A Decade of Intellectual Capital Accounting Research

8/13/2019 A Decade of Intellectual Capital Accounting Research

1/15

Reections and projections: A decade of Intellectual Capital AccountingResearch

James Guthrie a,*, Federica Ricceri b, John Dumay c

a Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australiab University of Padua, Italyc The University of Sydney, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 7 February 2011

Received in revised form 21 April 2011

Accepted 25 May 2011

Keywords:

Intellectual capital

Accounting

Research

Scholarship

Literature review

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this paper is to review and critique the eld of Intellectual Capital

Accounting Research (ICAR). The literature indicates that an organisational and business

revolution is in progress concerning the need to understand the value of knowledge

resources and how to manage them. The paper explores the eld of ICAR by examining

a decade of published research since Petty and Guthries (2000) seminal paper on ICA,

Intellectual capital literature review: Measurement, reporting and management as pub-

lished in the Journal of Intellectual Capital.

The paper has four specic contributions. The rst contribution is to identify the eld of

scholarship associated with ICAR. The second is to provide a comprehensive picture of

what has happened in theeld of ICAR over the past decade. Third, it provides evidence as

to how and why theeld of ICAR is changing. Fourth, it highlights areas for future research

and policy developments.

From these four contributions our denition of Intellectual Capital Accounting (ICA)

emerges. That is, ICA is an accounting, reporting and management technology of relevance

to organisations to understand and manage knowledge resources. It can account and

report on the size and development of knowledge resources such as employee compe-

tencies, customer relations, nancial relationships and communication and information

technologies. Additionally, the analysis highlights several interesting patterns and

worrying trends in the eld of ICAR.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Since the 1980s the worlds economy has rapidly changed from an industrial to a knowledge base. In the new knowledge

economy wealth is created by developing and managing knowledge (Ricceri & Guthrie, 2009). These value creatingknowledge resources are commonly referred to as intellectual capital (IC) (see Stewart, 1997, p. x). Value is no longer

measured solely on the basis ofnancial outcomes; rather the value of activities that develop knowledge resources must also

be considered. Doing so helps us understand how employees, customers and activities contribute to value creation, leading us

to the challenge of how to identify, measure and report on the value of our knowledge resources. Intellectual Capital

Accounting (ICA) has been developed to meet this challenge (Ricceri, 2008).

From an academic perspective, the interest in ICA has led to the creation of two specialist journals publishing, Intellectual

Capital Accounting Research (ICAR): Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting(JHRCA) in 1996 and the Journal of

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected](J. Guthrie).

Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirect

The British Accounting Review

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / b a r

0890-8389/$

see front matter

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004

The British Accounting Review 44 (2012) 6882
mailto:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08908389http://www.elsevier.com/locate/barhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.03.004http://www.elsevier.com/locate/barhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08908389mailto:[email protected]


2/15


3/15

In short, the embryonic stage of research into IC offers the potential for researchers to make meaningful contributions

that are theoretical, methodological, or empirical in nature.

Petty and Guthrie (2000)also outlined two stages in developing IC as a research eld. First-stage efforts typically focused

on raising awareness as to why recognising and understanding the potential of IC towards creating and managing sustainable

competitive advantage is important. Additionally, attempts to make the invisible visible were characterised by the creation of

guidelines and standards. These early publications typically argued intellectual capital is something signicant and should be

measured and reported, without referring to specic empirical research (Petty & Guthrie, 2000, p. 162). Most research

conducted prior to the mid 1990s is considered rst stage.The second stage established IC research as a legitimate undertaking and gathered evidence in support of its further

research (Petty & Guthrie, 2000; pp. 1556). Additionally, interdisciplinary researchers investigated, at an organisational level,

how capital and labour markets reacted towards the potential for IC to create value. Therefore these investigations focussing

on the howof IC were in their infancy at the time ofPetty and Guthries (2000)literature review and dealt mainly with the

process of measuring and managing IC from a top-down perspective.

Since then ICAR has developed as a specialised research eld within accounting and management as evidenced by

specialist academic conferences, books, monographs and publications in international specialist and generalist

accounting academic journals. As a result, academics and practitioners, supported by public, private and third sector

funding, have developed multi-disciplinary contributions using different perspectives, including sociology, psychology

and economics.

The rst and second stages contributed to a commonly accepted terminology of IC. Several classications of IC have been

provided (Boedker, Mouritsen, & Guthrie, 2008; Guthrie, Petty, & Ricceri, 2007; Ricceri, 2008), resulting in the identication of

three main IC components and related elements. While these components may have different names, they basically refer to:human competencies, the knowledge embedded in people; structural capital, the knowledge embedded in the organisation

and its systems; and relational capital, the knowledge embedded in customers and other relationships external to the

organisation. Emanating from these three components, we dene ICA as a management, accounting and reporting technology

towards understanding, measuring and reporting knowledge resources such as employee competencies, customer rela-

tionships, brands, nancial relationships and information and communication technologies.

It is important to distinguish ICA from intangible accountingwhich represents a more traditional approach that focuses

only on those IC elements that are recognised by traditional nancial statements (e.g. brands, patents and copyrights). Two

recent special issues on intangible accounting, rst inAccounting and Business Research, in 2008 (Vol 3) and then in Abacus,

2009 (Vol 3) pay scant attention to ICA (see Skinner, 2008a; pp. 198-9). The authors in these special issues mainly concentrate

on intangible assets as dened by traditionalnancial accounting and international standards (IAS 38 and IFRS 3) and do not

recognisesomething as intangible, if it is not capitalised but recognised as an expense.

However, in reviewing Skinners (2008a) arguments about intangibles, we refute outright his thesis that knowledge-

based rms have been successful in capital markets and therefore current accounting practices are functioning effectivelyin relationship to IC. Skinners (2008a,b, pp. 215216)arguments are based on a review of a fairly narrow range of theoretical

and empirical studies. In contrast, the views and experience of those with expertise in the real world of reporting intan-

gibles and IC offering an alternative perspective (Striukova, Unerman, & Guthrie, 2008; Unerman, Guthrie, & Striukova,

2007).

Since we argue that ICAR is a separate eld with its own specic focus, it would be useful for academics and practitioners

to be informed of the progress made since Petty and Guthrie s seminal review of ICAR. We propose to answer the remaining

three questions as the basis for the rest of our paper.

3. Research method

This section documents our methods for selecting and reviewing the papers utilised in our study. Primarily we used

a similar method to other published studies, such asParker (2005),Broadbent and Guthrie (2008)andGuthrie and Murthy

(2009).

The review process was conducted in ve different stages. In the rst stage, the core research objectives were formulated,

based on the work ofPetty and Guthrie (2000). Based on this research objective, several classications/codes, boundaries and

denitions were determined in order to select articles on ICA. The data set was restricted to a ten year period from 2000 to

2009. That is, from the end of 1999 as covered by Petty and Guthrie (2000) until the recent published articles available,

including 2009.

The second stage involved the selection of journals. The journals consist of eight generalist internationally recognised

accounting journals and two specialist journals, JIC and JHRCA. The eight generalist accounting journals were selected

because they are committed to publishing interdisciplinary accounting research and have in the past published the area of ICA

(seeGuthrie & Murthy, 2009, p. 129).

In the third stage, we examined the titles and abstracts of all articles published in the journals during the period (a total of

2662) and selected articles containing aspects of ICAR, while eliminating non-ICAR articles. As a result we identi ed 423

articles focussing on ICAR. We then downloaded the PDF versions of these papers and stored them in an Endnote database

complete with referencing details.

