literature review on accounting software

• Open access
• Published: 04 April 2023

Digitalisation in accounting: a systematic literature review of activities and implications for competences

• Julia Pargmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3616-0172 1 ,
• Elisabeth Riebenbauer 2 ,
• Doreen Flick-Holtsch 3 &
• Florian Berding 1  

Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training volume  15 , Article number:  1 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

6 Citations

Metrics details

The digitalisation of processes is a current topic in accounting. New technologies can change activities which in turn may require different skills from accounting graduates. This paper aims to shed light on the changes that digitalisation brings about in various areas of accounting by assessing the types of activities (non-routine and routine) and corresponding competences in the context of progressing stages of digitalisation. In addition, it is analysed how different technologies are used in these activities and where their execution is placed within the supply chain. The systematic literature review shows a lack of expertise in the field of digitalisation that enables graduates and employees to successfully manage respective processes in the workplace. While routine activities are continuously being automated or digitalised, non-routine activities and the corresponding skills have a similarly increasing importance for employees in accounting as the acquisition of general digital competences.

Introduction

In the context of digitalisation, it is part of everyday life for customers to purchase products and services with the aid of an application online and in physical stores. The streams of products and finances within and between companies are also highly interconnected when they are based on digitalised processes (Appelfeller and Feldmann 2018 ). Digitalisation thus encompasses the entire supply chain of a product or service. Accounting is one area of the company that documents these processes with customers and other companies, enables these processes, supports them technically, and connects them with internal and external interfaces (Bleiber 2019 ; Klein and Küst 2020 ). In this context, companies nowadays face the challenge to make decisions on the introduction of new technologies and digitalised business processes into the area of accounting, among others (Appelfeller and Feldmann 2018 ). Digitalisation can address various stages, from substitution (e.g., self-check-out counters in retail shops) to business process innovation (e.g. automated storage and payment with RFID chips; see for these examples e.g. Litfin and Wolfram 2010 ). It is expected that not only costs and productivity are essential decision criteria for the introduction of technologies and digitalised business processes (Ashoka et al. 2019 ; Chen et al. 2012 ) but also the extent to which employees can master and employ technologies and possess the competence to fulfil new or evolving tasks (Aepli et al. 2017 ; Bonin et al. 2015; Cong et al. 2018 ; Egle and Keimer 2017; Seeber and Seifried 2019 ).

In this context, it is necessary to describe how digitalisation affects the requirement profile regarding the competences of employees in accounting. On the general level, the concept of competence is discussed in many ways and often focused on mastering domain-specific tasks and requirements (Hartig et al. 2008 ; Weinert 2001 ). The types of activities themselves range from manual routine tasks (e.g. paper-based bookkeeping) to interactive activities (e.g. solving problems with automated digital bookkeeping) (Seeber et al. 2019 ; Seeber and Seifried 2019 ). Hence, in order to learn more about relevant competences in accounting in a digitalised world, we have to analyse the different tasks and actual accounting activities that result in changing competence requirements as a basis. There are insightful studies available that analyse changes and developments of domain-specific requirements and competences as well as types of activities in the context of digitalisation (Aepli et al. 2017 ; Iten et al. 2016 ; Sachs et al. 2016 ; Seeber et al. 2019 ). However, rather little information is offered by these reports when it comes to accounting and its specific activities as well as technologies as tools for these activities. Thus, we assume that knowledge about these (new) activities in accounting and the corresponding digital technologies provide a good starting point to infer possible changes in necessary competences for acting in professional situations. Thus, our research questions are:

RQ1:Which activities are concerned with digitalisation in which areas of accounting?

RQ2:How do accounting activities differ in their respective stages of digitalisation?

RQ3:Where are these activities placed within the supply chain?

RQ4:Which technologies are used to perform these activities?

RQ5:Which advantages and disadvantages are connected to these activities?

The results aim to provoke further curricular and didactic discussions about learning and teaching accounting in vocational education and training on the one hand and higher education on the other.

Starting from a specification of digitalisation along its stages and types of activities, we explain in the following the approach for the systematic analysis based on a review of relevant literature. To actually gain insight into concrete developments of activities in accounting, we provide a systematic overview of the types of activities and the stages of digitalisation. Moreover, we consider the specific stages of digitalisation in combination with the different types of activities, as we expect differences between certain types of activities (e.g. interactive activities) and specific stages of digitalisation (e.g. innovation). In modern accounting, technologies are the main set of tools accountants use to execute their tasks, much like the tools of a craft. When technologies change, so do activities. Therefore, technologies need to be considered in this review as well. In addition, the placement of activities within the supply chain is included, as different departments require different competences and develop different digitalisation projects since the stakeholders differ. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of digitalisation are to be surveyed since they offer insights why activities are digitalized.

In the German-speaking countries, one’s ability to follow an occupation successfully is described by the concept of vocational action competence. Established competence frameworks usually differentiate between professional, social, and self-competences as major dimensions with methodological and technological competences anchored horizontally across all major dimensions. To decide which competences are needed for which occupation, activities are analysed that allow these competences to be fostered. Thus, it is relevant to analyse activities in accounting to derive necessary changes in curricula. Our research systematises digitalised activities that we employ to draw conclusions for the competence development of future accountants.

Framework for categorising digitalisation and types of activities

When discussing the consequences of digitalisation for accounting activities, at least two aspects must be considered in depth: first, the specific stages of digitalisation and, second, the types of activities.

Figure  1 shows an overview of three different stages of digitalisation in the context of accounting, each of which is disruptive to a different degree for activities and thus competences (Bleiber 2019 ; Hübl 2020 ): substitution , process change, and innovation . While in stage 1 analogue data or activities are substituted by digital ones, new technologies lead to changes in processes in stage 2. Stage 3 addresses innovation, both processes and their respective outcomes are changed.

Stages of digitalisation in accounting

An insightful framework of digitalised activities is suggested by Aepli et al. ( 2017 ), who adopted the classification from Spitz‐Oener ( 2006 ) and validated it in expert interviews. The framework was chosen because digitalisation is more likely to change activities in a profession rather than erase it in their entirety (Aepli et al. 2017 ; Arntz et al. 2016 ; Autor 2015 ; Seeber and Seifried 2019 ; World Economic Forum 2018). In addition, some activities are more prone to digitalisation than others.

Table 1 illustrates this approach using types of activities (left column) which are intended to provide deeper insight into the facets of potentially digitalised activities with generic examples (middle column) and specific accounting-related examples (right column).

Based on Dengler et al. (2014), we suggest to include automated routine activities, even though they are not performed by professionals (e.g. the automatic import of outgoing invoices from invoicing to accounting). Due to the increasing number of automated workflows in accounting, this adaptation provides the ability to better record and illustrate these changes as they reflect all activities that take place in the different areas of accounting. Thus, the six types of activities provide a comprehensive and differentiated range of activities. This categorization of activities will serve as a framework for our literature review in order to establish comparability and transferability to other (commercial) fields and professions as well.

Research design and methodology

A systematic literature review was conducted to find out how the accounting activities of future accounting professionals have changed due to digitalisation. The four-step process (Fig.  2 ) started with (1) the definition of up to fourteen keyword groups consisting of technical search terms in both English and German, which for example include “computer-assisted,” “data processing,” “technological speed of change,” “digitalisation rate,” “ERP,” “enterprise-resource-planning,” “accounting software,” “OCR,” “optical character recognition,” “big data,” “blockchain,” or “process mining.” Since the choice of keywords directly impacts the search hits, we used four strategies to ensure that we were able to use as many relevant terms as possible: (a) We conversed with an accounting professor about trends and current developments regarding digitalisation in the field, (b) we scoped the databases that we used for our full search and analysed the most frequently occurring trends and technologies, (c) we analysed accounting curricula from vocational education and higher education institutions to adjust our concepts of different competence frameworks, and (d) we used a synopsis from different curricula and textbooks to systematise activities. The keywords were grouped because of technical limitations regarding the valid number of connectors, particularly in Google Scholar. To ensure comparability between databases, we used these groups throughout our search.

Flow chart of research design

After the definition of suitable terms, (2) a search was performed in the Google Scholar , ERIC , EBSCO, and Web of Science databases and complemented by specific relevant international journals (“Journal of Accounting Education,” “Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting,” “Journal of Information Systems”) which were chosen due to their topicality regarding the research questions. They were selected based on their impact and the number of search hits. Due to the increasing speed of digitalisation, the period between 2000 and 2020 was selected. In the later stages of the study, the research group also decided to include a 2021 article due to its topical suitability.

While performing the content analysis, we applied a strategy that limited the number of hits. Only the first 30 pages of search hits for each keyword group were scoped for relevance. This was necessary because of the broad scope of the search terms. This specific cut-off point was chosen because, in a preliminary scope, the number of potentially useful search hits declined drastically. On average, no more (potentially) relevant hits were identified after 29 to 30 pages, thus setting this number for the full search as well. This process yielded a total of 9,553 potentially relevant hits across all media. A scan of both titles and abstracts resulted in (3) a total of 190 potentially suitable sources of which 72 articles proved relevant to the research questions. Irrelevant publications either referred only to accounting or digitalisation, were purely didactic, or had a general IT-orientation without an accounting focus. If the relevance could not be decided, the full text was scanned for the connection between accounting and digitalisation. The last step (4) was the content analysis. A total of 70 articles were retrievable and thus used in the coding process. The coding manual was developed and completed with appropriate anchor examples to illustrate the variety of possible accounting activities and to align our general understanding of the categories. The coding ensued in pairs to promote discussion.

Analytical framework

The coding tree (Fig.  3 ) consists of (a) publication information, (b) the publication’s main foci and (c) types of activities (automated, manual and cognitive routine activities, manual and analytical and interactive non-routine activities) in different areas of accounting (financial accounting, controlling, balancing, financial forecasting, managerial accounting, ‘other’). Moreover, the coding tree included (d) respective digitalisation stages of the activity (substitution, process change, innovation) as well as (e) advantages and disadvantages of digitalisation in context of the activities (e.g. financial and time-specific aspects, complexity, required expertise, transparency, data protection).

