RMIT accounting educators’ conference: 2016 ‘accounting education what it is, and what it is not’

Introduction

A comprehensive definition of accounting education is surprisingly sparse in the accounting academic literature. The phrase in most instances is mentioned without explanation and its meaning is assumed lacking elaboration beyond its literal or intuitive understanding or description. This could be because ‘accounting education’ is a socially constructed concept assumed by researchers to possess a shared understanding or it could be because accounting education is an evolving and multifaceted concept that lacks precision and the qualities necessary of being definable. When the meaning of accounting education is addressed in the accounting education literature, it is invariably discussed in terms of syllabi (knowledge), pedagogy (instruction), process (independent learning) or outcomes (graduate attributes). In more recent times, discussion on accounting education has moved from the goals or content of education to the process of learning where students are encouraged to become active and independent in the learning process. Interestingly, the accounting education literature emphasises what accounting ‘is not’ by highlighting what it fails to achieve more than it highlights what it does achieve. Similarly, the articles that appear in this special issue tend also to skirt the issue of defining accounting education and stress what accounting education fails to achieve. The intention of this editorial is to elucidate key themes in the definition of accounting education, what it is, and to highlight key events that have helped shape accounting education to what it is today. Overall, this editorial attempts to provide in some meaningful way, albeit briefly, the widely held observations and points on what is, and what is not accounting education.

Early concepts of accounting education

The phrase ‘accounting education’ is surprisingly under-defined in the accounting research literature lacking a precise or comprehensive definition. At its most basic, accounting education is about ‘accounting’ and ‘education’, in which the practice of accounting is shared with students through the dissemination of accounting protocols (Helliar, 2013). Within the confines of this narrow definition, accounting in its conventional image is concerned with recording and reporting economic events, while education disseminates the knowledge that underpins the skills necessary to develop competent professionals in the practice of financial and management accounting. A brief perusal of university websites in Australia in the present environment did little to expand the meaning of accounting education. Websites refer to accounting education in terms of its career prospects emphasising mobility across sectors and locations or its quality inferred from external accreditation consistent with industry standard requirements. Definitions of accounting education by far, associate education with the practice of accounting in which accounting and the education of accountants are intrinsically linked with accounting’s involvement in business. This notion of accounting education is exemplified in early definitions of accounting education, for example, Campfield (1970, p. 687) highlights the association of education and practice: ‘the formal education apparatus must be continuously responsive to provide a prospective accountant with all he needs to know to properly practice his profession.’ Developing individual traits and the personal dimensions of the accountant such as professionalism and emotional intelligence were absent in conventional definitions of accounting education.

A temporal analysis of the development of accounting education may not always define or explain accounting education, but it will give a better understanding of how it has evolved to the point at which it exists today. Accounting education in early twentieth century was seen as preparatory training for administrative services and taught as an adjunct to administration studies and an instrument of executive application (Andersen, 1862/1962; Kerrigan, 1959; Littleton, 1942). Economics and the ability to understand trade, commerce, and markets but not accounting, was considered appropriate for business education (Kerrigan, 1959). In this early period, there was little justification for practical courses in accounting as well as other functional areas of business such as marketing, and human resources. Such courses were considered appropriate for competency or skilled-based learning (e.g. bookkeeping) but were not considered worthy of university education (Kerrigan, 1959). Consequently, accounting education struggled to find its place among business degree programmes in ways similar to traditional academic disciplines of its time such as engineering, law and medicine, raising questions about the adequacy of training in the supply accounting graduates to the profession.

Significant developments to accounting education occurred in the 1950s coinciding with the professionalisation of accounting and the proliferation of authoritative statements of accounting principles (Black, 2012). In this period, students were trained in the practice of accounting to develop entry-level accountants. The design of accounting programmes focused on developing skills to meet the needs of the profession, a legacy visible in today’s accounting education. The accounting curriculum during this period emphasised public accounting representing the elite segment of the accounting profession and in doing so, skewed away from a balanced programme addressing the skills of accountants in other functional areas of business to accommodate equally important careers (e.g. tax accountants, corporate accountants, cost accountants, budget accountants and public sector) (Kerrigan, 1959). The needs of these other areas were sacrificed for the prominent status of public accounting.

The link between education and practice also had its advantages. Accounting as a profession enjoyed an increasing level of prestige within the business community in the latter part of the twentieth century. In doing so, accounting education enjoyed a similar reputational enhancement with a growing population of accounting graduates. However, the prestige associated with the accounting profession and implications for education eventually turned; the supply of accounting students had decreased dramatically towards the turn of the century (Albrecht & Sack, 2000; Bailey, 1994; American Accounting Association, 2012). The relevance of accounting education to accounting practice and the demands of professional services was challenged when pedagogical content and accounting practice became separated and distant (Black, 2012). The public accounting profession of which much of the traditional accounting curriculum was built, provided a shrinking proportion of overall graduate opportunities to accounting students. Non-accounting disciplines were taking graduate employment opportunities that were traditionally filled by accounting students. Even more disconcerting was the observation that entry level accounting students expressed reluctance to seek a career in professional accounting (Albrecht & Sack, 2000; Jackling, 2014; American Accounting Association, 2012).

