This article examines the research within accounting information systems (AIS) as found in articles published in leading accounting, management information systems, and computer science journals from 1982 to 1998. Trend analysis is performed on AIS articles found in the following journals: The Journal of Information Systems; Advances in Accounting Information Systems; Journal of Accounting Research; The Accounting Review; Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory; Behavioral Research in Accounting; Journal of Management Accounting Research; Management Science; MIS Quarterly; Decision Sciences; Information Systems Research; and Communications of the ACM, among others. The trend analysis is structured across underlying theory, research method, and information systems lifecycle topics of AIS articles in these journals. This article identifies the extant research streams in AIS, where AIS research has been published from 1982 to 1998, and seeks to provide insight into the question: should AIS exist as its own separate research domain? Is AIS research like the QWERTY keyboard (David, 1985), widely adopted due to popular demand, but ineffective and inefficient, with a better AIS research and teaching model available?
The QWERTY layout on computer keyboards is
the most widely accepted design for keyboards used
in English-speaking countries today. However, it is
not the most efficient or effective (David, 1985). Its
continued use is due to keyboard users being entrenched
in their desire for a known and comfortable
way of doing things (i.e., the keyboard design on
which they learned to type), and also due to a monopolistic
control of the QWERTY keyboard in the market.
Similarly, this article addresses whether the existence
of accounting information systems (AIS) as a
singular research domain has merit, or if a more efficient
and effective model should be considered. By
examining what AIS research streams exist and
where AIS research has been published from 1982 to
1998, this article will provide insights as to whether
AIS should exist as its own separate research domain.
The issue is whether AIS research is like the QWERTY
keyboard (David, 1985), widely adopted due to popular
demand, but ineffective and inefficient, with a
better AIS research and teaching model available?
Accounting information systems research has existed
for many years because of its importance to practice
and education. Corporations increasingly want to
recruit students with AIS knowledge and skills. As
such, there is growing demand from students to take
courses in AIS within business schools. Many accounting
software packages have become high profile
products, for example: SAP, Oracle Financials,
Lawson, Baan, and PeopleSoft.These software products
continue to generate increasing revenues and prompt global expansion for their companies. Their
implementation leads to further demand for skilled
employees trained in accounting systems concepts to
utilize all the functionality contained within these
packages. Finally, the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants (AICPA) recently reiterated the
importance of information system issues, highlighting
the need for improved information technology
competencies for accountants and expanded information
system assurance services (AICPA, 1997).
Although a review of the AIS literature assists in
examining the QWERTY question, other benefits result
from a detailed review of the extant literature. In
order to understand the status of AIS research and to
sustain or improve its contribution, it is important to
understand the research published to date (i.e., the
trends of research theory, methods, and topics) and
where AIS research has been published (i.e., which
joumals). This article offers a historical synopsis of
the AIS literature and provides insight into the AIS
research performed over a 17-year period through the
categorization and classification of that research The AIS research examined in this fftudy includes
all articles published in The Journal of Information
Systems since its inception, and all those published in
the Advances in Accounting Information Systems
since it was established. In addition, this study includes
the AIS research published in the top accounting
and management information systems (MIS)
journals since 1982 as ranked by Arnold (1993),
Hardgrave and Walstrom (1997), and Hull and
Wright (1990). Consequently, this work provides a
richer and more comprehensive perspective than
other AIS research reviews (e.g., Mitchusson and
Steinbart, 1993).
To understand what qualifies as AIS research in
this article, it is important to establish what is encompassed
in AIS research. No widely accepted and
agreed upon definition of AIS research exists. A formal
boundary for AIS research does not exist, rather,
AIS overlaps with its parent domains of MIS and accounting
in a multifaceted and blended fashion. Various
researchers have tried to delineate the field. Mc-
Carthy (1990, vi) stated that AIS research was related
to its "parent domains of MIS and accounting," but
had the distinguishing feature of investigating issues
about "transaction processing for accountability purposes
of an organization" (McCarthy, 1990, vi). Borthick
(1992, v) stated that AIS involved helping decision
makers "get the information they want, when
they want it, in the form they want it."