Coding tree with sample sub-categories

As a starting point, a few base publications were chosen to be scanned for relevant aspects regarding the research questions. From these notes and discussions, the coding tree was further developed and adapted after the first publications were coded. Advantages and disadvantages were developed inductively while doing the first base coding. The framework was developed further by using the basic principles of content analysis (Kuckartz 2018 ).

In the course of a special coding training, the final coding tree in the software MaxQDA was then distributed to two coding teams (three and two people each) along with the coding manual (Fig.  4 ). The sub-categories in the main category “Activities in Accounting” were further distinguished according to the aforementioned types of activities (Table 1 ), reaching from automated routine to interactive non-routine activities (Fig.  9 ). This more detailed structure allowed interpretations about the manners in which activities might have changed due to digitalisation.

Overview of the coding manual for accounting activities

To help the coding process, anchor examples were selected for all categories. As this paper is centred around activities, we are going to illustrate this process for the activity-related categories. For example, an automatic activity in accounting is characterised by a fully automated workflow like an automated deduction of worst-case scenarios with algorithms. A manual routine task does not require cognitive activation as its execution is part of the employee’s regular working routine, for example sorting accounting documents by date or verifying by hand if the positions on an invoice are complete and filled in correctly by the software. In contrast to this, a cognitive routine activity is constituted by a cognitive activation as it would be needed for manual corrections in bookkeeping or the adjustment of false journal entries. An analytical non-routine task could, for example, be the preparation and analysis of various financial statements, while manual non-routine activities encompass all tasks that are not part of everyday tasks, like solving technical problems or handling issues regarding hardware maintenance. Lastly, interactive non-routine tasks require a communicative element, like onboarding processes in the division or consultation with management. Thus, there are different levels of activities that need further specification and presumably undergo different changes through digitalisation.

To identify the extent of changes in the field, activities were assigned to a digitalisation stage. Hence, we applied the three aforementioned stages of digitalisation based on Bleiber ( 2019 ) and Hübl ( 2020 ) to identify the scope of changes in accounting: substitution , process change, and innovation (Fig.  1 ).

Stage 1, substitution, is completed whenever analogue data or activities are exchanged for automated or digital ones. Neither process nor output is changed, however. This stage applies to activities using, for example, OCR or robotic process automation (RPA) or whenever the publication implies that a manual activity was exchanged for automation.

In stage 2, process change, workflows, and processes are altered by the use of technology while the output of the process remains the same. This stage applies to all activities that use improved RPA technologies as well as process optimising or mining tools, such as partially automated bookkeeping.

Stage 3, innovation, implies that both processes and their respective outputs are transformed through the use of technology, like artificial intelligence (AI), (deep) learning systems, machine learning, and neural networks. An example of this stage is a fully autonomous bookkeeping workflow.

Bibliographic information and main foci of publications

The majority of publications are in German (n = 51) and in English (n = 19). The dominance of German publications occurred due to the exclusion criteria. In our original set of 190 possibly relevant publications (Fig.  2 ), the distribution was fairly balanced with 98 publications in German and 92 in English. However, we excluded those publications which dealt with IT in a general manner (missing a direct link to accounting) and those which focused on other aspects of accounting but did not explicitly mention accounting activities. Most of these publications were in English, hence the large difference in the final data set. While most publications are either book chapters (n = 22) or journal articles (n = 21), whitepapers (n = 17), books (n = 5), and university publications (n = 5) constitute the minority. Looking at the year of publication, most sources were published between 2015 and 2020 (Fig.  5 ), fewer sources between 2000 and 2005. This rapid increase in publications indicates that digitalisation in accounting has gained popularity within the past five years and is now a leading topic in accounting publications.

Bibliographic information (year of publication, kind of publication and language of publication

The sub-categories in “main focus” could be coded multiple times within the same publication. Besides the technologies and software systems in use, the two most frequently mentioned aspects regarding the main foci are developments in accounting/accounting 4.0 (n = 144) and implications for accounting education (n = 108), a category that describes possible changes in the configuration of activities. (Fig.  6 ). These two categories are future-oriented and involve both the (technical) developments and the industry’s dynamic requirements for accounting graduates and implications for education.

Main foci of publications (number of codes, multiple codes per paper possible)

Regarding the developments in accounting , authors primarily describe processes that are improved and standardised to maximise productivity and the accountant’s value to the company (Baier 2019 ; Müller and Reichmann 2010 ). Especially technologies like advanced analytics and RPA are becoming increasingly important in accounting 4.0 (Egle et al. 2020 ; Koch 2017 ; Losbichler and Gänßlen 2018 ; Satzger et al. 2018 ).

Special aspects that were not mentioned in an educational context, such as the related legal requirements (n = 75) or the generally increasing data availability (n = 39), are shown in separate categories. Several publications also deal with the concrete implementation and procedure of electronic invoices (n = 34). The categories definition of automation (n = 4) and definition of digitalisation (n = 8) are mentioned the least frequently.

RQ 1: Activities concerned with digitalisation in the different areas of accounting

Areas and types of activities in accounting.

A total of n = 285 activities are distributed across six accounting areas including “other” activities (Fig.  7 ). Most frequently mentioned are activities concerning financial accounting (n = 131) and controlling (n = 103). In contrast, all other divisions together make up roughly 25% of the activities described in the publications. The financial accounting code is given to all activities that are rooted in the accounts payable, accounts receivable, banking, payroll, and asset accounting areas (Fig.  8 ). The activities in the area of financial accounting are dominated by accounts payable accounting (n = 98). Many publications focus on e-invoicing, a technology employed to increase productivity in both accounts payable and accounts receivable accounting , the second most mentioned sub-division (n = 23). In addition, OCR and RPA technologies are often used to increase efficiency in both divisions.

Areas of activities in accounting divisions

Areas of activities in financial accounting sub-divisions

The second most frequently mentioned category regarding activities, controlling, mainly encompasses aspects such as reporting, communication, and interpretation of data (Bär et al. 2019 ; Egle and Keimer 2017; Heupel and Lange 2019 ). In contrast to financial accounting, the category of controlling does not focus as much on technologies but rather on specific changes in the job profile (Becker et al. 2020 ; Losbichler and Gänßlen 2018 ; Schindera et al. 2018 ).

The types of activities in the different areas of accounting (Fig.  9 A) are differentiated by their mean of action. More specifically, Fig.  9 A describes what kinds of activities typically occur in the different areas of accounting according to our analyses. In Fig.  9 , those numbers are given as relative numbers because a publication had sometimes multiple codes of the same activity. To account for these duplicates and to maintain proportions, the absolute frequencies are divided by the respective totals per sub-category. As an example, the category financial accounting is mentioned 131 times of which 58 mentions are for automatic activities. Thus, there are automatic activities without manual dimensions and others that are routine activities (manual and cognitive) and non-routine activities (manual, interactive and analytical).

A – C Types of activities in different accounting areas

In the area of financial accounting, most reported activities are either automatic or manual routine activities. Automatic activities are mentioned frequently, for example the automatic recognition of invoices via RPA or their generation directly from the ERP system, although a fully automated process is not common practice yet (Appelfeller and Feldmann 2018 ; Jordanski 2020 ; Kreher 2021 ; Schömburg and Breitner 2010 ; Tanner 2016 ). Instead, some parts of the process are automated and some remain manual. This explains the ratio of manual routine activities, as publications often address the manual correction or computation of invoices (Bernius and Kreuzer 2014 ; Koch 2017 ; Menges 2012 ; Wilczek 2014 ). Other areas of accounting like balancing or controlling display a similar amount of automatic activities that primarily include the use of AI in balancing (Kink 2007 ; Le Guyader 2020 ). Another aspect is the automated detection of variances and automated reporting through machine learning in controlling (Alexander et al. 2019 ; Ashoka et al. 2019 ; Jonen 2020 ). In contrast to publications that focus on financial accounting, authors who address managerial accounting topics identify a high proportion of analytical non-routine activities that primarily include the use of RPA to distribute reports and allocate resources which then have to be analysed by human employees (Langmann and Turi 2020 ).

RQ 2: Accounting activities in different stages of digitalisation

The codes regarding areas of activities in accounting alone, however, do not provide any information regarding the quality of the activities or the respective stages of digitalisation that were presented earlier in this paper. To formulate statements about the quality of accounting activities, it is necessary to analyse the stage of digitalisation and the respective frequencies in publications (Fig.  9 B–C).

Stages of digitalisation in the different areas of accounting

Regarding the stages of digitalisation, the first stage (substitution) is assigned the most across all accounting divisions (Fig.  9 B). Especially activities that remain in the first stage of substitution are attributed to financial accounting. In contrast to this area of accounting, both financial forecasting and managerial accounting areas show a larger proportion of digitalisation that has progressed to stages 2 and 3, process change and innovation. As to managerial accounting, this extends to the integration of a controlling software that introduces innovations in processes in the respective divisions and the implementation of new processes (Kink 2007 ; Raschig and Schulze 2020 ; Selb 2020 ). In financial forecasting, most processes are still in the substitution stage (Klein and Küst 2020 ), but some have progressed to integrate process change or innovation, such as the software-based analysis of reporting data for a proactive controlling approach as shorter product lifecycles necessitate shorter planning horizons (Kink 2007 ; Sledgianowski et al. 2017 ).

Stages of digitalisation in the different activities

In extent to the types of activities (Fig.  9 C), most routine tasks (see Table 1 for these categories) are still mainly in the substitution stage. For instance, RPA technologies are used regularly to substitute manual with automated processes (Gadatsch 2020 ) or electronic invoicing is integrated (Jordanski 2020 ; Klein and Küst 2020 ; Pagel 2019 ; Schömburg and Breitner 2010 ). Approximately one third of automated activities are in the stage 2 of process change, for example when the invoicing process is adapted to a digital format for both incoming and outgoing transactions (Kreher 2021 ).