What accounting education is not

In attempts to explain the decline in accounting enrolments, research turned to the criticisms of accounting education focusing on what accounting education fails to achieve. These criticisms occurred on a number of fronts including: an outdated, narrow and crowded curriculum; limited exposure to globalisation, technology, and ethics; lack of employer-ready graduate attributes; a pedagogy encouraging memorisation; a lack of strategic direction; and dysfunctional reward systems for faculty in which accounting education research is not held in the same esteem as mainstream accounting research. Two inter-related streams of thought evolve from this literature: technocracy and shareholder centrism. The technical focus of accounting education when it is built on financial accounting and auditing pronouncements is centred on training students to acquire the ‘know how’ to express, communicate and verify financial transactions in written and quantitative terms. Conventional accounting education adopts a mechanistic perspective in which students were trained to know ‘facts’ and ‘techniques’ encouraging rote memorisation of knowledge without developing a clear understanding of how such knowledge is applied in the broader context of society or business. Indoctrinating students in accounting technology tends to harm education by narrowing the way students approach accounting and the way they perceive and resolve problems (Kelly, Davey, & Haigh, 1999). Teaching too much technical detail and other bits of knowledge, failed to produce the best accountants’ universities are capable of developing. When students are trained, rather than educated, they become technically proficient, but are less well-rounded in terms of communication, interpersonal, critical-thinking, decision making and professionalism (Nelson, 1995).

Proponents of social and ethical responsibility in accounting argue that the shareholder focus in accounting education turns out accountants who have a limited capacity to think broadly about the impacts of their decisions on stakeholders, societies, and the environment (e.g. McPhail, 1999). Ferguson, Collison, Power, and Stevenson (2005) found that prescribed accounting textbooks focus on shareholder discourse influencing the way students’ prioritise the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholder groups. Less attention is given to important emerging societal issues like the environment and corporate responsibility. Accounting education reinforces the assumptions of capitalism and shareholder discourse encouraging students to prioritise the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholder groups. The study of accounting in this way frequently compartmentalises, isolates and simplifies social interactions and reality through hypothetical problems seeking the one right technical and business solution. Education in this way, exposes students to technical material in a vocation-focused way disembodied from the complex, real-world settings to which the students are bound (Davey and Haigh, 1999).

Similar issues arise when accounting education is seen to be heavily entrenched in mathematics, particularly evident in new entrants to accounting education and recruiters who accept a stereotypical view of accounting. There is no questioning of the relevance of mathematical tools in accounting education and not only in simple computational applications such as addition and multiplication but also in more sophisticated mathematical models of forecasting and decision making. However, when accounting is seen in this light, students are drawn to accounting education because they tend to appreciate accounting a calculable application of business transactions. When accounting is taught in this way, it is perceived as rational and objective, however when accounting is taught as a calculative mode of cognition, it over-simplifies complex realities. This differs markedly from contemporary accounting education, in which the subjective probabilities of decision making is embedded in professional judgement and not mathematics. Enron represents a rather visible example of the implications of mindless adoption of accounting rules with little regard for context (Young, 2005). It is important in contemporary accounting education to understand how accounting interacts with individual behaviour and human social systems. Too often the objective calculable aspects are taught, rather than the behavioural issues that arise around it (Helliar, 2013).

There are potentially several reasons for the technocratic and investor-centric nature of accounting education: too much emphasis on classroom lectures to transmit knowledge to students; over reliance on prescribed textbooks with shareholder discourse; and a reluctance or inability to adopt an innovative learning pedagogies such as ‘out-of-classroom experiences’ including internships, field studies, and service learning assignments. This is complicated by a commercialised university culture in which economic efficiency and improved productivity lie at the forefront of university strategy (Albrecht & Sack, 2000; Ferguson et al., 2005). Traditional approaches to accounting education assume a unilateral approach to learning and overlook the diversity of the accounting student population demanding an enhanced understanding of the differences in student learning styles (Bailey, 1994). It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that accounting education is perceived as a narrow vocational field concerned with techniques and processes. High-quality students who might otherwise be interested in pursuing a career in accounting may no longer be attracted to it.

