Author
Abstract
This article explores commitment to knowledge templates, in this case competing measurement models, in global standard‐setting processes. In particular, I examine the positions of board members of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) on a proposal to use fair value accounting in the measurement of revenue. The proposal to measure revenue at fair value was deliberated between 2002 and 2008 as part of the joint revenue project of the FASB and the IASB. I analyze narratives of the board proceedings on the revenue project, which reveal the positions of board members over the life of the proposal. To make sense of these positions, I use Durocher and Gendron's (2014) framework on epistemic commitment, which speaks to one's allegiance to knowledge templates. The analysis shows that individual board member commitment to different knowledge templates is fairly static despite dynamic and contentious debate on this particular proposal. While stable, board member reactions to the proposed shift toward fair value fall into recognizable patterns showing how commitment to different templates entails prioritizing of different core principles and appeals to higher authorities. Finally, the analysis shows how commitment to knowledge templates varies depending on the professional affiliations of board members. For instance, the analysis shows relatively greater consistency of commitment between board members affiliated with academia and corporate preparers than between auditors. Overall, the study indicates the importance of micro‐level features in explaining the development of macro‐level accounting policy. These features are crucial to enhancing our broader understanding of the way in which accounting standards and rules ultimately develop. L'auteure explore l'allégeance à différents modèles de connaissances, plus précisément à des modèles d'évaluation concurrents, dans le processus de normalisation internationale. Elle se penche en particulier sur les positions des membres du FASB et de l'IASB (les membres des conseils) en ce qui a trait à une proposition visant l'utilisation de la comptabilité à la juste valeur dans l'évaluation des produits. Cette proposition a fait l'objet de débats entre 2002 et 2008, dans le contexte du projet conjoint du FASB et de l'IASB sur la comptabilisation des produits. L'auteure analyse le compte rendu des délibérations des membres des conseils, analyse qui révèle quelles étaient leurs positions au cours de cette période de débats. Elle utilise, pour interpréter ces positions, le cadre de référence de Durocher et Gendron (2014) sur l'engagement épistémique, soit l'allégeance à un modèle de connaissances. L'analyse montre que l'allégeance des membres des conseils à différents modèles de connaissances est relativement statique, malgré le débat animé et la controverse que suscite cette proposition particulière. Bien qu'elles soient soutenues, les réactions des membres des conseils à l'adoption proposée de la juste valeur s'inscrivent dans des profils reconnaissables indiquant comment l'allégeance à des modèles différents entraîne aussi la priorisation de principes fondamentaux différents et des appels aux instances supérieures différents. Enfin, l'analyse montre comment l'allégeance à un modèle de connaissances varie selon les affiliations professionnelles des membres des conseils. Elle révèle, par exemple, une uniformité relativement plus grande de l'allégeance chez les membres des conseils affiliés au milieu universitaire et à celui des préparateurs d'états financiers dans les entreprises que chez ceux qui sont affiliés au milieu des auditeurs. Dans l'ensemble, les résultats de l'étude témoignent de l'importance des micro‐caractéristiques dans l'explication du développement des méthodes comptables à l'échelle globale. Il est indispensable de bien saisir ces caractéristiques pour mieux comprendre la façon dont on arrive à élaborer des normes et des règles comptables.
Suggested Citation
Lisa Baudot, 2018.
"On Commitment Toward Knowledge Templates in Global Standard Setting: The Case of the FASB‐IASB Revenue Project,"
Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 657-695, June.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:coacre:v:35:y:2018:i:2:p:657-695
DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12396
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Berlinski, Elise & Morales, Jérémy, 2024.
"Digital technologies and accounting quantification: The emergence of two divergent knowledge templates,"
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
- Pucci, Richard & Skærbæk, Peter, 2020.
"The co-performation of financial economics in accounting standard-setting: A study of the translation of the expected credit loss model in IFRS 9,"
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
- Stenka, Renata, 2022.
"Beyond intentionality in accounting regulation: Habitual strategizing by the IASB,"
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
- Stenka, Renata & Jaworska, Sylvia, 2019.
"The use of made-up users,"
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
- Morley Julia, 2022.
"The Pluralistic Foundations of Conceptual Veiling,"
Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 191-210, May.
- Morley, Julia, 2022.
"The pluralistic foundations of conceptual veiling,"
LSE Research Online Documents on Economics
114359, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Durocher, Sylvain & Georgiou, Omiros, 2022.
"Framing accounting for goodwill: Intractable controversies between users and standard setters,"
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
- Mantzari, Elisavet & Georgiou, Omiros, 2019.
"Ideological hegemony and consent to IFRS: Insights from practitioners in Greece,"
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 70-93.
- Yasmine Chahed, 2021.
"Words and Numbers: Financialization and Accounting Standard‐Setting in the United Kingdom,"
Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 302-337, March.
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:wly:coacre:v:35:y:2018:i:2:p:657-695. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.