For non-routine activities , the trend is mostly different. Interactive non-routine activities consist of a larger proportion of stage 2 digitalisation. Those process changes established in the publications include vendor inquiries through automated online portals (Binkow 2015 ) or the supervision of RPA systems or AI algorithms (Hmyzo and Muzzu 2020 ; Klein and Küst 2020 ). Processes need to be standardised to allocate controllers more resources to handle more detailed analyses, interpretations, and communications of results and to minimise their routine activities (Keimer and Egle 2020 ). Schindera et al. ( 2018 ) express that, while the chief financial officer slowly transforms into a chief performance officer, employees in the controlling division are confronted with a changing of roles, too—into that of a business partner. This change is conditioned by the use of big data analytics. Thus, analytical non-routine activities gain in importance. Across the areas of accounting, there is a connection between the kind of activity and its respective stage of digitalisation that has not yet been quantified. While the majority of automatic and routine activities remain in stage 1 digitalisation, interactive non-routine activities predominantly are assigned to stage 2. This finding can be explained by the successful implementation of software solutions and technologies such as AI leading to more activities involving it in the second stage (Chen et al. 2012 ; Heupel and Lange 2019 ; Le Guyader 2020 ; Losbichler and Gänßlen 2018 ).

Analytical non-routine activities, however, show a contrasting result with most activities in stage 1 as employees need to make manual corrections (Jordanski 2020 ). Thus, a human component is required in most processes. However, technologies such as blockchain or AI provide the chance to increase the stage of digitalisation in the future (Chen et al. 2012 ; Grönke and Heimel 2015 ; Trachsel and Bitterli 2020 ). In contrast to manual routine activities (e.g. e-invoicing), the integration of software solutions for analytical non-routine activities requires more resources, hence the lower threshold (Arbeitskreis Externe Unternehmensrechnung der Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft e. V. 2018 ; Egle et al. 2020 ; Pagel 2019 ; Weiber et al. 2002 ).

RQ 3: Placement of activities within the supply chain

Different types of the described activities in different accounting areas can be established and interlinked within a company with the aid of interfaces (Fig.  10 ). Within a single company, there can be a multitude of interfaces across divisions and along the supply chain. These interfaces are often connected to the activities, for example internal and external financial accounting, which process inbound and outbound invoices or to the procurement division that interacts with vendors. Most papers address one or more relevant interfaces. Most frequently mentioned are internal interfaces (n = 46), especially regarding the adaptation of accounting and controlling division structures to new business processes or ERP implementation (Binkow 2015 ; Gadatsch 2020 ; Heupel and Lange 2019 ; Najderek 2020 ; Suden 2010 ). The rising focus on process management to increase productivity is depicted in the interfaces; more extensive cooperation between financial divisions due to cross-sectional processes gains in importance (Arbeitskreis Externe Unternehmensrechnung der Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft e. V. 2018 ; Bayerl et al. 2020 ). A functioning flow of information and close cooperation between divisions can aid the success of digitalisation projects. Implementing standardised software across the company is identified as a suitable approach to minimise interface issues (Becker et al. 2020 ; Gadatsch 2020 ; Hecht and Scherrer 2020 ).

Interfaces (placement of activities within the supply chain) addressed in the publications

Interfaces with vendors (n = 29) or customers (n = 31) are also mentioned. The main context of vendor interfaces lies in the dimension of electronic invoicing and the conditions for successful implementation as well as specific processes (Appelfeller and Feldmann 2018 ; Klein and Küst 2020 ; Menges 2012 ; Najderek 2020 ; Pagel 2019 ; Suden 2010 ; Tanner 2016 ). It is necessary to harmonise the vendor’s system requirements with the company’s system requirements (Tanner 2016 ). Sometimes, companies establish a supplier self-service that enables the vendors to manage processes such as invoicing or the placement of orders within the company’s interface (Appelfeller and Feldmann 2018 ). At the same time, interfaces with customers are mostly focused on improving their experience by distributing invoices digitally or implementing customer self-service (e.g. checkout via smartphone), thus optimising the company’s commodity, liquidity, or information flows (Appelfeller and Feldmann 2018 ; Binkow 2015 ; Cong et al. 2018 ; Egle and Keimer 2017; Jonen 2020 ; Klein and Küst 2020 ; Nagel 2018 ).

RQ 4: Technologies used to perform the accounting activities

Most publications address one or more technologies in the context of accounting (Fig.  11 ). The specific technologies mentioned most frequently are big data analytics (n = 32), RPA (n = 26) and AI (n = 26). Process mining, which allows companies to analyse their processes through digital technology, is mentioned least frequently (n = 8). This result supports the perception of those technologies as the main disruptors in the industry. Other technologies are mentioned in 44 publications. These are mostly generalised statements that refer to basic technologies and software like ERP systems or technology that can be used to process e-invoices (Gadatsch 2020 ; Koch 2017 ; Schindera et al. 2018 ; Schömburg and Breitner 2010 ; Tanner and Wölfle 2005 ; Wilczek 2014 ).

Frequency of mentioned technologies

Ashoka et al. ( 2019 ) suggest that the use of AI in accounting will free up employees’ time capacities and reduce repetitive activities. They also predict a shift towards internet-based reporting. Egle and Keimer (2017) add that the number of repetitive activities will likely be reduced through AI and big data analytic tools, primarily by minimising the number of manual decisions accountants and auditors have to make in their routine activities. These internal factors are supplemented by external aspects that address the customer journey. Especially, AI is used to improve the customer experience (Appelfeller and Feldmann 2018 ; Bayerl et al. 2020 ; Egle et al. 2020 ). In addition, big data is often mentioned in the context of customers (Gadatsch 2020 ; Losbichler and Gänßlen 2018 ; Schindera et al. 2018 ). Yet, certain advantages for other areas of accounting are made visible as analysis tools may aid, for example, auditors in data management or controllers in forecasting (Pan and Seow 2016 ). This may be the first indication of a shift in the scope of activities in accounting and controlling towards increasing digitalisation.

Especially, repetitive and physical activities such as monthly reporting or e-invoicing profit from the implementation of RPA (Bowles et al. 2020 ; Sandner et al. 2020 ). However, controlling and accounting divisions can be further improved, too (Bayerl et al. 2020 ; Koch 2017 ; Langmann and Turi 2020 ). Through RPA solutions, up to 50% of all back-office tasks—like the synchronisation of supplier and customer accounts—could be automated in the upcoming years (Koch 2017 ). Additionally, the number of employees necessary to manage the workload can be reduced or shifted to new tasks (Kirchberg 2017 ). Up to 36% of companies already use RPA or AI for individual tasks in their accounting department (Kreher 2021 ).

RQ 5: The advantages and disadvantages of digitalised accounting activities

In the review, a variety of advantages and disadvantages of digital technologies in accounting became apparent (Fig.  12 ). In total, we found almost three times as many advantages (n = 618) named than disadvantages (n = 249).

Advantages and disadvantages of digitalisation in accounting (number of publications)

The advantages mentioned most frequently were saving costs (n = 90), increasing efficiency (n = 76), and saving time (n = 73). One example is that digital tools help accountants to manage their workload better and at lower costs (Pan and Seow 2016 ). Keimer and Egle ( 2020 ) state that technologies such as big data analytics or cloud solutions are useful to reduce the susceptibility to errors while simultaneously increasing efficiency in the controlling division. In addition, process automation is perceived as a key aspect of efficiency enhancement in the auditing sector (Werner and Gehrke 2011 ). The advantage of saving time is connected to two time-related opportunities. Firstly, Pagel ( 2019 ) mentions the aspect of processes optimised by digital technologies; lead time for invoices was reduced by up to 15 days, leveraging liquidity on the biller’s side. The freed-up worktime indicates the second perceived opportunity: The specialised workforce in the controlling division can shift their responsibilities to less administrative tasks, thus extending current activities to strategy-oriented areas (Egle and Keimer 2017).

These productivity-related factors are mentioned in half of the publications. The advantages of economies of scale (n = 7) and productivity (n = 11) are only rarely mentioned. For example, Egle and Keimer (2017) discuss productivity as an advantage that results from saved time and error reduction.

“Other” advantages (n = 57) range from employee engagement and motivation (Langmann and Turi 2020 ) to simplified auditing processes (Sledgianowski et al. 2017 ) or improved understanding of financial events (Ashoka et al. 2019 ). But customer satisfaction (Binkow 2015 ) and sustainability-driven aspects such as CO 2 reductions (Bernius and Kreuzer 2014 ) were mentioned as additional aspects as well.

Regarding the disadvantages, content analysis shows the highest risks with digital technologies in accounting in the areas of interface management (n = 40), financial investments (n = 42), and missing expertise (n = 31), mainly with new technologies (Fig.  12 ). Gadatsch ( 2020 ) appoints the central issue of interface management to the complex implementation and its extensive time frame. In addition, data redundancies created by the parallel upkeeping of former and new ERP systems might further increase interface issues, effectively increasing the workload. Thus, there is a need for technological and methodological skills for successful interface management. Schömburg and Breitner’s ( 2010 ) explanations support this result. They identify the main reasons for companies to defer process digitalisation as a lack of expertise, necessary investments, and implementing suitable software. This finding primarily connects to electronic invoicing (Jordanski 2020 ; Koch 2017 ; Nagel 2018 ; Najderek 2020 ; Schömburg and Breitner 2010 ; Tanner 2016 ; Tanner and Wölfle 2005 ) and ERP-specific areas (Appelfeller and Feldmann 2018 ; Binkow 2015 ; Chen et al. 2012 ; Cong et al. 2018 ; Fuller and Markelevich 2020 ; Gadatsch 2020 ; Jonen 2020 ; Wilczek 2014 ). The “other” disadvantages (n = 32) focus on the risks of decentralised innovations that are not implemented company-wide (Schindera et al. 2018 ) as well as the amount of time needed for software maintenance or to train employees (Gadatsch 2020 ). In addition, a few technology-specific disadvantages are mentioned: On the one hand, the implementation of RPA does not require the innovation of new processes, thus old, ineffective processes could stall future changes (Gadatsch 2020 ). On the other hand, blockchain could hinder scalability due to slow transaction speeds and challenging error corrections (Fuller and Markelevich 2020 ).