J. Guthrie et al. / The British Accounting Review 44 (2012) 688270


4/15

The fourth stage pilot tested and adapted our classication system, based on the framework employed inBroadbent and

Guthrie (2008), on a sample of papers. During this pilot stage two authors read the papers based on both abstracts and full

text of the articles to discuss and make preliminary classications. This resulted in a slightly modied coding scheme as

outlined in Table 1.Then one author manually coded all the papers while the second and third author checked the coding for

consistency. Occasionally, when there was coding ambiguity, the authors discussed the contents of the article until they

agreed on the same codes. The advantage of manual coding is when words with similar meaning such ashuman capitaland

employees are encountered, they can be understood in their true sense and coded accordingly. Thus, manual coding allowed

the researchers to use implicit knowledge of the situation so they could effectively interpret idiomatic and metaphorical text

and complex subordinate phrases. The following illustrates each of the individual elements as shown in Table 1and provides

examples from the ICAR literature.

The rst criterion isJurisdiction (A). It is divided into general papers that do not have an empirical base (A1) such as a broad

literature review (e.g. Roslender, 2009), papers that focus on nations, regions, networks, alliances (A2) (e.g. Bontis, 2003,

Canadian company disclosures) and papers that refer to an organisational setting (A1.1; A1.2; A2.1; A2.2; and A3). Within the

papers that refer to an organisational setting there was: A1.1 International - Industry which included papers based on

evidence from specic industries belonging to specic countries (e.g. Bozzolan, ORegan, & Ricceri, 2006; Caibano & Snchez,

2009); A1.2 International - Organisational which included papers that used evidence from one or more organisations

belonging to either multiple industries or multiple countries (e.g.Chaminade & Johanson, 2003;Guthrie et al., 2007); A2.1

National - Industry which includes papers based on a specic industry belonging to one single country (e.g. Rowbottom,

2002; Yongvanich & Guthrie, 2005); A2.2 National - Organisational which included papers that used evidence from orga-

nisations belonging to a single country (e.g. Abeysekera & Guthrie, 2004;Bozzolan, Favotto, & Ricceri, 2003); and A3 which

included papers based on a specic organisation (e.g.Cuganesan & Dumay, 2009;Ditillo, 2004).

The second criterion isOrganisational Focus(B). This was divided into six different elements (B1B6). In more detail, these

elements were: B1 public listed organisations (e.g. Garca-meca, Parra, Larrn, & Martnez, 2005; Royal & ODonnell, 2008);B2

Table 1

Classication system for analysing ICA articles.

A. Jurisdiction

A1. Supra-national/international/comparative - general

A1.1. Supra-national/international/comparative - industry

A1.2. Supra-national/international/comparative - organisational

A2. National general

A2.1. National industry

A2.2. National organisational

A3. One organisation

B. Organisational focus

B1. Public listed

B2. Private - SMEs

B3. Private - others

B4. Public sector

B5. Not for prot

B6. General/other

C. Location

C1. North America

C2. Australasia

C3. United Kingdom

C4. Continental Europe

C5. Other

D. Focus of ICA literature

D1. External reporting - ICD other reports and media

D2. AuditingD3. Accountability and governance

D4. Management control/strategy

D5. Performance measurement

D6. Other (including general)

E. Research methods

E1. Case/eld study/interviews

E2. Content analysis/historical analysis

E3. Survey/questionnaire/other empirical

E4. Commentary/normative/policy

E5. Theoretical: literature review/empirical

F. ICA frameworks and models

F0. No model proposed

F1.0. Applies or considers previous models

F1.1. Proposes a new model

Source: Adapted fromBroadbent and Guthrie (2008).

J. Guthrie et al. / The British Accounting Review 44 (2012) 6882 71


5/15

private SME (e.g. Chaminade & Roberts, 2003;Tovstiga & Tulugurova, 2007); B3 private others (e.g. Richardson & Welker,

2001; Skoog, 2003); B4 public sector (e.g. Dumay & Guthrie, 2007; Snchez, Elena, & Castrillo, 2009); B5 not for prot

(e.g. Boedker, Guthrie, & Cuganesan, 2005; Fletcher, Guthrie, Steane, Roos, & Pike, 2003). Other types of organisations that did

nott the ve organisational types listed above, or that had no organisational focus were classied as: B6 general other (e.g.

Pike & Roos, 2004).

The third criterion is the Regional Focusof the study (C). This is divided into ve regions. C1 North America, including USA

and Canada (e.g.Bontis, 2003;Chatzkel, 2003); C2 Australasia including Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia, such as

China, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Japan, etc (e.g. Abeysekera & Guthrie, 2004; Guthrie, Petty, & Ricceri, 2006;

Johanson, Koga, Skoog, & Henningsson, 2006); C3 United Kingdom including England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales (e.g.

Bakhru, 2004;ORegan, ODonnell, Kennedy, Bontis, & Cleary, 2001); C4 Continental Europe including mainland European

countries such as Sweden, Denmark, France, Italy and the like (e.g.Bozzolan et al., 2003;Farneti & Guthrie, 2008;Olsson,

2001); and C5 Other, that is countries that did not fall into the above classication, such as UAE and countries in Africa,

South America etc (e.g.Firer & Williams, 2003;Jardn & Martos, 2009).

The fourth criterion isFocus of ICAR Literature(D). There were six specic elements used: D1 external reporting (Bozzolan

et al., 2003; van der Meer-Kooistra & Zijlstra, 2001); D2 auditing (Brcheler, Maijoor, & van Witteloostuijn, 2004); D3

accounting and governance (e.g. Cerbioni & Parbonetti, 2007;Holland, 2001); D4 management control and strategy (e.g.

Mouritsen, Larsen, & Bukh, 2005; Sveiby, 2001); and D5 performance measurement (e.g. Andriessen, 2004; Moeller, 2009). All

the articles that could not be coded into the above classications were coded as D6 other (e.g.Davison, 2008).

The fth criterion is based on the Research Methodused (E) and included six elements: E1, case studies (e.g.Boedker et al.,

2005;Chaminade & Roberts, 2003); E2, content analysis or historical analysis (e.g. Beattie & Thomson, 2007;Guthrie, Petty,

Yongvanich, & Ricceri, 2004); E3, surveys, questionnaires or experiments (e.g. Catass & Grjer, 2003; Tayles, Webster,

Sugden, & Bramley, 2005). These rst three elements relate to empirical studies in nature. The next two elements relate to

normative/theoretical studies. They were: E4, commentary or normative policy ( Holland & Johanson, 2003; Roslender &

Stevenson, 2009); E5, theoretical which included both literature reviews papers (e.g. Pike, Fernstrm, & Roos, 2005) and

empirical research papers (e.g.Davila, 2005).

Some research papers proved problematic to classify into an exact element as two or three research methods may have

been used. In such cases, the article was coded based on the dominant research method used for primary data analysis.

Finally, in the fth stage we utilised the classications to establish a range of descriptive statistics, allowing us to

understand the patterns emerging from the reviewed articles. This provides the basis for our meta-analysis and discussion of

the ICeld over the period in question. The following section outlines the meta-analysis and is followed by an open discussion

of our ndings.