Sutton (1992) complained that AIS research focusing
on applied issues, in particular electronic data
processing (EDP) audit and expert systems, had historically
resulted in an overly narrow perspective on
what AIS research should be. Consistent with Mc-
Carthy (1990), Sutton stated that AIS research had
endpoints in accounting and MIS. However, Sutton
(1992) argued that AIS research is not fundamentally
different than information systems research, and that
it would be difficult to find an area of information
systems that does not affect the accounting domain.
He also called for more AIS research grounded in the
psychology, management, and economics literatures.
While there is no specific definition of what constitutes
AIS research, there seems to be consensus
that it has accounting and management information
systems as parent disciplines (or endpoints on a continuum).
There also seems to be consensus that AIS
(and accounting and information systems research)
draws on theories from other disciplines such as economics
and psychology. Whether AIS is fundamentally
different than information systems or accounting
research is an unanswered question.
Weber (1987) argued that information systems research
is a doomed science since it does not have a
specific, well-defined paradigm to guide its research.
If this is true, then AIS research will have a similar
fate, as no well-defined paradigm exists to guide it.
Nonetheless AIS research, like information systems
research, continues to exist, and multiple research
themes are evident. This article combines the definitional
expositions of McCarthy, Borthick, and Sutton
when determining the inclusion of articles considered
to be AIS-related.
This article is organized as follows. First, the scope
of the work performed is presented, including a listing
of the journals reviewed. Then, the approach followed
in applying the classification scheme and in gathering
information about each AIS paper is described, along
with evidence of how reviews and searches were performed.
Next, the results of analysis are presented for
(1) what AIS research streams exist, and (2) where it
has been published, since 1982. This section ends with
a comparison of AIS to MIS research trends and a discussion
of whether AIS is another QWERTY. Finally,
major findings are summarized.
This article has provided a historical synopsis of
the AIS literature to guide and inform those interested
in the progression of AIS-related research. The
purpose of this article was to examine which research
streams exist, and where AIS research has been published from 1982 to 1998. This article presented evidence
that AIS is entering a more balanced phase
(March and Smith, 1995) of research progression.
While computer science continues to be the most
prevalent stream of AIS research theory today, an increasing
number of other research theories are being
utilized, including psychology-based work.
Where model building research represented 80%
of previous AIS research, today it represents only
57%, and other research designs are being more
widely used. Where data verification was the only
consistently important research focus in the past, the
most prevalent topical stream of AIS research today
is that of information usage issues, at 42%.
Based on an analysis of AIS publication trends,
few AIS-related articles have been published in Arnold's
(1993) top ten list of AIS publication outlets.
Only one journal in this list has more than ten AISrelated
papers published from 1982 to 1998. The
trend is an increasing amount of AIS-related work
being published. However, there are still few AIS-related
papers being published in the top-ranked AIS
journals from 1982 to 1998 (i.e., Journal of Accounting
Research-3, The Accounting Review-9, and Journal
of Accounting and Economics-O). The question of
why more papers are not being published in the perceived
top AIS publication outlets must be examined.
Are these perceived top AIS publication outlets really
AIS publication outlets? Have AIS researchers
preferred to publish in specialized journals?Based on an analysis of trends in the AIS parent
domain of MIS, the future directions of AIS were examined.
While AIS was shown to exhibit a volatile
publication trend mix, the future of AIS is predicted
to include maintaining the balance between normative
and positive work with an increase in organizational
theory work, at the expense of computer science theory
work. The future of AIS would also include the
expansion of model building and analytical work to
cover a wider variety of theoretical foundations.
Finally, based on the closer examination of the
findings illustrated by the information lifecycle classification
scheme, it becomes apparent that two factions
of AIS research exist--one aligned with the accounting
domain, and the other with the information systems
domain. While this alignment is beneficial, the
existence of AIS as a singular research domain has
merit because it supports a community of researchers
with similar interests in exchanging and propagating
ideas. The accessibility of an AIS forum can only
serve to further the richness and strength of the AIS
field. This paper concludes that AIS is unlike the QWERTY
keyboard because of the benefits engendered
by its existence as a singular research domain.