Discussion and summary

Digitalisation is changing numerous processes in the working lives of accounting professionals. This also applies to processes associated with accounting. Against the background of the question of how accounting graduates will have to be trained in the future, we have identified requirements and activities with the help of a systematic literature review. The literature review was conducted based on a conceptual framework of six types of activities and three stages of digitalisation. Figure  13 gives a condensed overview of the most important findings:

Overview of findings

Regarding the foci of publications dealing with digitalisation in the field of accounting, we found that developments in accounting and implications for accounting education dominate. These findings indicate that the discourse in the field has moved beyond the definitory stages and towards the identification of needs of action, including, among others, the advancement of accounting education and adjustments of curricula.

Results for RQ (1) which deals with activities in the areas of accounting that are subject to digitalisation hint at financial accounting and controlling divisions being the main areas of change. While in financial accounting, there is a focus on technology-based change, the area of controlling mostly encompasses changes in the controller’s job profile that are ensuing due to the increasing digitalisation of current tasks. As most activities in financial accounting are based in the area of accounts payable, the focus on technologies could be connected to efficiency-related opportunities that technological updates may implicate. Out of the six types of activities, analytical non-routine, automatic, and manual routine activities are the predominant categories (see Table 1 for an overview of definitions). This finding can be linked to the different degrees of automation in the different areas: In financial accounting and balancing, a large share of tasks has been automated, for example by RPA. In controlling, financial forecasting, and managerial accounting, however, the leading tasks are data analysis (cognitive routine) and consultancy (analytical and interactive non-routine). These results also provide first hints at the stages of digitalisation in the different areas of accounting (RQ 2).

In RQ (2), we identified different stages of digitalisation in the different areas. The results show that the proportion of digitalised activities is largely dependent on the area, yet most activities currently remain in the substitution stage. This indicates that the integration of technologies and process changes is still underway. The combined analysis of areas, activities, and stages was particularly revealing because it allowed differentiated interpretations. The analysis showed, among other things, that types of activities and different accounting areas are digitalised at different stages. Stage 1 (substitution) is to be expected, for example, in financial accounting and analytical non-routine activities. In contrast, interactive non-routine activities can be found more often in the second stage of digitalisation because current processes are supplemented by new technologies. This finding matches the results from a study by Sachs et al ( 2016 ) who focused on changing job descriptions in the commercial field. Interaction is required to communicate results and consult with management. This leads to expanding job profiles and further required competences that trace back to updates in accounting education.

All the activities we identified require different skill sets and are placed at different interfaces along the entire supply chain (RQ 3). This implies the supply chain’s continuous digitalisation requiring new technical standards and agreements. For example, the increasing popularity of e-invoicing has motivated efforts regarding the standardisation of software and workflows.

Another aspect that shifts competence requirements is the implementation of major technologic trends such as AI and big data analytics in the industry (RQ 4). Frequently mentioned technologies and corresponding business processes need to be integrated into accounting curricula to meet industry needs. On the one hand, technology itself and its evaluation could be addressed. On the other hand, the handling of technology could be prepared when it is integrated into industry practice. Learning materials need to reflect these changes and thus become more digitalised as well.

With RQ (5), we analysed the advantages and disadvantages that the publications under analysis identified during the process of digitalisation in the field of accounting. Even if the advantages mentioned in the publications, such as efficiency reasons, outweighed the disadvantages, risks such as interface management and accounting professionals’ lack of skills and competences must still be considered. In consequence, companies lack the expertise to successfully manage digital transformation processes, underlining the importance of specific competence development. Other factors that are main motivators are of a classic economic nature, such as an increase in overall productivity by saving time and financial resources. Both technologies’ specific disadvantages and the process of digitalisation in accounting more generally suggest the need for improved accounting graduate education and further training or at least for more guidance for both employers and employees. This need applies to concise abilities, such as the assessment of digital technologies and processes, and the criteria-based evaluation of the potential of software implementation. Depending on how quickly corresponding competences can be developed in the company’s workforce, flexibility in competence acquisition for varying technologies and the successful implementation as well as maintenance of technological interfaces is needed. Thus, the field of accounting has reached a level of digitalisation that entails changes in competence profiles to enable both accounting professionals and graduates to manage new demands.

Limitations

Methodological limitations.

Concerning limitations, our paper focuses primarily on results from a literature review and not on the analysis of real company situations or accounting professionals’ reports. The activities, stages, and combinations described in the articles were evaluated according to the number of codes. Whenever a publication mentioned the same code in a different context, it was coded as a new mention. This could potentially distort results. In addition, we did not analyse the extent to which technologies have actually been established in companies and in particularly in accounting. The papers might reflect the past and current states of the discussion.

The next limitations stem from the selection process of publications and their respective language of publication. While there were specific journals in English selected as relevant, we did not select specific German journals. Regarding the dominance of German-speaking publications, it is possible that the databases we used, particularly Google Scholar, produced a bias due to their search algorithms that might include geolocation. To balance this out, we searched for our keywords in both English and German. However, we cannot ignore that this might have implications for the results of our study. In German-speaking countries, accounting methods are rather defensive compared to English-speaking countries, where future-oriented perspectives are more common. In consequence, it is possible that some of our results only pertain to Germany and other German-speaking countries as well as to some to other countries, especially those results that are connected to the flexibility and design of accounting curricula or the stage of digitalisation in the industry.

Content-related limitations

Another limitation is the focus on controlling and financial accounting in the keyword groups as other areas of accounting might have been underrepresented. As for the integration of digitalisation into accounting curricula and learning materials, our paper does not consider external factors that might influence the creation and adaptation of accounting curricula like accountancy professional bodies and other accrediting organisations.

Implications for accounting education and professional practice

The lack of expertise takes a prominent position in our analysis, which is mainly reflected by the prevention of digitalisation processes and innovation of accounting activities. Particularly, technological and methodological skills are needed to integrate new technologies, innovate processes, and, in consequence, produce a shift in activities. The following key implications can be deducted for accounting education and professional practice (see for more details Berding et al. 2022 ):

Adaptation of curricula to reflect the change of focus from financial accounting and routine activities to the area of controlling and non-routine activities (" RQ 1: Activities concerned with digitalisation in the different areas of accounting " and " RQ 2: Accounting activities in different stages of digitalisation " section).

Intensification of the use of technological and analytical tools in accounting education curricula to motivate early contact and contribute to the holistic understanding of processes as the importance of independent reporting and interpretation of financial key figures increases (" RQ 1: Activities concerned with digitalisation in the different areas of accounting " and " RQ 4: Technologies used to perform the accounting activities " section).

Combined focus on technical and professional competences in the different areas of accounting that recognises the increasing importance of meta-competences such as proactive thinking, self-control, creativity, and interdisciplinary action. This is particularly important to ensure that graduates and employees stay capable to navigate the field of accounting and adapt to the changing parameters flexibly (" RQ 2: Accounting activities in different stages of digitalisation " section).

Integration of data and process management and new technologies into compulsory curricula and professional development courses to generate a holistic understanding of processes and manage change across the entire supply chain (" RQ 3: Placement of activities within the supply chain " and " RQ 4: Technologies used to perform the accounting activities " section).

Employees in the areas of accounting and controlling need improved communicative and entrepreneurial skills to market the added value of digitalisation to companies (" RQ 5: The advantages and disadvantages of digitalised accounting activities " section).

Overall, the analysis provides valuable hints for future-oriented accounting education that supports companies in realising a maximum of expertise to manage their digital transformation. This extends to the opportunity to think about implications for professional practices (How digitalised can the field be and how can digitalisation change job profiles?), for accounting students/employees (Am I willing to engage with changing technologies to improve my skill set and potentially work on entirely different activities within the next few years?), and even for society (How can these changes and their implications on competences help in finding creative solutions to 21 st -century challenges?). This review can serve as a starting point for these and similar considerations.

This paper was intended to contribute to the discussion of future (competence) requirements for graduates in accounting. The detailed analyses provide an in-depth insight into six types of activities and the different stages of digitalisation for specific areas of accounting. This systematic and detailed analysis was necessary to gain knowledge on how to initiate concrete improvements in the content and methodology of the education and training of accountants (see for example Author 1 et al. 2022). It became clear, for example, that a deeper look into these areas is valuable as the same technologies are not likely to prevail in all areas at the same stage and for the same types of activities. In the area of financial accounting, for example, the duration of tasks decreases due to the large proportion of routine activities that can be automated or substituted, freeing up time for other activities or areas of accounting. One of these is controlling, where there are more non-routine activities that require new skills. However, it also became clear that interface management in particular is essential for linking the numerous technologies. Against this background, the didactics of accounting are also challenged to educate and train graduates in a differentiated manner.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Artificial intelligence

Enterprise resource planning

Optical character recognition

Robotic process automation

Research question

Aepli M, Angst V, Iten R, Kaiser H, Lüthi I, Schweri J (2017) Die Entwicklungen der Kompetenzanforderungen auf dem Arbeitsmarkt im Zuge der Digitalisierung: Schlussbericht. Eidgenössisches Hochschulinstitut für Berufsbildung, Zollikofen

Google Scholar  

Alexander S, Tiefenbeck F, Sabirzyanova N (2019) Digitale transformation des performance managements: zielbild und aktuelle initiativen. CON 31:39–42. https://doi.org/10.15358/0935-0381-2019-6-39

Article   Google Scholar  

Appelfeller W, Feldmann C (2018) Stufenweise Transformation der Elemente des digitalen Unternehmens. In: Appelfeller W, Feldmann C (eds) Die digitale Transformation des Unternehmens: Systematischer Leitfaden mit zehn Elementen zur Strukturierung und Reifegradmessung. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–192