4. Meta-analysis

The purpose of this section is to provide a meta-analysis of the ICAR articles selected and to answer our proposed question

two: What has happened in theeld of ICAR over the past decade?and question three: How and why is theeld changing?We

consider the spread of journals before turning to our classication framework.

The total number of articles focussing on ICAR was 423 and, of these, 297 articles were published in JIC (seeTable 2).

Table 2highlights how the eight generalist journals only published 78 of the 423 (18.4%) total ICAR articles. Exploring this

nding we note that most articles were part of IC special issues (e.g. AAAJ, AOS, CPA, and EAR), therefore reducing even further

the inclusion of ICAR articles in generalist journals. The yearly pattern of published articles in Fig. 1shows a spike in 2009 of

articles in specialist and generalist journals. We note this increase is mainly associated with increased page numbers and an

increase in the number of issues in the two specialist journals.

Additionally, since 1999 we note a consistent ow of ICAR articles slightly increasing over time. Again, we reason the

increased page numbers within specialist journals is the cause, not an acceptance of ICAR by the generalist journals. This

patterning is consistent with Broadbent and Guthrie (2008) and Guthrie and Murthy (2009) who also identied the important

role of specialised journals in publishing accounting research on specic topics.

4.1. Jurisdiction

The data in Table 3shows the jurisdiction of the papers emanated. Interestingly, we note how the majority of papers take

a top down approach, examining ICAR from a general or industry perspective. Only 118 (28.8%) of the papers examine ICAR at

an organisational level (A1.2, A2.2 and A3). This highlights how most ICAR tries to generalise ndings across all organisations

as opposed to looking at the practice of IC from within an organisation. This is similar to the debate between ostensive

(general or industry) and performative (organisational) approaches highlighted by Mouritsen (2006). He argues that it is

better: to understand IC as a concept and not only as an application of a pre-set idea and suggests that a performative

approach to IC will enhance possibilities of developing new and interesting propositions about how IC works and is involved

in organisational and social transformation(Mouritsen, 2006, p. 820). Thus the tendency to examine IC from above offers

little understanding of how IC is implemented in practice (see alsoDumay, 2009b).

Others, such as Cuganesan and Dumay (2009, p. 1161), go further and claim more research is required at the organisational

level to render visible the complexity of intellectual capital in order to make relationships between IC elements and value



6/15

creation accessible to managers seeking to act on IC . Not doing so leaves ICA as an abstract construct which is difcult to

implement without offering concrete examples of how ICA is applied inside an organisation. Moreover, acknowledging that

the ICA discipline is rooted in practice is an important reminder of the need for researchers to keep their work focused andrelevant (Guthrie et al., 2007).

4.2. Organisational focus

Table 4highlights the extent of research in terms of different types of organisations. It demonstrates that apart from

general other (B6), the most commonly researched organisation is publicly listed companies (B1) with 97 articles. Considering

publicly listed companies contribute only about 10% of the world s GNP, it seems that only a narrow view of ICA is dissem-

inated. There are very few articles on private companies, including SMEs, the public sector and not for prot organisations in

the eld of ICAR.

In examining publicly listed companies, as an organisational focus, it was found that many of the studies focused on the

content, determinants and consequences of IC disclosure in capital markets ( Abdolmohammadi, 2005;Bozzolan et al., 2003;

Ghosh & Wu, 2007;Mavridis, 2005). Recent papers that focus on listed companies have explored human capital disclosure

and value creation (e.g.Dumay & Tull, 2007;Murthy & Abeysekera, 2007). The dominance of publicly listed companies mightbe ascribed to easy access to annual reports and other publicly available information. However, in reviewing these papers we

did notnd a dominant focus. Several themes were found including: the use of the balanced scorecard (e.g.Bose & Thomas,

2007;OConnor & Feng, 2005), various reporting media such as annual report ( Bozzolan et al., 2006), stand-alone reports

(Nielsen, Bukh, Mouritsen, Johansen, & Gormsen, 2006) or disclosure to the stock exchange (Dumay & Tull, 2007). Also,

several papers focused on the use of IC by analysts (e.g.Johansson, 2007) and IPO prospectuses (e.g. Cordazzo, 2007). Analysis

of the organisational focus within B1 highlights the lack of studies with an internal focus on management IC practices. From

an external perspective, over 90 studies focused on ICA using publicly listed companies.

Fig. 1. Specialist IC journal Pages 20009.

Table 2

ICA articles in specialists and generalist journals (200009).

Journal name Journal code ICA articles Total articles % of ICA articles

Specialist journals

Journal of Intellectual Capital JIC 297 313 70.2%

Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting JHRCA 48 84 11.3%

Total ICA articles in specialist journals 345 397 81.6%

Generalist journals

Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal AAAJ 22 337 5.2%European Accounting Review EAR 17 288 0.4.0%

Accounting Organizations and Society AOS 11 345 2.6%

Australian Accounting Review AAR 8 261 1.9%

Management Accounting Research MAR 5 210 1.2%

Accounting Forum AF 5 212 1.2%

British Accounting Review BAR 3 177 0.7%

Critical Perspectives on Accounting CPA 7 435 1.7%

Total ICA articles in generalist journals 78 2265 18.4%

Total ICA articles in all journals 423 2662 100%



7/15

The next most researched organisation is private and the types of organisations covered were banks, multinational rms,

hotels, pharmaceuticals and others. On further investigation, what is of interest here is that of the 71 papers, only 7 dealt with

the nancial impacts of IC on markets and prots. The remaining papers had a denite focus on IC management issues and

strategy. However, nearly all these studies are empirical investigations of some aspects of IC within an organisational setting.

For instance, Bueno, Salmador, Rodriguez, and De Castro (2006) apply a complexity theory approach to developing IC strategy

in a Spanish bank.

The least popular categories appear to be the public sector and not-for-prot. This is surprising considering that these

sectors combined make up around 45% of GDP (Dumay, Guthrie, & Farneti, 2010), and that there are signicant differences in

the organisational context of the public and not-for-prot sectors (Ball & Bebbington, 2008;Broadbent & Guthrie, 2008) andwe would have expected similar differences in terms of ICAR.

Our in-depth review of the articles here indicates a wide spread of organisational types including universities (Caibano &

Snchez, 2009), local governments (Farneti & Guthrie, 2008), hospitals (Habersam & Piber, 2003), government departments

(Dumay & Guthrie, 2007), research organisations (Leitner & Warden, 2004), third sector (Fletcher et al., 2003), cultural and

heritage organisations (Donato, 2008), police departments (Collier, 2001), and regional clusters (Pyhnen & Smedlund,

2004).

The range of organisational sites here is broad, but the extent to which there is a body of in-depth research into a particular

organisational form is limited, meaning there are still ample research opportunities in this area. Also, when we analysed the

ICA focus of the studies the majority were concerned with management issues (Chang & Birkett, 2004;Mouritsen, Larsen, &

Bukh, 2001) and only a few dealt with IC reporting (Catass, Ersson, Grjer, & Wallentin, 2007). Once again this might be an

issue of access to organisations and availability of public IC information for research purposes.

4.3. Location

Table 5illustrates the regional focus or the geographical location of the work undertaken. As highlighted in the table for

the selected journals the most active regions were: continental Europe with 193 (46%) papers, followed by Australasia with 74

(17%) and North America with 72 (17%). The United Kingdom, as a research site, and its authors have been relatively silent

with only 41 (10%) papers. Not surprisingly, Continental Europe is in the forefront of ICAR because, since the 1990s, European

authors, especially Scandinavian countries, have continuously published ICAR articles and books (e.g. Bukh & Johanson, 2003;

Johanson, Mrtensson, & Skoog, 2001;Mrtensson, 2009).

