IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v27y2003i2p166-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of academic research in policy debates: a 1990 survey of student responses to the 150‐hour rule

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Karmon
  • Dwight M. Owsen

Abstract

Accounting professionals have been disappointed in the 150‐hour rule's impact on attracting high quality students to the accounting profession and directing them to the appropriate type of preparation for entry level positions. Rather than attracting good students to the accounting profession, the rule is viewed as a barrier to entry and students are encouraged to specialize too early in their career rather than get the broad educational background envisioned by its proponents. This paper presents a survey that indicated these negative consequences were possible, but it was not published by accounting journals. Journal editors may have been influenced by the AICPA's and AAA's campaign to implement the 150‐hour rule and were hesitant to publish findings that cast doubt on realizing the benefits touted by proponents. The lesson to be learned is that academic journals should provide research that supports debate of controversial issues and not skew the outcome of the debate by allowing only research that favors one position to be published.

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Karmon & Dwight M. Owsen, 2003. "The role of academic research in policy debates: a 1990 survey of student responses to the 150‐hour rule," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 166-184, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:27:y:2003:i:2:p:166-184
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-6303.00100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-6303.00100
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-6303.00100?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:27:y:2003:i:2:p:166-184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.