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Arbeitskreis Externe Unternehmensrechnung, der Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft e. V. (2018) Chancen und Herausforderungen der Digitalisierung für die Effektivität und Effizienz des Rechnungswesens. In: Krause S, Pellens B (eds) Betriebswirtschaftliche Implikationen der digitalen Transformation. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 301–317

Ashoka ML, Abhishek N, Divyashree MS (2019) Emerging trends in accounting: an analysis of impact of robotics in accounting, reporting and auditing of business and financial information. Int J Business Anal Intell 7:28–34

Autor DH (2015) Why are there still so many jobs? the history and future of workplace automation. J Econ Perspect 29:3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3

Baier T (2019) Digitalisation in Management Accounting. Bachelorarbeit. Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht, Berlin

Bär J, Badura D, Bockshecker A, Hauer L, Karalash M, Nehls S, Neuhaus U, Schröder H, Schulz M, Sharma V, Welter F (2019) Die Mitarbeiter von Morgen: Ergebnisse eines Workshops zu den Kompetenzen künftiger Mitarbeiter im Bereich Business Analytics. Nordblick Hochschule Der Wirtschaft 8:34–49

Bayerl E, Krippner K, Sikora C (2020) Steuerrechtliche Anforderungen und Entwicklungen im Bereich Steuern und Rechnungswesen. In: Rosar W, Krippner K, Setnicka M (eds) Digitalisierung im Steuer- und Rechnungswesen. Linde, Wien, pp 277–401

Becker W, Nolte M, Schuhknecht F (2020) Die Rolle des Chief Financial Officer im Rahmen der digitalen Transformation von Geschäftsmodellen. In: Keimer I, Egle U (eds) Die Digitalisierung der Controlling-Funktion: Anwendungsbeispiele aus Theorie und Praxis. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 373–400

Berding F, Riebenbauer E, Doreen Flick-Holtsch (2022) Fachwissenschaftliche Implikationen für die Aus- und Weiterbildung von Lehrkräften zur Digitalisierung im Rechnungswesen. In: Gerholz K.-H., Schlottmann P, Slepcevic-Zach P, Stock M (eds) Digital Literacy in der beruflichen Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. Didaktik, Empirie und Innovation. WBV, Bielefeld, pp 199–212.

Bernius S, Kreuzer S (2014) Warum eRechnung? Ökonomische und ökologische Einsparpotenziale in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. In: Rogall-Grothe C (ed) Leitfaden Elektronische Rechnung in der öffentlichen Verwaltung: Grundlagen, Umsetzungsempfehlungen, Best Practices, Frankfurt (Main), pp 33–42.

Binkow P (2015) The Impact of Self-Service Applications on Corporate Accounting and Its Customers. J Corp Acct Fin 26:81–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22084

Bleiber R (2019) Digitalisierung in der Finanzbuchhaltung: Vom Status quo in die digitale Zukunft. Haufe, Freiburg

Bowles M, Ghosh S, Thomas L (2020) Future-proofing accounting professionals: ensuring graduate employability and future readiness. J Teach Learn Grad Employability 11:1–21

Chen H-J, Yan Huang S, Chiu A-A, Pai F-C (2012) The ERP system impact on the role of accountants. Industr Mngmnt & Data Systems 112:83–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211193653

Cong Y, Du H, Vasarhelyi MA (2018) Technological disruption in accounting and auditing. J Emerg Technol Accounting 15:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-10640

Egle U, Frisan A, Steiner M (2020) Digitaler Wandel im Controlling bei der Alpiq Gruppe. In: Keimer I, Egle U (eds) Die Digitalisierung der Controlling-Funktion: Anwendungsbeispiele aus Theorie und Praxis. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 189–198

Fuller SH, Markelevich A (2020) Should accountants care about blockchain? J Corp Acct Fin 31:34–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22424

Gadatsch A (2020) Grundkurs Geschäftsprozess-Management. Springer, Wiesbaden

Book   Google Scholar  

Grönke K, Heimel J (2015) Big Data im CFO-Bereich – Kompetenzanforderungen an den Controller. CON 27:242–248. https://doi.org/10.15358/0935-0381-2015-4-5-242

Hartig J, Klieme E, Leutner D (2008) Assessment of competences in educational contexts. Hogrefe, Hogrefe eLibrary

Hecht N, Scherrer P (2020) Nutzen und Stolpersteine bei der Einführung einer Business Intelligence-Lösung für KMU am Beispiel der Firma SIGA. In: Keimer I, Egle U (eds) Die Digitalisierung der Controlling-Funktion: Anwendungsbeispiele aus Theorie und Praxis. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 83–102

Heupel T, Lange V (2019) Wird der Controller zum Data Scientist? Herausforderungen und Chancen in Zeiten von Big Data, Predictive Analytics und Echtzeitverfügbarkeit. In: Hermeier B, Heupel T, Fichtner-Rosada S (eds) Arbeitswelten der Zukunft: Wie die Digitalisierung unsere Arbeitsplätze und Arbeitsweisen verändert. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 201–221

Hmyzo E, Muzzu A (2020) Technologie im Rechnungswesen – Wenn die Maschine besser und schneller bucht. In: Berding F, Jahncke H, Slopinski A (eds) Moderner Rechnungswesenunterricht 2020: Status quo und Entwicklungen aus wissenschaftlicher und praktischer Perspektive. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 99–113

Hübl L (2020) Kritische Erfolgsfaktoren bei der Digitalisierung von Wirtschaftstreuhandkanzleien. In: Setnicka M, Krippner K, Rosar W (eds) Digitalisierung im Steuer- und Rechnungswesen. Linde, Wien, pp 191–203

Iten R, Peter M, Gschwend E, Angst V, Lachenmeier P, Heinimann E (2016) Offshoring und Wandel der Berufsbilder. Aktuelle Trends und Konsequenzen für kaufmännische Berufe: Schlussbericht. Eidgenössisches Hochschulinstitut für Berufsbildung, Zollikofen

Jonen A (2020) Aktuelle Trends und zukünftige Potenziale der Digitalisierung im Beschaffungscontrolling. In: Keimer I, Egle U (eds) Die Digitalisierung der Controlling-Funktion: Anwendungsbeispiele aus Theorie und Praxis. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 349–372

Jordanski G (2020) Kaufmännische Steuerung und Kontrolle im 4.0 Arbeitsumfeld – Anforderungen an duale Ausbildungsberufe. In: Berding F, Jahncke H, Slopinski A (eds) Moderner Rechnungswesenunterricht 2020: Status quo und Entwicklungen aus wissenschaftlicher und praktischer Perspektive. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 59–82

Keimer I, Egle U (2020) Digital Controlling - Grundlagen für den erfolgreichen digitalen Wandel im Controlling. In: Keimer I, Egle U (eds) Die Digitalisierung der Controlling-Funktion: Anwendungsbeispiele aus Theorie und Praxis. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 1–16

Kink N (2007) Umfassende Controllingunterstützung Z Control Manag 51:303–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12176-007-0083-z

Kirchberg A (2017) Harmonisierung des externen und des internen Rechnungswesensaus aufbau- und ablauforganisatorischer Sicht. In: Klein A, Gräf J (eds) Reporting und Business Intelligence, 3 rd edn. Haufe Gruppe, Freiburg, München, Stuttgart, pp 85–102.

Klein J, Küst C (2020) Wie die Digitalisierung im Rechnungswesen die Aufgaben und Anforderungen an die Mitarbeiter/-innen verändert. In: Berding F, Jahncke H, Slopinski A (eds) Moderner Rechnungswesenunterricht 2020: Status quo und Entwicklungen aus wissenschaftlicher und praktischer Perspektive. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 83–97

Koch B (2017) Die E-Rechnung steht im Zeichen großer Marktveränderungen: Studie E-Rechnung. Billentis, Wil.

Kreher M (2021) Digitalisierung im Rechnungswesen 2021. KPMG, München

Kuckartz U (2018) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung, 4th edn. Beltz, Weinheim.

Langmann C, Turi D (2020) Robotic Process Automation (RPA). Digitalisierung und Automatisierung von Prozessen: Voraussetzungen, Funktionsweise und Implementierung am Beispiel des Controllings und Rechnungswesens. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.

Le Guyader LP (2020) Artificial intelligence in accounting: GAAP’s “FAS133.” J Corp Acct Fin 31:185–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22407

Litfin T, Wolfram G (2010) New Automated Checkout Systems. In: Krafft M, Mantrala M (eds) Retailing in the 21 st Century. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 189–203

Losbichler H, Gänßlen S (2018) Performance Measurement in Zeiten von Big Data: Auswirkungen auf Kennzahlen und deren Reporting. In: Horváth P, Reichmann T, Baumöl U, Hoffjan A, Möller K, Pedell B (eds) Transformation im Controlling: Umbrüche durch VUCA-Umfeld und Digitalisierung. Vahlen, München, pp 31–37

Menges T (2012) Implementierung eines automatisierten Rechnungseingangs. In: Deickert F (ed) Erfolgsfaktor strategisches Management, Controlling und Personal: Zukunft des Gesundheitswesens. Centaurus, Freiburg (Breisgau), pp 115–125.

Müller R, Reichmann T (2010) Rechnungswesen und Controlling: Integrierte Softwarelösungen für den Mittelstand. CON 22:204–206. https://doi.org/10.15358/0935-0381-2010-3-204

Nagel L (2018) Die Einführung der „E-Rechnung“ bei den Kommunen gemäß EU-Richtlinie: Bachelorarbeit, Hochschule für öffentliche Verwaltung und Rechtspflege. Bachelorarbeit. Meißen.

