2010). Producing spaces for academic discourse: The impact of research assessment exercises and journal quality rankings. Australian Accounting Review, 20, 38–54. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00079.x
OADS. (2012). CDC Guidance on Scientific Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/docs/CDCSIGuide_021612.pdf
Reiter, S. A., & Williams, P. F. (2002). The structure and progressivity of accounting research: the crisis in the academy revisited. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(6), 575–607.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: a systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Schwartzman, S. (1988). Qualidade e relevância da pesquisa universitária: 10 teses para discussão. Retrieved from http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/10teses.htm
Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence A Quality Framework. Social Research, 108(21/08/05), 170.
Taylor, J. (2011). The assessment of research quality in UK universities: Peer review or metrics? British Journal of Management, 22(2), 202–217.
Valentine, J. C. (2009). Judging the quality of primary research. In H. Cooper, L. V Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (pp. 129–146). Russell Sage Foundation.
Van der Stede, W. a., Young, S. M., & Chen, C. X. (2005). Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: The case of survey studies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(7–8), 655–684. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.01.003
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26, xiii–xxiii. http://doi.org/10.1.1.104.6570
Weiss, C. H. (1997). Evaluation (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522–537.
Williams, P. F. (2014). The Myth of Rigorous Accounting Research. Accounting Horizons, 28(4), 869–887. http://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50880
Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: a guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Downloads
Published
2019-12-20
How to Cite
José Renato Sena, & de Andrade Martins, G. (2019). Uma abordagem para avaliação da qualidade do processo de pesquisa em Contabilidade. Journal of Education and Research in Accounting (REPeC), 13(4). https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v13i4.2480
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, which allows the sharing of the work and recognition of authorship and its initial publication in this journal. This license allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, or create derivative works, even for commercial purposes, provided credit is given for the original creation.
b)There is no financial compensation to the authors in any capacity, for articles published in RePEc.c) The articles published in RePEc are the sole responsibility of the authors.