Continental European articles mainly focus on the European nations, indicating the strong tradition of IC research in

Europe. Australasia has also produced a high number of articles and we argue that this is because Australasian researchers are

inuenced by European academic traditions. For example, Australasian researchers were the fourth largest number of

accepted papers at the 2010 EAA conference.

Another area of interest is North American articles. When we separate Canada and America, a strong presence of Canadian

studies is found in contrast to the size and academic population of America, where relatively few studies have been published.We suspect this is because much of the academic American accounting literature is concerned with intangible nancial

accounting rather than ICA. Research has also been published in the period in other parts of the world including South Africa

Table 3

Jurisdiction.

Total %

A1. Supra-national/international/comparative - general 176 41.6%

A1.2. Supra-national/international/comparative - organisational 20 4.7%

A1.1. Supra-national/international/comparative - industry 17 4.0%

A2. National - general 14 3.3%

A2.1. National - industry 98 23.2%

A2.2. National - organisational 56 13.2%A3. One organisation 42 9.9%

Grand total 423 100%

Table 4

Organisational focus.

Total %

B1. Publicly listed 97 22.9%

B2. Private - SMEs 18 4.3%

B3. Private - others 54 12.8%

B4. Public sector 28 6.6%

B5. Not for prot 7 1.7%

B6. General/other 219 51.8%




8/15

(April, Bosma, & Deglon, 2003), Russia (Tovstiga & Tulugurova, 2007, 2009) and South America (Joia, 2000, 2004;Joia &

Malheiros, 2009). Also in more recent years, we note an increase in studies from emerging economies such as India

(Murthy & Abeysekera, 2007) and especially China (Kumar & Ellingson, 2007; Yi & Davey, 2010). This suggests that developing

economies will potentially become the new hotspots for ICAR and practice.

4.4. Focus of ICA literature

Table 6represents the focus of the ICAR literature. The most popular focus of ICAR is management accounting which has

160 papers. We also observe how more than two thirds of the published articles use a management control/strategy (D4) oran external reporting(D1) focus. Little has been published about accountability, governance (D3) and auditing (D2).

The extent of publications in management control and strategy, as the most researched area of interest, is highlighted in

Table 6, representing 160 articles covering a wide range of management-related subjects. For instance, there were articles on

the Balanced Scorecards (Flamholtz, 2003) and its use for managing IC (OConnor & Feng, 2005), managing IC in different

organisational settings such as service organisations (Namasivayam & Denizci, 2006) and for the not-for-prot sector (Kong,

2007), and for mapping IC inside organisations (Hellstrm & Husted, 2004).

A group of 46 articles did not have empirical content and tended to be either commentaries or policy statements similar to

those referred to byPetty and Guthrie (2000)as rst stage contributions (e.g.Brennan & Connell, 2000;Garca-Ayuso, 2003;

Roslender & Fincham, 2001). It is interesting to note that most of these papers were at the beginning of the decade and there

were fewer at the end of the decade, supporting our nding of a move from normative commentary-type papers to

empirically based research as shown inFig. 2.

4.5. Research methods

Next,Table 7considers the research methods used within the selected articles depicting the spread used to study ICA. The

Table shows that commentary/normative/policy is the most commonly used, followed by surveys/questionnaire and case/

eld study/interviews. Content analysis of annual reports and historical analysis (E2) are also popular. Many papers have used

a combination of interviews and surveys and are case studies that provide in-depth details of ICA within different organi-

sations. There are a growing number of theoretical studies published that are represented in E5 ( Nielsen & Madsen, 2009),

whilst there are fewer articles on theoretical/empirical studies that link theory with empirics.

The rst three categories (E1, E2 and E3) could be consolidated as an empiricaltheme and the next category (E4) can be

classied as normativestudies. The nal category, E5, connects theoretical to empirical studies. As we highlighted inFig. 2,

the trend over the last ten years is a steady increase in empirical work, while normative work has declined. It is encouraging to

see more empirical work in this area, but there is a danger of over-dependence on empirical studies unsupported by theo-

retical underpinning. Additionally, it reinforces our earlier comments which highlight a failure to convert IC theory into

practice caused by a concentration of top-down ostensive research instead of bottom-up performative research (seeDumay,

2009b,2009c;Mouritsen, 2006).

Table 5

Location.

Total %

C1. North America 72 17.0%

C2. Australasia 74 17.5%

C3. United Kingdom 41 9.7%

C4. Continental Europe 193 45.6%

C5. Other 43 10.2%


Table 6

Focus of ICA literature.

Total %

D1. External reporting - ICD other reports and media 132 31.2%

D2. Auditing 1 0.2%

D3. Accountability and governance 7 1.7%

D4. Management control/strategy 160 37.8%

D5. Performance measurement 77 18.2%

D6. Other (including general) 46 10.9%




9/15

4.6. ICAFrameworks

Building on the discussion of research methods is our analysis of the use of ICA frameworks in the published research as

outlined inTable 8. Three interesting facts are evidenced in the table. First, most papers (66.2%) do not address ICA frame-

works again highlighting the inability to take an existing IC framework into consideration when researching IC. On the otherhand, the ICAR literature has mainlyconcentrated on the development of new frameworks (22% of papers) compared with the

utilisation of existing frameworks (11.8% of papers).

On further investigation, we nd the trend to develop new ICA frameworks is waning in the later half of the decade as

shown inFig. 3. We believe this indicates that the ICAR eld is maturing and becoming entrenched as a discipline. It is

developing into a legitimate eld within accounting and management as more researchers use existing frameworks to frame

their research.

5. Discussion

Leading on from our meta-analysis, we now turn to discussing our observations from a more qualitative perspective, building

up to answering our nal question four What is the future for ICAR?in the conclusion of our paper. In developing an answer,

two broad topics are addressed. First, we identify and discuss how ICAR has developed as a specialist research eld. Second, we

discuss the implications of ICAR as a specialist research eld and respond to some of the issues raised in the meta-analysis.

5.1. ICA as specialist research

We claim that ICAR is a specialist research eld because, as evidenced in our analysis of papers, we show how ICAR has

developed a repertoire of published accounting research, promoting discourse via perspectives inuenced by different

countries, organisations, research methods, etc. Furthermore, ICAR has matured from both the rst and second stages of

development, as evidenced by the narrowing gap between developing new ICA frameworks and utilising existing frameworks

and the increased volume of published research in generalist and specialist journals.

We further argue that a third stage of critical ICAR development is emerging which is characterised by research that takes

a critical examination of IC in practice. The infancy of this critical third stage beganwith the 2004 special edition of JIC entitled

IC at the crossroads - theory and research(Chatzkel, 2004; Marr & Chatzkel, 2004). The third stage gained further impetus and

reinforcement with Mouritsens (2006) seminal AAAJ paper Problematising intellectual capital research: Ostensive versus

performative ICand continued to develop in 2009 with the special edition ofCPA (Vol. 20 No. 7) called Critical perspectives onintellectual capital(Mouritsen & Roslender, 2009;Roslender & Stevenson, 2009). Additionally, critical papers appeared in JIC

byDumay (2009a, 2009b),in AAAJ byCuganesan and Dumay (2009)and in JHRCA byRoslender (2009). Thus the third stage

was starting to gain considerable impetus and it will be interesting to see how it develops over the coming years.