Najderek A (2020) Auswirkungen der Digitalisierung im Rechnungswesen – ein Überblick. In: Müller A, Graumann M, Weiß H-J (eds) Innovationen für eine digitale Wirtschaft: Wie Unternehmen den Wandeln meistern. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 127–145

Pagel P (2019) Bei der Übermittlung und Verarbeitung elektronischer Rechnungen müssen die geltenden Anforderungen an Datenschutz und Datensicherheit erfüllt sein. Wirtsch Inform Manag 11:342–346. https://doi.org/10.1365/s35764-019-00201-w

Pan G, Seow P-S (2016) Preparing accounting graduates for digital revolution: a critical review of information technology competencies and skills development. Management University, Singapore

Raschig S, Schulze M (2020) Weiterentwicklung des Finanz-Forecasts im Rahmen der digitalen Transformation am Beispiel der SAP SE. In: Keimer I, Egle U (eds) Die Digitalisierung der Controlling-Funktion: Anwendungsbeispiele aus Theorie und Praxis. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 25–42

Sachs S, Meier C, Mcsorley V, Schweiz KV, Thurgau TT (2016) Digitalisierung und die Zukunft kaufmännischer Berufsbilder – eine explorative Studie. Schlussbericht. https://www.swissleaders.ch/uploads/media/page/0001/04/898a7462b82f51ab749f0e3ce678aaac0be495eb.pdf . Accessed 21 Mar 2023.

Sandner P, Lange A, Schulden P (2020) The Role of the CFO of an industrial company: an analysis of the impact of Blockchain technology. Future Internet 12:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12080128

Satzger G, Holtmann C, Peter S (2018) Advanced Analytics im Controlling: Potenzial und Anwendung für Umsatz- und Kostenprognosen. In: Horváth P, Reichmann T, Baumöl U, Hoffjan A, Möller K, Pedell B (eds) Transformation im Controlling: Umbrüche durch VUCA-Umfeld und Digitalisierung. Vahlen, München, pp 47–53

Schindera F, Jux M, Glustin O (2018) Banken-Controlling im digitalen Zeitalter. In: Horváth P, Reichmann T, Baumöl U, Hoffjan A, Möller K, Pedell B (eds) Transformation im Controlling: Umbrüche durch VUCA-Umfeld und Digitalisierung. Vahlen, München, pp 61–67

Schömburg H, Breitner MH (2010) Elektronische Rechnungen zur Optimierung der Financial Supply Chain: Status Quo, empirische Ergebnisse und Akzeptanzprobleme. MKWI 2010 – E-Commerce und E-Business:1253–1264.

Seeber S, Seifried J (2019) Herausforderungen und Entwicklungsperspektiven der beruflichen Bildung unter veränderten Rahmenbedingungen. Z Erzieh 22:485–508

Seeber S, Weber S, Geiser S, Zarnow S, Hackenberg T, Hiller F (2019) Effekte der Digitalisierung auf kaufmännische Tätigkeiten und Sichtweisen ausgewählter Akteure. Berufsbildung 73:2–7

Selb M (2020) Von der Erfolgssicherung zur Produktentwicklung – Datenanalyse bei Gebrüder Weiss im Fachbereich Corporate Logistics. In: Keimer I, Egle U (eds) Die Digitalisierung der Controlling-Funktion: Anwendungsbeispiele aus Theorie und Praxis. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 43–64

Sledgianowski D, Gomaa M, Tan C (2017) Toward integration of Big Data, technology and information systems competencies into the accounting curriculum. J Account Educ 38:81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACCEDU.2016.12.008

Spitz-Oener A (2006) Technical Change, Job Tasks, and Rising Educational Demands: Looking outside the Wage Structure. J Law Econ 24:235–270. https://doi.org/10.1086/499972

Suden P (2010) Einführung elektronischer Rechnungen. In: Suden P (ed) Die elektronische Rechnung in Handels- und Steuerrecht: Einführung, Signatur, Dokumentation. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 17–47

Tanner C (2016) E-Invoicing – ein erster Schritt zur digital vernetzten Wirtschaft. Die Fachzeitschrift Für Erfolgreiche Unternehmer Und Top-Manager (KMU Magazin) 19:44–48. https://doi.org/10.26041/fhnw-649

Tanner C, Wölfle R (2005) Elektronische Rechnungsstellung zwischen Unternehmen: Konzentriertes Wissen aus der swissDIGIN-Initiative zur Förderung des elektronischen Rechnungsaustauschs. Fachhochschule beider Basel Nordwestschweiz, Basel.

Trachsel V, Bitterli C (2020) Controller-Profile in der Schweiz. Bedeutung der Digitalisierung. In: Keimer I, Egle U (eds) Die Digitalisierung der Controlling-Funktion: Anwendungsbeispiele aus Theorie und Praxis. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 199–210

Weiber R, Gassler H, Meyer J (2002) Qualifizierungsanforderungen im E-Business. In: Weiber R (ed) Handbuch Electronic Business: Informationstechnologien – Electronic Commerce – Geschäftsprozesse, 2nd edn. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 261–277

Weinert F (2001) Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In: Rychen D, Salganik LH (eds) Defining and selecting key competencies. Hogrefe & Huber, Ashland, pp 45–65.

Werner M, Gehrke N (2011) Potentiale und Grenzen automatisierter Prozessprüfungen durch Prozessrekonstruktionen. In: Plate G (ed) Forschung für die Wirtschaft. Shaker, Aachen, pp 99–120.

Wilczek T (2014) Elektronische Rechnungseingangsbearbeitung: Eine Make-or-Buy-Studie. Disserta, Hamburg.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

No funding has been received for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Vocational and Business Education, University of Hamburg, Sedanstraße 19, 20146, Hamburg, Germany

Julia Pargmann & Florian Berding

Institute of Business Education, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

Elisabeth Riebenbauer

Institute of Education, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Doreen Flick-Holtsch

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JP analysed and interpreted the data and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. ER, DFH and FB initiated the project, drafted the theoretical background and methodology and were contributors in writing and editing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Pargmann .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix I: List of coded publications

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pargmann, J., Riebenbauer, E., Flick-Holtsch, D. et al. Digitalisation in accounting: a systematic literature review of activities and implications for competences. Empirical Res Voc Ed Train 15 , 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-023-00141-1

Download citation

Received : 24 October 2022

Accepted : 27 March 2023

Published : 04 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-023-00141-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digitalisation
• Accounting education
• Competences

• DOI: 10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i02.15692
• Corpus ID: 268836991

An Analysis of Cloud-based Accounting Software: A Literature Review on Features, Performance, and User Satisfaction

• Sweet Agrawal , Jayashree Jethy
• Published in International Journal For… 28 March 2024
• Computer Science, Business

37 References

Benefits and issues of cloud computing in accounting, the adoption of cloud accounting information system in jordanian financial firms: influencing factors, cloud-based accounting software: choice options in the light of modern international tendencies, analysing the impact of cloud-based accounting on business performance of smes, assessing the intention to adopt cloud accounting during covid-19, understanding the impact of cloud-based services adoption on organizational flexibility: an exploratory study, cloud-based accounting and productivity tools for practitioners and taxpayers, the effect cloud accounting adoption on organizational performance in smes, the impact of cloud computing technology on the audit process and the audit profession, effect of technology organization environment and individual factors towards adoption intention of cloud-based accounting software in msmes, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Management Accounting in the Digital Era: Literature Review

• Conference paper
• First Online: 01 January 2022
• Cite this conference paper

• Atheer AlAnsari 10 ,
• Badreya Alqadhi 11 ,
• Aysha Aljawder 12 &
• Rami Abu Wadi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4610-7634 13  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 423))

Included in the following conference series:

• The International Conference On Global Economic Revolutions

2002 Accesses

The purpose of the paper is to provide a structure overview of literature for digitalization in the managerial accounting. This can serve as a basis for future research, and thus provide a framework for furthermore focused research questions. Papers published in prominent accounting journals during a 14-year period were scanned. These papers pertaining to the field of digitalization in the managerial accounting were categorized and analyzed in more detail and classified in accordance with selected dimensions. The review was focused on papers explicitly exploring the link between accounting and technology. This paper focused on the field of management accounting and its evolving nature in the fastmoving digital world. This literature review aims to shed light on the effects of digitalization on the well-established filed of management accounting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Impact of Digitalization on the Accounting Profession

Digital data and management accounting: why we need to rethink research methods

Looking for Synergies Between Accounting and Information Technologies

Güney, A.: Role of technology in accounting and e-accounting. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 152 , 852–855 (2014)

Article   Google Scholar  

Bhimani, A.: Digital data and management accounting: why we need to rethink research methods. J. Manage. Control 31 (1–2), 9–23 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-020-00295-z

Andreassen, R.-I.: Digital technology and changing roles: a management accountant’s dream or nightmare? J. Manage. Control 31 (3), 209–238 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-020-00303-2

Karolak, M., Razzaque, A., Al-Sartawi, A.: E-services and M-services using IoT: an assessment of the Kingdom of Bahrain. In: Musleh Al-Sartawi A.M., Razzaque A., Kamal M.M. (eds.) EAMMIS 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 239, pp. 523–533. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77246-8_48

Sanad, Z., Al-Sartawi, A.: Financial statements fraud and data mining: a review. In: Musleh Al-Sartawi, A.M., Razzaque, A., Kamal, M.M. (eds.) EAMMIS 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 239, pp. 507–414. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77246-8_38

Alansari, Y., Al-Sartawi, A.: IT governance and E-banking in GCC listed banks. Procedia Comput. Sci. 183 , 844–848 (2021)

Granlund, M.: On the interface between management accounting and modern information technology-A literature review and some empirical evidence. Available at SSRN 985074 (2007)

Google Scholar  

Atkinson, A.A., Kaplan, R.S., Matsumura, E.M., Young, S.M.: Management accounting: Information for decision-making and strategy execution, student value edition (2011)

Hannoon, A., Al-Sartawi, A., Khalid A.: Relationship between financial technology and financial performance. In: Musleh Al-Sartawi, A.M.A. (eds.) The Big Data-Driven Digital Economy: Artificial and Computational Intelligence. SCI, vol. 974, pp. 337–344. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73057-4_26