The problems experienced in accounting education have been highlighted in formal inquiries bringing to light the limitations of accounting education, questioning the viability of accounting educaton combined with recommendations for change (Albrecht & Sack, 2000; American Accounting Association (2012). The basic message of these inquiries directs concern toward an outdated accounting curricula and pedagogical techniques ill-preparing graduates for a dynamic profession (Nelson et al., 1998). Recommendations for change in early inquiries focused on core competencies needed by accounting professionals and to bring uniformity in accounting qualifications through standards of examination, education, and accreditation (AECC, 1990; Bedford Committee, 1986; White Paper, 1989). Later inquiries noted the expanding body of knowledge expected to be integrated into the accounting curriculum highlighting the complexity of business models and transactions. Set in the context of declining enrolments and interest among accounting professionals, around the turn the century, these inquiries promoted an innovative curriculum changing its emphasis from ‘knowledge based content’ to the ‘process of learning’ with an emphasis on students ‘learning to learn’. Despite the best intentions of curriculum reform through these initiatives, accounting educators seem have abrogated their duty to provide well-rounded graduates of service to society (Amernic & Craig, 2004).

So, what is accounting education?

The discussion thus far highlights what accounting education is not, so what is accounting education? Accounting education is a multifaceted concept incapable of an all-encompassing definition. Rather than atempt to define accounting education, the discussion below highlights the objectives of accounting education based on contemporary notions of a reflective accounting professional educated in a multidisciplinary curriculum.

More than mastering the procedural applications of accounting or the amount of factual or technical detail students carry in their memory, accounting education should focus on understanding concepts and assumptions that underlie the construction of accounting information. Accounting education at various times throughout its history has been criticised for leaning heavily on textbook illustrations with very little exposure to the underlying theories or the meaning of accounting (e.g. Meyer, 1961; Ferguson et al., 2005). Accounting provides a lens by which to view and think about the corporation and the occurrence of events interpreted from a sequence of transactions expressed in monetary terms into observations expressed in narrative form that is then shared with others. Accounting education should also teach students to understand how nuanced accounting can affect the way readers view the world. In the case of Enron, the accounting practice led to the construction of a balance sheet excluding special-purpose entities (SPEs) creating a story different to the one that would have been told if the SPEs were included. Accounting education should prepare students to evaluate conditions and situations with full awareness of the moral and ethical considerations involved. To do otherwise points to the failure of accounting education to properly train graduates of professional obligations (Amernic & Craig, 2004).

A recurring theme throughout much of the recent accounting education literature is the call to move accounting education from learning facts to a process of learning-to-learn in which students acquire skills and strategies to set their own goals and learn autonomously throughout their professional careers. Accounting graduates are expected to possess an array of generic skills including: analytical, communication, critical thinking, interpersonal, judgment, and leadership. The quest to develop such skills is ongoing with inroads evident in recent accounting education research. However, the broader notion of professionalism has moved the focus of accounting education from generic skills to emotional intelligence (EI), considered a higher level of intellectual stimulation. The cognitive ability to be emotionally aware is increasingly acknowledged by researchers as integral to the practice of accounting because of its ability to improve individual performance. Emotional intelligence is defined as the ability to be aware and monitor feelings in oneself and others (e.g. Abraham, 2006; Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). However, understanding EI is more than understanding emotions, it is concerned with competencies such as motivation, teamwork, and leadership, with empirical evidence demonstrating an association between EI and behaviour (see Bay & Greenberg, 2001; Day & McKeage, 2006; McPhail, 2004). Research suggests that EI is a better predictor of a successful accountant than IQ alone, resulting in a greater likelihood of increased profits (e.g. Acton, 2002; Akers & Porter, 2003). Business and accounting educators have recognised the importance of EI development but the levels of EI among accounting students compares unfavourably with their business counterparts (see: Day & McKeage, 2006, for as review of the relevant literature).

Contributions to this special issue

The contributions to this special issue arise from the RMIT Accounting Educators’ Conference 2016 themed: Accounting Education What it is, and What it is not’. The papers accepted for publication in this special issue, while worthy, did little to elucidate the theme of the special issue identically titled: Accounting Education What it is, and What it is not’. The contributions to this special issue, and the contributions to the conference more generally, talk around the meaning of accounting education. They follow the well-trodden path of accounting education research by investigating aspects of the learning process and implications for students. One paper (Wells, 2019) differed from mainstream accounting education research by examining the stereotypical perceptions of accountants depicted as ‘grey’ and ‘boring’. Changing wide-held perceptions is difficult and evolutionary, however empirical evidence from the socio-sociological literature suggests that direct contact with stereotypic targets is one way to change perceptions. The evidence obtained from interview data found that direct contact had some influence on changing perceptions but did little to alter the way users of accounting services view the tasks that accountants perform as mundane, only to reinforce the stereotypical view. The key to successful change with long term implications is through contact with multiple exemplars that in time will dispel the myth that accountants perform a narrow set of rigid tasks.

