|
課程名稱 |
分析及行為研究
Analytical and Behavioral Research in Accounting |
|
開課學期 |
108-1 |
|
授課對象 |
管理學院 會計學研究所 |
|
授課教師 |
杜榮瑞 |
|
課號 |
Acc8003 |
|
課程識別碼 |
722ED5040 |
|
班次 |
|
|
學分 |
3.0 |
|
全/半年 |
半年 |
|
必/選修 |
必修 |
|
上課時間 |
|
|
上課地點 |
|
|
備註 |
本課程以英語授課。與王泰昌、李書行合授
限本系所學生(含輔系、雙修生)
總人數上限：10人 |
|
Ceiba 課程網頁 |
http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/1081Acc8003_ |
|
課程簡介影片 |
|
|
核心能力關聯 |
核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖 |
|
課程大綱
|
|
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
|
|
課程概述 |
Various methods exist for conducting empirical accounting research. While many researchers use field-archival data for empirical investigations, other alternatives such as analytical methods, case studies, survey research, and laboratory experiments can be adopted. In this course, we will offer students with a different perspective on how to formulate an accounting research in an analytical setting and derive the meaningful accounting insights and theories, and how an empirical research can be conducted with data coming from survey or experiments. |
|
課程目標 |
Students are expected to broaden their perspective and open their mind in doing accounting research. They also are expected to be flexible in using various methods to examine interesting and important accounting issues. Confining one’s research skill to the filed-archival method can have two undesirable consequences. One is that an important issue cannot be investigated when field-archival data are not available. The other is limiting the review of literature to only a subset rather than a complete set due to inability to appreciate research using other methods. |
|
課程要求 |
Active participation in class discussions is required, in addition to reading the assigned materials. |
|
預期每週課後學習時數 |
|
|
Office Hours |
另約時間 |
|
指定閱讀 |
Libby, R., R.J. Bloomfield, M.W. Nelson. 2002. Experimental research in financial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27: 775-810.
*Merchant, K.A., and W. A. Van der Stede. 2003. Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: The case of organizational incentive systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28: 251-286.
Sprinkle, G.B. 2003. Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28: 287-318.
Van der Stede, W.A., S.M. Young, and C.X. Chen. 2003. Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management research: The case of survey studies. Accounting, Organizations and Society 30: 655-684.
Jamal, K., and H.-T. Tan. 2010. Joint effects of principles-based versus rules-based standards and auditor type in constraining financial managers’ aggressive reporting. The Accounting Review 85 (4): 1325–1346.
Kadous, K., and M. Mercer. 2012. Can reporting norms create a safe harbor? Jury verdicts against auditors under precise and imprecise accounting standards. The Accounting Review 87 (2): 565–587.
Nelson, M.W., and H.T. Tan. 2005. Judgment and decision-making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 41-72.
Gimbar, C. B. Hansen., and M. E. Ozlanski. 2016. The effects of critical audit matter paragraphs and accounting standard precision on auditor liability. The Accounting Review 91(6): 1629-1646.
Brasel, K., M. Doxey, J. Grenier, and A. Reffett. 2016. Risk disclosure preceding negative outcomes: The effects of reporting critical audit matters on judgments of auditor liability. The Accounting Review 91 (5): 1345–1362.
Alicke, M. D. 2000. Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin 126 (4): 556–574
Tan, H.-T., and R. Libby. 1997. Tacit managerial versus technical knowledge as determinants of audit expertise in the field. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (1): 97–113.
Bol, J. C., C. Estep, F. Moers, and M. E. Peecher. 2018. The role of tacit knowledge in auditor expertise and human capital development. Journal of Accounting Research 56 (4): 1205–1252.
Bonner, S. 1990. Experience effects in auditing: The role of task-specific knowledge. The Accounting Review 65(1): 72-92.
Owhoso, V. E., W. F. Messier, and J. G. Lynch. 2002. Error detection by industry-specialized teams during sequential audit review. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (3): 883–900.
Kennedy, J., and M. E. Peecher. 1997. Judging auditors’ technical knowledge. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (2): 279–293.
Libby, R., and J. Luft. 1993. Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18(5): 425-450.
Nickerson, R.S. 1999. How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin 125(6): 737-759.
Libby, R. And K. T. Trotman. 1993. The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18(6): 559-574.
Brazel, J. F., C. P. Agoglia, and R. C. Hatfield. 2004. Electronic versus face‐to‐face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors’ performance. The Accounting Review 79 (4): 949-966.
Peecher, M. E. 1996. The influence of auditors’ justification process on their decisions: a cognitive model and experiment evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 34 (1): 125-140.
Rich, J.S. 2004. Reviewers’ responses to expectations about the client and the preparer. The Accounting Review 79 (April): 497-517.
Lerner, J., and P. Tetlock. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 125 (2): 255–275.
Wilks, T. J. 2002. Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real‐time audit review. The Accounting Review 77 (1): 51-71.
Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480-498.
Kachelmeier, S. J., and M. G. Williamson. 2010. Attracting creativity: The initial and aggregate effects of contract selection on creativity-weighted productivity. The Accounting Review 85(5): 1669-1691.
Kachelmeier, S. J., L.W. Wang, and M. G. Williamson 2019. Incentivizing the creative process: From the initial quality to eventual creativity,” The Accounting Review 94(2): 249-266.
|
|
參考書目 |
Abdel-Khalik A.R., and B.B. Ajinkya. 1979. Empirical Research in Accounting: A Methodological Viewpoint. American Accounting Association.
Bonner, S.E. 2008. Judgment and Decision Making in Accounting and Auditing. Pearson-Prentice Hall. Chapter 1.
*Libby, R. 1981. Accounting and Human Information Processing. Prentice-Hall. Chapter 1. |
|
評量方式
(僅供參考) |
|
No. |
項目 |
百分比 |
說明 |
|
1. |
Class participation (including critiques) |
30% |
for the behavioral part |
2. |
Assignments |
40% |
for the behavioral part |
3. |
Final exam |
30% |
for the behavioral part |
|
|
週次 |
日期 |
單元主題 |
|
第1週 |
|
Overview of Research Methods |
|
第2週 |
|
Principle-based Accounting Standards |
|
第3週 |
|
CAM (KAM) and Jurors’ Judgments on Auditor Liability |
|
第4週 |
|
Tacit Knowledge and Technical Knowledge of Auditors |
|
第5週 |
|
Role of Various Knowledge in Audit Judgments |
|
第6週 |
|
Accountability and The Audit Review Process |
|
第7週 |
|
Motivated Reasoning in Audit Judgments |
|
第8週 |
|
Self-Selection and Motivating Creativity |
|
第9週 |
|
analytical research |
|
第10週 |
|
analytical research |
|
第11週 |
|
analytical research |
|
第12週 |
|
analytical research |
|
第13週 |
|
analytical research |
|
第14週 |
|
analytical research |
|
第15週 |
|
analytical research |
|
第16週 |
|
analytical research |
|