Gartner. Definition of Digitalization - Gartner Information Technology Glossary (2020). https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/digitalization . Accessed 20 Mar 2021

Musleh Al-Sartawi, A.M., Razzaque, A., Kamal, M.M. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence Systems and the Internet of Things in the Digital Era. EAMMIS 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 239. Springer, Cham (2021)

Heinzelmann, R.: Digitalizing management accounting. In: Controlling–Aktuelle Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen, pp. 207–226. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden (2019)

Gupta, M., Sikarwar, T.S.: Modelling credit risk management and bank’s profitability. Int. J. Electron. Banking 2 (2), 170–183 (2020)

Al-Sartawi, A.: Does it pay to be socially responsible? empirical evidence from the GCC countries. Int. J. Law Manage. 62 (5), 381–394 (2020)

Kruskopf, S., Lobbas, C., Meinander, H., Söderling, K., Martikainen, M., Lehner, O.: Digital accounting and the human factor: theory and practice. ACRN J. Financ. Risk Perspect. 9 , 78–89 (2020)‏

Lawson, R., White, L.R.: Mmaintaining relevance in-the digital age: in the face of technological change, the management accounting profession needs to refocus on providing actionable cost information to support internal decision making–or risk becoming obsolete. Strateg. Financ. 99 (10), 26–32 (2018)

Al-Sartawi, A.: The effect of corporate governance on the performance of the listed companies in the gulf cooperation council countries. Jordan J. Bus. Adm. 11 (3), 705–725 (2015)

Manea, D.: The evolution of managerial accounting. Rev. General Manage. 16 (2), 226–231 (2012)

Al-Sartawi, A.: Corporate governance and intellectual capital: evidence from gulf cooperation council countries. Acad. Acc. Finan. Stud. J. 22 (1), 1–12 (2018)

Moghadam, S.K., Tayebtaher, E., Onsori, N.: Analysis of information new technologies effect in management accounting. Int. J. Sci. Manage. Dev. 5 (7), 297–303 (2017)

Musleh Al-Sartawi, A.M.A. (ed.): The Big Data-Driven Digital Economy: Artificial and Computational Intelligence. SCI, vol. 974. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73057-4

Book   Google Scholar  

Abdulrasool, F.E., Turnbull, S.I.: Exploring security, risk, and compliance driven IT governance model for universities: applied research based on the COBIT framework. Int. J. Electron. Banking 2 (3), 237–265 (2020)

Sanad, Z., Al-Sartawi, A.: Investigating the relationship between corporate governance and internet financial reporting (IFR): evidence from Bahrain Bourse. Jordan J. Bus. Adm. 12 (1), 239–269 (2016)

Möller, K., Schäffer, U., Verbeeten, F.: Digitalization in management accounting and control: an editorial. J. Manage. Control 31 (1–2), 1–8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-020-00300-5

Al-Sartawi, A.: Institutional ownership, social responsibility, corporate governance and online financial disclosure. Int. J. Crit. Acc. 10 (3/4), 241–255 (2018)

Al-Okaily, A., Abd Rahman, M.S., Al-Okaily, M., Ismail, W.N.S.W., Ali, A.: Measuring success of accounting information system: applying the DeLone and McLean model at the organizational level. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 98 (14), 2697–2706 (2020)

Oncioiu, I., Bîlcan, F.R., Stoica, D.A., Stanciu, A.: Digital transformation of managerial accounting-trends in the new economic environment. EIRP Proc.  14 (1) (2019)‏

Pilipczuk, O.: Toward cognitive management accounting. Sustainability 12 (12), 5108 (2020)

Quattrone, P.: Management accounting goes digital: Will the move make it wiser? Manage. Acc. Res. 31 , 118–122 (2016)

Riddle, C.: The importance of big data and analytics in the era of digital transformation (2018)

Tomilova-Yaremchuk, N.O., Khomovyi, M.M., Khomovyi, S.M., Makarchuk, O.G.: The formation of effective accounting information for managerial decision-making in agricultural enterprises. Financ. Credit Act. Prob. Theory Pract. 4 (31), 230–238 (2019)

Al-Okaily, M., Alqudah, H., Matar, A., Lutfi, A., Taamneh, A.: Dataset on the acceptance of e-learning system among universities students’ under the COVID-19 Pandemic Conditions. Data Brief  32 , 106176 (2020)

Al-Sartawi, A.: Social media disclosure of intellectual capital and firm value. Int. J. Learn. Intellect. Capital 17 (4), 312–323 (2020)

Shihadeh, F.: Online payment services and individuals’ behaviour: new evidence from the MENAP. Int. J. Electron. Banking 2 (4), 275–282 (2020)

Chauhan, N., Tekta, P.: Fraud detection and verification system for online transactions: a brief overview. Int. J. Electron. Banking 2 (4), 267–274 (2020)

Al-Sartawi, A., Sanad, Z.: Institutional ownership and corporate governance: evidence from Bahrain. Afro-Asian J. Financ. Acc. 9 (1), 101–115 (2019)

Al-Okaily, A., Al-Okaily, M., Ai Ping, T., Al-Mawali, H., Zaidan, H.: An empirical investigation of enterprise system user satisfaction antecedents in Jordanian commercial banks. Cogent Bus. Manage. 8 (1), 1918847 (2021)

Chayjan, M.R., Bagheri, T., Kianian, A., Someh, N.G.: Using data mining for prediction of retail banking customer’s churn behaviour. Int. J. Electron. Banking 2 (4), 303–320 (2020)

Al-Sartawi, A.: Information technology governance and cybersecurity at the board level. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 16 (2), 150–161 (2020)

Memdani, L.: Demonetisation: a move towards cashless economy in India. Int. J. Electron. Banking 2 (3), 205–211 (2020)

Al-Sartawi, A.: Assessing the relationship between information transparency through social media disclosure and firm value. Manage. Acc. Rev. 18 (2), 1–20 (2019)

Al-Okaily, A., Al-Okaily, M., Shiyyab, F., Masadah, W.: Accounting information system effectiveness from an organizational perspective. Manage. Sci. Lett. 10 (16), 3991–4000 (2020)

Musleh Al-Sartawi, A.M.A.: E-Learning improves accounting education: case of the higher education sector of bahrain. In: Themistocleous, M., Papadaki, M., Kamal, M.M. (eds.) Information Systems. EMCIS 2020. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 402, pp. 301–315. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63396-7_20

Ameen, N., Tarhini, A., Shah, M.H., Madichie, N., Paul, J., Choudrie, J.: Keeping customers’ data secure: a cross-cultural study of cybersecurity compliance among the Gen-Mobile workforce. Comput. Hum. Behav.  114 , 106531 (2020)

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36 (1), 157–178 (2012)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Emaar Architects, Manama, Bahrain

Atheer AlAnsari

Supreme Council for Women, Manama, Bahrain

Badreya Alqadhi

Ministry of Health, Manama, Bahrain

Aysha Aljawder

Ahlia University, Manama, Bahrain

Rami Abu Wadi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rami Abu Wadi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Accounting, Finance and Banking Department, College of Business and Finance, Ahlia University, Manama, Bahrain

Abdalmuttaleb M. A. Musleh Al-Sartawi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

AlAnsari, A., Alqadhi, B., Aljawder, A., Wadi, R.A. (2022). Management Accounting in the Digital Era: Literature Review. In: Musleh Al-Sartawi, A.M.A. (eds) Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Finance and Sustainable Technology. ICGER 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 423. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93464-4_50

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93464-4_50

Published : 01 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-93463-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-93464-4

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Library Hours
• Strategic Plan
• Giving to the Libraries
• Jobs at the Libraries
• Find Your Librarian
• View All →
• Google Scholar
• Research Guides
• Textbook/Reserves
• Government Documents
• Get It For Me
• Print/Copy/Scan
• Renew Materials
• Study Rooms
• Use a Computer
• Borrow Tech Gear
• Student Services
• Faculty Services
• Users with Disabilities
• Visitors & Alumni
• Special Collections
• Find Information

Literature Review for Accounting/Auditing

Main Objectives, Procedures & Resources

What is a literature review and what is the purpose?

A literature review consists of simply a summary of key sources, and it usually combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that tells how you are planning to investigate a research problem.

A literature review is conducted during the first phase of the research process (in the exploration stage). The purpose of a literature review is to:

• To survey the current state of knowledge in the area of inquiry (concerning the research questions and/or related topics)
• To identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area
• To identify gaps in knowledge in the research area

In this document, we will focus on the steps to follow in doing a literature search on a topic or author. While the steps below are listed in numerical order, some steps may need to be repeated, revisited, and/or skipped as you go through the process.

• Consider a topic for the research question and determine the breadth and depth of your topic that is manageable in scope - hence preferably, not too wide nor too narrow.  For instance, the topic - Audits and IPOs – could be a good one in this regard.  
• Audits > Auditor, auditors, auditing …
• IPOs  >  IPOs, Initial Public Offerings …

     Thus, we can change our original topic - Audits AND IPOs – into a new search statement as below:

• (Audit * ) AND (IPOs OR Initial Public Offerings)
• AND -- this narrows a search by telling the database that ALL keywords used must appear in the same records/results.
• OR -- this broadens a search by telling the database that ANY of the words it connects are acceptable in the search results.
• * -- this asterisk is a wildcard character , so using: Audit * = the search results may contain Audit, Audit s, Audit or, Audit ing
• Link 1 - Results   - Getting Search Results:  182 (as of 10/16/23)
• Link 2 Results   - Getting Search Results:  498 (as of 10/16/23)
• Audit risk issues
• Financial statements  
• Management structure or corporate governance
• Compliance  
• Mergers or Acquisitions
• Now, with the help of Boolean operator “ AND ” we can easily combine theses three concepts/keywords, thus forming some seemingly intricate, yet more promising search statements as below.  That way, we could be able to pull out more meaningful, focused, and relevant results from a huge databases:
• (Audit * ) AND (IPO * OR Initial Public Offerings) AND ( Risk * ) > Results from EBSCO
• (Audit * ) AND (IPO * OR Initial Public Offerings) AND ( Financial statements ) > Results from EBSCO
• (Audit * ) AND (IPO * OR Initial Public Offerings) AND ( management structure or corporate governance ) > Results from EBSCO
• (Audit * ) AND (IPO * OR Initial Public Offerings) AND ( compliance ) > Results from EBSCO
• Su (Audit * ) AND Ti (IPO * OR Initial Public Offerings) AND Su (merger * OR acquisition * OR m&a * ) > Results from EBSCO

Please note: (1) Following each of the search statements above, there is a link to results from our library subscription databases - EBSCOhost .    EBSCOhost is one of our recommendation databases for any literature review as it is the largest databases for journals/articles coverage we subscribe to so far, and Business Source Complete ls just one of them. (2) #5 above is different from other in that the Fields - Su and Ti Fields - have been added and used in the search statement.  Why Fields search will be discussed in the next Step (Step 5).     