Fig. 2. Empirical vs. normative ICA papers (200009).

Table 7

Research methods.

Total %

E1. Case/eld study/interviews 82 19.4%

E2. Content analysis/historical analysis 46 10.9%

E3. Survey/questionnaire/other empirical 103 24.3%

E4. Commentary/normative/policy 152 35.9%

E5. Theoretical: literature review/empirical 40 9.5%

Grand total 423 100.0%



10/15

Since the 1990s, the community of ICA researchers has also grown through attracting newer scholars drawn to under-

standing IC in action (e.g.Chaminade & Roberts, 2003;Chang & Birkett, 2004;Dumay, 2009c) and by engaging in debates

about dening IC and utilising guidelines (Edvinsson & Kivikas, 2007;Farneti & Guthrie, 2008;Johanson, Koga, Almqvist, &

Skoog, 2009;Mouritsen et al., 2001;Ricceri, 2008). Accordingly, we witnessed an upsurge in newer scholars in countries

where therst stage of ICAR was established, such as the European nations, Canada and Australia. However, we are heartened

also by the increased input from the new economic giants such as China and India. These two countries alone hold nearly half

of the worlds population, so it will be interesting to observe how ICAR continues to emerge in these places.

The emergence and consolidation of a scholarly ICA community has been sponsored and supported by governments,

universities, academic journals and conferences. For example, the Hong Kong Government has poured substantial resources

into the development of IC as evidenced by the establishment of the Intellectual Capital Management Consultancy Programme

(seehttp://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/icm.htm). Already this programme has participated in IC research and consultancies with

over 500 Chinese SMEs, rivalling the scope and scale of seminal IC projects such as the Meritum Project (2002) or thedevelopment of the Danish IC guidelines (Mouritsen et al., 2003). Additionally, Hong KongPolytechnic University has funded

aKnowledge Management Research Centre.

From the perspective of journals one of the longest standing outlets for ICAR are journals such as JIC. The number of ICA

and knowledge management (KM) journals is increasing. According toSerenko and Bontis (2009) there are 20 journals

dedicated to the dissemination of IC and KM research (of which IC is a small subset and interestingly the list excluded JHRCA).

Additionally, as we have shown in our research, prominent generalist accounting research journals such as Accounting,

Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ);Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS), Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA)

andAccounting Forum (AF) have included ICAR. More importantly, extra attention has been paid to ICAR of late through special

editions of generalist research journals.

Through the 2000s and onwards, the three leading international interdisciplinary accounting research conferences, the

European Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference (IPA), AAAJs Asia Pacic Interdisciplinary Research in

Accounting Conference (APIRA), and the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference (CPAC), have offered greater opportu-

nities for ICA researchers to disseminate and receive feedback on their work. Adding to the list of generalist accountingconferences is for example:

British Accounting and Finance Association Annual Conference;

European Accounting Association Annual Congress; and

Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference.

Table 8

ICA frameworks and models.

Total %

F0. No model proposed 280 66.2%

F1.0. Applies or considers previous models 50 11.8%

F1.1. Proposes a new model 93 22.0%

Grand total 423 100.0%

Fig. 3. Developing new versus considering existing IC frameworks 20009.

http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/icm.htmhttp://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/icm.htm


11/15

A number of specialist conferences also exist and have become annual or biannual events. These included:

The 7th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organisational Learning (ICICKM

2010) in Hong Kong;

The 2nd European Conference on Intellectual Capital (ECIC 2010) in Lisbon;

Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting Conference 2011, Edinburgh;

3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital, Nicosia, 2011 Cyprus;

The 6th International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics (IFKAD 2011), "Knowledge-Based Foundations of the

Service Economy", 1517 June, Tampere, Finland.

Even with continued progress in the development of ICAR dissemination, many ICA researchers still feel excluded from the

generalist accounting research community for two reasons. First, is the lack of recognition of specialist ICA journals in the

accounting and business school rankings. AsSerenko and Bontis (2009, p. 4) attest, The academiceld of KM/IC is relatively

young but growing at an accelerated rate. Unfortunately, the few academic journals that do currently exist do not have a long

legacy, which would support their recognition in general management-wide rankings. Second is the apparent bias against

ICAR and its related theories and research methodologies exhibited by editors and editorial boards members of many so-

called highly rated generalist accounting journals. This is because these journals and their editors see the problem of IC as

a nancial (intangibles) accounting problem (e.g.Skinner, 2008a), rather than the problem of trying to understanding how

intellectual capital is linked to value creation (e.g. Mouritsen et al., 2001). Although according to our research this appears to

be waning in some instances as evidenced by recent special editions in a generalist accounting journals.

In sharp contrast to successfully coming out in the early 2000s, we now see a trend towards specialist research groupingssuch as ICA researchers opting to retreat behind closed doors, seeking their own scholarly groupings. Subsequently many only

attend specialist conferences and publish in specialist journals. We applaud and encourage dissemination among experts;

however it carries the risk of retreating from engagement with other specialist accounting researchers in generalist

conferences. AsSerenko and Bontis (2009, p. 6) attest:

.scholars striving to convey their ndings face two options. First, they may submit their manuscripts to one of the

KM/IC-specic outlets that will give their works the best exposure to a target audience. Regrettably, if the rankings of

these journals are low or non-existent, which is a present situation with KM/IC journals, the quality of this research

may be questioned by colleagues, promotion committees and granting agencies. Second, KM/IC scholars may submit

their papers to well-ranked non-KM specic outlets. However, despite the recognition of research quality and impact

on a future academic career, this work may potentially remain unnoticed by the general KM/IC community that may

tend to read mostly KM/IC-specic outlets.

Unashamedly, our paper focuses on refereed journal papers as they are regarded as the most highly valued accountingacademic publications (Parker, Guthrie, & Gray, 1998). In the last decade the extent and quality of research activity has become

a key focus for judging academic and university performance. In doing this, various national research assessment exercises

have been undertaken (Ashton et al., 2009;Northcott & Linacre, 2010), which only in part rely upon published journal quality

rankings. In Australia, there is the government backed Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), whilst the Australian

Business Deans Council (ABDC) has produced its own list. In the United Kingdom, the inuential ABS rankings list has recently

decided to remove JIC and JHRCA. In Australia, the 2010 ERA ranked JIC as a B and JHRCA as a C. These lists are becoming more

inuential in determining authors preferences for publishing and researching (Northcott & Linacre, 2010) and if JIC and

JHRCA were not available as an outlet there would be little space available in more generalist journals for ICA type research.

However, as highlighted byAshton et al. (2009, p. 201):

[.] relyingon journal rankings to capture researchquality, especially in the accounting andnance, a practiceseemingly

on the increase in many UK institutions, and also in the rankings of business schools produced by newspapers such as the

Financial Times, is likely to be misleading in capturing the real level of research quality in these research areas.

Therefore, we advocate that rather than narrowing what is considered quality accounting research by so-called journal

quality rankings, we should be developing alternative spaces for academic discourse. Rather than stiing innovation and

new emerging areas, we should encourage new research ideas and research outlets ( Hopwood, 2009).

5.2. Responses

Next, we offer some responses in relation to the concerns raised in the original meta-analysis. First, we recognise how

many generalist technical accounting research conferences and journals privilege contemporary accounting for nancial

intangibles and positivistic research. However, a similar environment existed with specialist groups such as accounting

history scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. These scholars persevered and eventually penetrated generalist accounting to

become recognised (Parker & Guthrie, 2009).