While Wells (2019) was primarily concerned with the accountant, Bobe and Cooper (2019) centred on the student and examined the implications of language proficiency on learning approaches and learning satisfaction. Evidence suggests that students studying in their non-native language experience difficulty engaging with the subject material, staff and students. The results of comparative survey data obtained from students in Ethiopia and Australia, found that English language proficiency correlated with students’ approach to learning; when language proficiency was high, students tended to adopt a deep approach to learning; when language proficiency was low, students tended to adopt a surface approach to learning. In turn, students who adopted a deep approach to learning tended also to express higher satisfaction with their learning. The evidence also suggests that students studying at a University where English is the primary medium of exchange, were more likely to adopt a deep approach to learning.

The final paper moves closer to understanding accounting education by highlighting the tensions experienced by educators teaching modernist education in an era of postmodernism (Read & Miley, 2019). The paper shares with its audience the approach taken and the lessons learned on how to deal with the learning needs of contemporary students. This approach to learning is referred to as postmodernism, with educators (including the authors) trained in a modernist world. Postmodernism is concerned with individualising the student experience but how this is achieved in a modernist world where education preaches universal values across all students, is unexplored and unresolved. The authors claim there is little dialogue and a lack of understanding of postmodern teaching in the accounting literature. The paper enlightens its readers by highlighting relevant issues and strewing the paper with examples of self-reflective experiences of postmodern teaching.

Conclusion

This editorial examined the nature of accounting education, not only to describe what is accounting education, but also challenge educators to think more carefully about this question and encourage insight by highlighting what education is not and what accounting education could or should be. Whilst it is reasonable to expect that Schools of Accounting around the world have ventured from traditional curricula and pedagogy, the quality of accounting education can only improve when educators are clear about what accounting education is attempting to achieve. For many decades, members in the accounting academic and practice communities have identified and wrestled with challenges in educating accountants. The implications of accounting education approached in the traditional way means that students are not encouraged to think, understand or be able to apply their knowledge to situations or contexts. Calls to change accounting education emphasise the development of skills beyond technical accounting content so that it becomes a process of self-discovery (Bailey, 1994). One school of thought suggests that accounting education through its limitations has struggled to fulfil the expectations of the profession evidenced in part by regular calls for change. Formal inquiries and other interested parties have insisted that accounting programmes become broader in orientation. While formal inquiries have resulted in new directions, past efforts at renewal have lacked an explicit implementation strategy and structure to move their recommendations forward on a systematic and properly resourced basis. Anecdotally, changes to accounting education appear to have occurred at the fringes, the content is largely technical, and pedagogy relies on the large class method of delivery. The technocratic nature of accounting education is ever present and change is likely to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

The question of what is accounting education is addressed by speaking to what it attempts to achieve rather than what it has achieved. The goal of contemporary accounting education should be to inculcate students with values to develop reflective practitioners so they may act in an honest way, with expertise, and to commit to a life in which they forsake personal well-being for the interests of the broader community. When this occurs, students will be made to understand the impact of accounting information on stakeholders in addition to investors; and the implications of nuanced accounting from policy choices permissible within accounting regulation. More than the practice of accounting, the focus of accounting education in the contemporary classroom is centred on developing the accounting professional.

The picture drawn in this editorial may seem bleak however solutions are abound and reinforced in the literature. In an overall direction, accounting education should go beyond parroting accounting protocols and be encouraged to regard accounting as a social and organisational mechanism embedded in the practice of other functional areas of business and society. Accounting education should engage students more vigorously with the underlying fundamentals of theory, definitions, concepts of accounting and implications for accounting in its social context. Students should also be exposed to accounting in real world contexts, they should be alerted to the criticisms of professional standards and the history of unexpected corporate failures that demonstrate the limitations of accounting and auditing practice. Pedagogies should extend beyond textbook teachings and the conventional lecture-tutorial format to encourage a social and alternative view of accounting that defies technocracy in accounting. The expansion of the curriculum content must not only include an emphasis on the broader implications of business, it must also focus on related interpersonal skills necessary to work effectively in a business context (Bailey, 1994). Inter-personal skills depend on non-conventional constructivist pedagogies that include situated and experiential learning activities in which students engage in the process of learning by ‘doing’ and relying less on the content based curriculum (Dellaportas, 2015; Helliar, 2013; Sugahara, Dellaportas, Hisayo, & Takahiro, 2016). Through active learning opportunities, students are exposed to first-hand experience of the work environment where they get to explore their feelings and attitudes (EI), and make decisions for which they are held accountable. By disrupting students’ perceptions about accounting, students will begin to appreciate the role of accounting on the wider society and its people (Boyce & Greer, 2013; McPhail, 2001). These solutions touted in this editorial are not novel but are drawn from decades of accounting education research. Perhaps the question that has yet to be addressed is how to transfer new ways of ways of thinking into everyday teaching practice.