Second, academics have limited time and travel budgets; therefore specialist researchers allocate their scarce resources to

their specialist conferences. However, this perpetuates the risk of becoming disconnected from the generalist accounting



12/15

research community. It does not provide a defensible rationale for failing to submit more research to generalist journals. By

not submitting research papers to generalist journals ICA researchers cannot expect to be published there!

Thus there is an alternative route to promoting ICAR through disseminating research into generalist journals and

conferences and not concentrate exclusively on specialised ICAR avenues. The generalist accounting journals and conferences

present a signicant pathway towards ICA researchers engaging with other accounting research colleagues. ICA researchers

must not retreat into a specialist research ghetto.

By displaying their wares to a wider community of accounting research peers, ICA researchers join them in contributing to

developing contemporary policy and discourse. By demonstrating how exciting and relevant their research is to younger and

newer scholars they contribute to attracting and developing the next generation of ICA researchers. With its peers, AAAJ and

APIRA stand ready to assist the specialist ICAR community in this important undertaking ( Guthrie & Parker, 2006).

6. Conclusion - the future of ICAR

The rst aim of our paper was to answer the question What is the scholarshipeld of ICAR?We achieved this by reviewing

the seminalPetty and Guthrie (2000)literature review and establishing ICA as a specialist eld of research. More importantly

we witnessed how the rst two stages of ICAR have matured and how a third stage of ICAR was taking hold focussing on

critically examining ICAR in practice.

Next we addressed the questions: What has happened in theeld of ICAR over the past decade?and How and why is the

eld changing?utilising a meta-analysis of the articles that focus on ICAR for a ten year period from 2000 to 2009 in ten

selected journals. Our study shows that there is an increase in research in the eld of ICA, with focus on developed countries,

public listed companies and on management control and strategy areas, and within recent years more empirical studies. Next

we advocate some ways forward in answering the nal question: What is the future for ICAR?

First, we advocate that ICA researchers need to take an active role in disseminating their research to the wider accounting

research community. The potential to do so has never been greater as the generalist accounting journals have recently opened

the doors to special editions and have increased the space available for articles of all types. Additionally generalist accounting

conferences do not shy away from accepting ICA papers for presentation. In reality it is up to us as the ICA researchers to take

our work to the generalist accounting community to receive feedback which informs us of the reasons papers may not be

accepted. We should be leading the way by offering our ndings to the generalist journals and conferences and participating

in their debates.

Second, we advocate that the specialist journals should continue to promote acceptance of ICAR by openly seeking critical

views on ICA as a eld of research. There fore we want to emphasise the need to continue developing critical ICAR research as

part of the third stage as important. The special edition titled Intellectual capital: becoming critical in JIC (Vol. 7 No.1), the

special edition ofCPA(Vol. 20 No. 7) called Critical perspectives on intellectual capitalis evidence of how both specialist and

generalist journals have contributed to thethirdstage. Unfortunately, up until just recently, we have notparticipated in many of

these debates within our own community, which leads us open to the criticism that our research eld is a closed shop and we

are unwilling to hear the opposing arguments of other accounting researchers. Only by confronting each others ideas in open

discourse can we move forward. ICA researchers should become the catalyst of the discourse rather than turn away from it.

Thus, in conclusion we nd that there are signicant omissions in the research agenda in both the specialist and generalist

agendas. On the other hand, we see plentiful evidence of a counter-offensive to the capital market intangible research that

dominatesnancial accounting research (see for instance,Lev, 2008;Skinner, 2008a;Stark, 2008;Wyatt, 2008).

As evidenced by our research, we as ICA researchers are part of a growing academic research community, particularly in

the interpretive, qualitative and critical traditions researching various aspects of ICA. Through our research, we are estab-

lishing bridgeheads of published research addressing subjects of emerging importance to world communities, embracing

change and engaging in being critical of experiences in the eld. We welcome the task of grappling with the complexities of

organisational and institutional worlds rather than repeatedly modelling them and conceiving from them abstract positivistic

theory.

The future research directions discussed above are about opening up new elds of enquiry, addressing neglected issues

and consolidating the eld of ICAR. We must challenge the status quo, employ innovative methodologies, experiment with

the novel and take risks. We encourage you to watch the ICA space in the next decade for more critical eld studies which will

provide empirical studies of IC in action and help develop broader theoretical research.

The conclusion of this article should be considered after taking into account the following limitations. First, the selection of

journals was restricted to ten. Results could vary if more journals were scrutinised and if other forms of scholarly activities

were included (e.g. monographs, conference papers, books, book chapters, PhD theses, etc). Second, although the coding

process was performed systematically with utmost care to allow consistency, there could be errors of omission and coding

could have also been affected by coder bias. Third, in spite of using previous research to select the coding criteria so as to make

the classication mutually exclusive and exhaustive, the addition of other and other general classications may have

camouaged some interesting ndings.

In closing,Parker and Guthrie (2009)argue that consistent with its historical tradition, the accounting and the accounting

research disciplines must remain resolutely pluralist if we are to have any signicant and relevant future at all. The range of

topics studied, and the range of theoretical perspectives adopted, is extremely broad. Arguably, this is a highly desirable

feature that should be protected against narrow-minded approaches to the evaluation of research (Ashton et al., 2009, p.207).



13/15

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Michael Jones, joint editor of BAR, the participants at the 2009 BAA conference, where the

paper was presented by James Guthrie as a plenary, for their insights and helpful feedback and the participants of the

Intellectual Capital in a Complex Business Landscape conference, Matera, Italy, 2010 where it was presented in a revised form.

Also, thanks to the participants at the Waikato University management conference, Hamilton, New Zealand; the participants

at the Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability research seminar and the University of South Australia. We are

grateful to Fiona Crawford, Macquarie University; and Julz Stevens, Knowledge Research for their research support.

References

Abdolmohammadi, M. J. (2005). Intellectual capital disclosure and market capitalization. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(3), 397416.Abeysekera, I., & Guthrie, J. (2004). Human capital reporting in a developing nation. The British Accounting Review, 36, 251268.Andriessen, D. (2004). IC valuation and measurement: classifying the state of the art. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 230242.April, K. A., Bosma, P., & Deglon, D. A. (2003). IC measurement and reporting: establishing a practice in SA mining. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2),

165180.Ashton, D., Beattie, V., Broadbent, J., Brooks, C., Draper, P., Ezzamel, M., et al. (2009). British research in accounting and nance (20012007): the 2008

research assessment exercise. The British Accounting Review, 41(4), 199207.Bakhru, A. (2004). Managerial knowledge to organisational capability: new e-commerce businesses. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 326336.Ball, A., & Bebbington, J. (2008). Editorial: accounting and reporting for sustainable development in public service organizations. Public Money &

Management, 28(6), 323326.Beattie, V., & Thomson, S. J. (2007). Lifting the lid on the use of content analysis to investigate intellectual capital disclosures. Accounting Forum, 31(2),

129163.

Boedker, C., Guthrie, J., & Cuganesan, S. (2005). An integrated framework for visualising intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(4), 510

527.Boedker, C., Mouritsen, J., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Enhanced business reporting: international trends and possible policy directions. Journal of Human Resource

Costing & Accounting, 12(1), 1425.Bontis, N. (2003). Intellectual capital disclosure in Canadian corporations. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 7(1), 920.Bose, S., & Thomas, K. (2007). Applying the balanced scorecard for better performance of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 653665.Bozzolan, S., Favotto, F., & Ricceri, F. (2003). Italian annual intellectual capital disclosure: an empirical analysis.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 543558.Bozzolan, S., ORegan, P., & Ricceri, F. (2006). Intellectual capital disclosure (ICD): a comparison of Italy and the UK. Journal of Human Resource Costing &

Accounting, 10(2), 92113.Brcheler, V., Maijoor, S., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2004). Auditor human capital and auditrm survival: the Dutch audit industry in 19301992.Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 29(7), 627646.Brennan, N., & Connell, B. (2000). Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implications. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 206240.Broadbent, J., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Public sector to public services: 20 years of contextual accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal, 21(2), 129169.Bueno, E., Salmador, M. P., Rodriguez, O., & De Castro, G. M. (2006). Internal logic of intellectual capital: a biological approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital,

7(3), 394405.Bukh, P. N., & Johanson, U. (2003). Research and knowledge interaction: guidelines for intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4),

576587.

Caibano, L., & Snchez, M. P. (2009). Intangibles in universities: current challenges for measuring and reporting. Journal of Human Resource Costing &Accounting, 13(2), 93104.

Catass, B., Ersson, S., Grjer, J.-E., & Wallentin, F. Y. (2007). What gets measured gets . on indicating, mobilizing and acting. Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal, 20(4), 505521.

Catass, B., & Grjer, J.-E. (2003). Intangibles and credit decisions: results from an experiment. European Accounting Review, 12(2), 327355.Cerbioni, F., & Parbonetti, A. (2007). Exploring the effects of corporate governance on intellectual capital disclosure: an analysis of European biotechnology

companies.European Accounting Review, 16(4), 791826.Chaminade, C., & Johanson, U. (2003). Can guidelines for intellectual capital management and reporting be considered without addressing cultural

differences? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 528542.Chaminade, C., & Roberts, H. (2003). What it means is what it does: a comparative analysis of implementing intellectual capital in Norway and Spain.

European Accounting Review, 12(4), 733751.Chang, L., & Birkett, B. (2004). Managing intellectual capital in a professional service rm: exploring the creativity-productivity paradox. Management

Accounting Research, 15(1), 731.Chatzkel, J. (2003). The collapse of Enron and the role of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 127143.Chatzkel, J. (2004). Moving through the crossroads. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 337339.Collier, P. M. (2001). Valuing intellectual capacity in the police. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14 (4), 437455.Cordazzo, M. (2007). Intangibles and Italian IPO prospectuses: a disclosure analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2), 288305.

Cuganesan, S., & Dumay, J. C. (2009). Reecting on the production of intellectual capital visualisations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(8),11611186.Davila, T. (2005). An exploratory study on the emergence of management control systems: formalizing human resources in small growing rms.Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 30(3), 223248.Davison, J. (2008). Rhetoric, repetition, reporting and the dot.com era:words, pictures, intangibles. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(6),

791826.Ditillo, A. (2004). Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive rms: the role of management control systems as knowledge integration mechanisms.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(34), 401421.Donato, F. (2008). Managing IC by antennae: evidence from cultural organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(3), 380394.Dumay, J. C. (2009a). Intellectual capital measurement: a critical approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(2), 190210.Dumay, J. C. (2009b). Reective discourse about intellectual capital: research and practice. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(4), 489503.Dumay, J. C. (2009c). Intellectual capital in action: A critical approach to putting IC theory into practice. Saarbrcken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mller.Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2007). Disturbance and implementation of IC practice: a public sector organisation perspective. Journal of Human Resource Costing

and Accounting, 11(2), 104121.Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2010). Contemporary international sustainability reporting guidelines for public and third sector organisations: a critical

review. Public Management Review, 13(4), 531548.Dumay, J., & Tull, J. (2007). Intellectual capital disclosure and price sensitive Australian stock exchange announcements. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2),

236

255.Edvinsson, L., & Kivikas, M. (2007). Intellectual capital (IC) or Wissensbilanz process: some German experiences.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(3), 376385.



14/15

Farneti, F., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Italian and Australian local governments: balanced scorecard practices. A research note. Journal of Human Resource Costing &Accounting, 12(1), 413.

Firer, S., & Williams, S. M. (2003). Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(3), 348360.Flamholtz, E. G. (2003). Putting balance and validity into the balanced scorecard. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 7(3), 1526.Fletcher, A., Guthrie, J., Steane, P., Roos, G., & Pike, S. (2003). Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. Journal of Intellectual Capital,

4(4), 505527.Garca-Ayuso, M. (2003). Intangibles: lessons from the past and a look into the future. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 597604.Garca-meca, E., Parra, I., Larrn, M., & Martnez, I. (2005). The explanatory factors of intellectual capital disclosure to nancial analysts.European Accounting

Review, 14(1), 6394.Ghosh, D., & Wu, A. (2007). Intellectual capital and capital markets: additional evidence. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2), 216235.

Guthrie, J., & Murthy, V. (2009). Past, present and possible future developments in human capital accounting: a tribute to Jan-Erik Grojer. Journal of HumanResource Costing & Accounting, 13(2), 125142.

Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (2006). Editorial: the coming out of accounting research specialisms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(1), 516.Guthrie, J., Petty, R., & Ricceri, F. (2006). The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia. Journal of

Intellectual Capital, 7(2), 254271.Guthrie, J., Petty, R., & Ricceri, F. (2007). Intellectual capital reporting: Investigations into Australia and Hong Kong. Edinburgh: Research Monograph, The

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS).Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of

Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282293.Habersam, M., & Piber, M. (2003). Exploring intellectual capital in hospitals: two qualitative case studies in Italy and Austria. European Accounting Review,

12(4), 753779.Hellstrm, T., & Husted, K. (20 04). Mapping knowledge and intellectual capital in academic environments: a focus group study.Journal of Intellectual Capital,

5(1), 165180.Holland, J. (2001). Financial institutions, intangibles and corporate governance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(4), 497529.Holland, J., & Johanson, U. (2003). Value-relevant information on corporate intangibles creation, use, and barriers in capital markets between a rock and

a hard place. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 465486.Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(34), 433439.

Jardn,C. M. F., & Martos, M. S. (2009). Intellectual capital and performance in wood industries of Argentina. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(4), 600616.Johanson, U., Koga, C., Almqvist, R., & Skoog, M. (2009). Breaking taboos: implementing intellectual assets-based management guidelines. Journal of

Intellectual Capital, 10(4), 520538.Johanson, U., Koga, C., Skoog, M., & Henningsson, J. (2006). The Japanese governments intellectual capital reporting guideline: what are the challenges for

rms and capital market agents? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(4), 474491.Johanson, U., Mrtensson, M., & Skoog, M. (2001). Measuring to understand intangible performance drivers. European Accounting Review, 10(3), 407437.Johansson, J. (2007). Sell-side analysts creation of value key roles and relational capital. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 11(1), 3052.Joia, L. A. (2000). Using intellectual capital to evaluate educational technology projects. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 341356.Joia, L. A. (20 04). Are frequent customers always a companys intangible asset? Some ndings drawn from an exploratory case study. Journal of Intellectual

Capital, 5(4), 586601.Joia, L. A., & Malheiros, R. (2009). Strategic alliances and the intellectual capital ofrms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(4), 539558.Kong, E. (2007). The strategic importance of intellectual capital in the non-prot sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 721731.Kumar, S., & Ellingson, J. (2007). Adaptive IP strategies in China: a tactical analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(1), 139158.Leitner, K.-H., & Warden, C. (2004). Managing and reporting knowledge-based resources and processes in research organisations: speci cs, lessons learned

and perspectives. Management Accounting Research, 15(1), 3351.Lev, B. (2008). A rejoinder to Douglas Skinners Accounting for intangibles - a critical review of policy recommendations.Accounting & Business Research,

209213.

Mrtensson, M. (2009). Recounting counting and accounting: from political arithmetic to measuring intangibles and back. Critical Perspectives onAccounting, 20(7), 835846.

Marr, B., & Chatzkel, J. (2004). Intellectual capital at the crossroads: managing, measuring, and reporting of IC. Journalof Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 224229.Mavridis, D. G. (2005). Intellectual capital performance determinants and globalization status of Greek listed rms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(1),

127140.van der Meer-Kooistra, J., & Zijlstra, S. M. (2001). Reporting on intellectual capital. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(4), 456476.Meritum Project. (2002). Guidelines for managing and reporting on intangibles (intellectual capital report) . Madrid: European Commission.Moeller, K. (2009). Intangible and nancial performance: causes and effects. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(2), 224245.Mouritsen, J. (2006). Problematising intellectual capital research: ostensive versus performative IC. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6),

820841.Mouritsen, J., Bukh, P. N., Flagstad, K., Thorbjrnsen, S., Johansen, M. R., Kotnis, S., et al. (2003). Intellectual capital statements The new guideline.

Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (DMSTI).Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H. T., & Bukh, P. N. D. (2001). Intellectual capital and the capablerm: narrating, visualising and numbering for managing knowledge.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(78), 735762.Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H. T., & Bukh, P. N. (2005). Dealing with the knowledge economy: intellectual capital versus balanced scorecard. Journal of Intellectual

Capital, 6(1), 827.Mouritsen, J., & Roslender, R. (2009). Critical intellectual capital. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(7), 801803.

Murthy, V., & Abeysekera, I. (2007). Human capital value creation practices of software and service exporterrms in India.Journal of Human Resource Costing& Accounting, 11(2), 84103.

Namasivayam, K., & Denizci, B. (2006). Human capital in service organizations: identifying value drivers. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(3), 381393.Nielsen, C., Bukh, P. N., Mouritsen, J., Johansen, M. R., & Gormsen, P. (2006). Intellectual capital statements on their way to the stock exchange: analyzing

new reporting systems. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(2), 221240.Nielsen, C., & Madsen, M. T. (2009). Discourses of transparency in the intellectual capital reporting debate: moving from generic reporting models to

management dened information. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(7), 847854.Northcott, D., & Linacre, S. (2010). Producing spaces for academic discourse: the impact of research assessment exercises and journal quality rankings.

Australian Accounting Review, 20(1), 3854.OConnor, N. G., & Feng, E. (2005). Using the balanced scorecard to manage intangible assets in a sino-foreign joint venture. Australian Accounting Review,

15(36), 2229.ORegan, P., ODonnell, D., Kennedy, T., Bontis, N., & Cleary, P. (2001). Perceptions of intellectual capital: Irish evidence. Journal of Human Resource Costing &

Accounting, 6(2), 2938.Olsson, B. (2001). Annual reporting practices: information about human resources in corporate annual reports in major Swedish companies. Journal of

Human Resource Costing and Accounting, 6(1), 3952.Pyhnen, A., & Smedlund, A. (2004). Assessing intellectual capital creation in regional clusters. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(3), 351365.Parker, L. D. (20 05). Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the commentary box.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6),

842

860.



15/15

Parker, L., & Guthrie, J. (2009). Championing intellectual pluralism (Editorial). Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22 (1), 512.Parker, L., Guthrie, J., & Gray, R. (1998). Accounting and management research: passwords from the gatekeepers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability

Journal, 11(4), 371406.Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 155176.Pike, S., Fernstrm, L., & Roos, G. (2005). Intellectual capital: management approach in ICS Ltd. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(4), 489509.Pike, S., & Roos, G. (2004). Mathematics and modern business management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 243256.Ricceri, F. (2008). Intellectual capital and knowledge management: Strategic management of knowledge resources. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.Ricceri, F., & Guthrie, J. (2009). Critical analysis of international guidelines for the management of knowledge resources. In D. Jemielniak, & J. Kociatkiewicz

(Eds.), Handbook on research on knowledge intensive organisations. PA: Information Science Press.Richardson, A. J., & Welker, M. (2001). Social disclosure, nancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(78),

597616.Roslender, R. (2009). The prospects for satisfactorily measuring and reporting intangibles: time to embrace a new model of (ac)counting? Journal of Human

Resource Costing & Accounting, 13(4), 338359.Roslender, R., & Fincham, R. (2001). Thinking critically about intellectual capital accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(4), 383399.Roslender, R., & Stevenson, J. (2009). Accounting for people: a real step forward or more a case of wishing and hoping? Critical Perspectives on Accounting,

20(7), 855869.Rowbottom, N. (2002). The application of intangible asset accounting and dicretionary policy choices in the UK football industry. The British Accounting

Review, 34(4), 335355.Royal, C., & ODonnell, L. (2008). Differentiation in nancial markets: the human capital approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(4), 668683.Snchez, M. P., Elena, S., & Castrillo, R. (2009). Intellectual capital dynamics in universities: a reporting model. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(2), 307324.Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2009). Global ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals. Journal of Knowledge Management,

13(1), 415.Skinner, D. J. (2008a). Accounting for intangibles - a critical review of policy recommendations. Accounting & Business Research, 38(3), 191204.Skinner, D. J. (2008b). A reply to Levs rejoinder to Accounting for intangibles - a critical review of policy recommendations. Accounting & Business Research.Skoog, M. (2003). Visualizing value creation through the management control of intangibles. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4),487504.Stark, A. W. (2008). Intangibles and research d an overview with a specic focus on the UK. Accounting & Business Research, 275285.Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organisations. London: Doubleday - Currency.

Striukova, L., Unerman, J., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Corporate reporting of intellectual capital: evidence from UK companies. The British Accounting Review, 40(4),297313.

Sveiby, K.-E. (2001). A knowledge-based theory of the rm to guide in strategy formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(4), 344358.Tayles, M., Webster, M., Sugden, D., & Bramley, A. (2005). Accounting gets real in dealing with virtual manufacturing. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(3),

322338.Tovstiga, G., & Tulugurova, E. (2007). Intellectual capital practices and performance in Russian enterprises. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 695707.Tovstiga, G., & Tulugurova, E. (2009). Intellectual capital practices: a four-region comparative study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 7080.Unerman, J., Guthrie, J., & Striukova, L. (2007). UK reporting of intellectual capital. Mimeo, ICAEW, University of London.Wyatt, A. (2008). What nancial and non-nancial information on intangibles is value-relevant? A review of the evidence. Accounting & Business Research,

38(3), 217256.Yi, A., & Davey, H. (2010). Intellectual capital disclosure in Chinese (mainland) companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(3), 326347.Yongvanich, K., & Guthrie, J. (2005). Extended performance reporting: an examination of the Australian mining industry.Accounting Forum, 29(1), 103119.


Documents

A Decade of Intellectual Capital Accounting Research