• With the power of computing and databases, more often than not, users would get  overwhelming results from whatever keywords used.  How to overcome that? You can reduce the overwhelming number of results, and in the meantime not sacrifice any relevant and high-quality results by taking advantage of the content-related fields in structured databases – the fields that is already build-in with almost all databases, such as EBSCOhost .  We are particularly interested in the following content-related fields:
• Title  - TI field
• Subject - SU field
• Abstract  - AB field 

As a result of using fields, you are actually limiting (forcing) the keywords of selection only appear in certain fields you’ve specified.  Think about this: if in a title of an article, there is a word XYZ, the chances are content of the article is pretty much about XYZ.  The same applies to the fields of subject and abstract.

• au (Raman, K) AND ab (audit*) =  60 results > Results from ProQuest
• au (Raman, K) AND su (audit*)   = 42 results > Results from ProQuest
• au (Raman, k) AND litigation = 18 results > Results from ProQuest
• As the search results are returned, it is best to preview the results by looking for articles that are relevant to your specific research questions. Try to pay attention to words around the highlighted keywords (it may reveal why a particular article has been pulled out), skim the abstract and the introduction section, even try to read the literature review sections of these articles. This will help to determine the suitability of that article for a further review.
• Overall, a well conducted literature review should indicate whether the initial research question or topics have already been addressed in the literature, whether there are newer or more interest research questions available, and whether the original research question should be modified or changed in light of findings of the literature review.  
• Last but not least, it is highly recommended to search the following UTSA subscription databases considering these databases’ coverage and relevancy to your academic discipline.  Certainly, you can use the techniques and procedure we’ve discussed above within all of the databases below. 
• Academic Search Complete  is a flagship of EBSCOhost
• Business Source Complete – another sub-database of EBSCOhost —that also c overs Working Papers
• including ABI/INFORM Collection and 
• Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection  
• NBER Working Papers
• Provides access to books and journals in accounting and finance, economics, and more
• Last Updated: Oct 16, 2023 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.utsa.edu/auditing
• Library Locations
• Staff Directory
• 508 Compliance
• Site Search
• © The University of Texas at San Antonio
• Information: 210-458-4011
• Campus Alerts
• Required Links
• UTSA Policies
• Report Fraud

Accounting Research and Trust: A Literature Review

• November 2011
• Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 8(4)

• University of Gothenburg

• University of Skövde

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• J BUS ETHICS

• Leslie Berger

• Asifiwe Enock Kyando
• Abdiel Abayo
• Gwahula Raphael

• Crit Perspect Account

• Henry Midgley
• Theresa Ransmayr
• Account Audit Account J

• Matthew Hall
• Leona Wiegmann

• Dale E Zand
• Robert D. Putnam

• Raffaella Y. Nanetti
• Ranjay Gulati

• SIDNEY G. WINTER

• D.L. Searcy
• J.T. Mentzer
• Behav Res Account
• John Dickhaut

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Literature reviews of qualitative accounting research: challenges and opportunities

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management

ISSN : 1176-6093

Article publication date: 28 February 2023

Issue publication date: 4 May 2023

This paper aims to identify specific challenges and opportunities when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. In addition, it offers potential remedies to frequent challenges when conducting such reviews.

Design/methodology/approach

This piece is based on recent methodological advice on conducting literature reviews and my own experience when conducting and publishing reviews that primarily cover qualitative accounting research.

The author chart three typical advantages and three typical use cases of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research, as well as the typical process steps and outputs of such reviews. Along with these process steps, The author identifies three overarching specific challenges when conducting such reviews and discusses potential remedies. Overall, this paper suggests that literature reviews of qualitative accounting research feature idiosyncratic challenges but offer specific opportunities at the same time.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to offer advice on the specific challenges and opportunities when conducting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

• Literature review
• Systematic review
• Systematicity
• Qualitative research
• Accounting research

Hiebl, M.R.W. (2023), "Literature reviews of qualitative accounting research: challenges and opportunities", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management , Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 309-336. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-12-2021-0222

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Martin R.W. Hiebl.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode .

1. The increasing relevance of review-centric works in and beyond accounting research

The volume of research published in academic journals and other outlets has significantly increased over the past few decades ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Kraus et al. , 2021 ), and business research, including accounting research, is no exception ( Andiola et al. , 2017 ; Dyckman and Zeff, 2015 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ; Kunisch et al. , 2018 , 2023 ; Paul and Criado, 2020 ; Snyder, 2019 ; Zeff, 2019 ). Hence, researchers, especially junior scholars such as PhD students, may find it difficult to stay up-to-date in their area of interest and recognize which relevant and interesting research questions remain to be answered ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2012 ; Kraus et al. , 2021 ). To help master such challenges and avoid “reinventing the wheel”, the importance of sound literature reviews has recently risen ( Massaro et al. , 2016 ).

Methodological advice on how to conduct literature reviews in business-related disciplines has long lagged behind the much faster growth in published reviews ( Breslin et al. , 2021 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ; Kunisch et al. , 2018 , 2023 ). More recently, several works on mastering review methods and generating impactful literature reviews have been published. Such advice includes the general potential of certain kinds of review-centric works ( Aguinis et al. , 2023 ; Antons et al. , 2021 ; Cronin and George, 2023 ; Hoon, 2013 ; Jones and Gatrell, 2014 ; Kraus et al. , 2022 ; Paul and Criado, 2020 ; Rousseau et al. , 2008 ; Snyder, 2019 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ), theorizing through literature reviews ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ; Hoon, 2013 ; Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ; Post et al. , 2020 ), involving practitioners in crafting literature reviews ( Sharma and Bansal, 2020 ), the performativity of reviews in shaping and developing academic fields ( Gond et al. , 2020 ) and questions on the individual steps when conducting literature reviews ( Anderson and Lemken, 2023 ; Hiebl, 2021 ; Rojon et al. , 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ; Villiger et al. , 2021 ). Most of these works have focused on general business and management research. While the number of published literature reviews in accounting journals has increased in recent years, and entire review-centric special issues have been or are about to be published in these journals (e.g. in the European Accounting Review and Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation ), specific advice on crafting reviews of accounting research remains scarce.

In fact, the most notable exception that has – to the best of my knowledge – received widespread attention is the article by Massaro et al. (2016) on conducting structured reviews of accounting research. However, given the general nature of the work by Massaro et al. (2016) , it cannot delve into all the strands of accounting research. These strands and methodological traditions come with their own peculiarities and informal rules of the game that are often inaccessible to junior scholars ( Brennan, 2019 ; Dai et al. , 2019 ; Humphrey and Lee, 2004 ; Malmi, 2010 ). For this reason, Andiola et al. (2017) highlight specific challenges when reviewing behavioral accounting research.

Likewise, my experience of publishing several review papers in accounting journals tells me that crafting reviews that primarily cover qualitative accounting research comes with its challenges. For instance, qualitative accounting studies usually feature thick descriptions of accounting phenomena and their embedding in social and organizational contexts ( Lukka and Modell, 2017 ; Messner et al. , 2017 ). In particular, research case studies of accounting phenomena usually feature detailed accounts of the events that took place in the case organization ( Lee and Humphrey, 2017 ). Compared with quantitative research papers, which usually compress accounting and related phenomena into variables that can be included in statistical analyses ( Messner et al. , 2017 ), the findings sections of qualitative accounting studies are often more extensive. Such extensive descriptions in qualitative accounting research come with the challenge that several elements or aspects of their findings might be extracted and included in a literature review. Likewise, the findings of qualitative accounting studies might be read with a different theory than originally intended by the authors ( Huber, 2022 ). The author of a literature review might, thus, reinterpret the original findings ( Hoon, 2013 ). Such reinterpretation is not possible when reviewing quantitative accounting research because the measurement of phenomena in such work is usually tightly linked to the theoretically derived hypotheses ( Smith, 2019 ). At the same time, covering qualitative research in reviews of accounting research is probably more relevant than in many other fields of business research, as quantitative and qualitative methods are applied more evenly in accounting research, especially in Australia, Europe and several emerging countries ( Hopper and Bui, 2016 ; Hopper et al. , 2009 ; Massaro et al. , 2016 ; Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ).

To help scholars – especially those relatively new to accounting research or reviews thereof – avoid some of the lessons that I have learned through trial and error, I highlight some of the challenges when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research and offer potential solutions to overcome them in this qualitative insights piece. For this purpose, I first distinguish between three potential advantages and three basic use cases of reviews of qualitative accounting research in Section 2. This section aims to highlight important choices, including the extent of an author’s criticism of the literature and the decision on whether to publish the review as a standalone paper. These choices guide the later process of crafting a review of qualitative accounting research, which is detailed in Section 3. Section 3 also discusses the degree of systematicity found in contemporary literature reviews. Along these process steps, I then highlight three important challenges when reviewing qualitative accounting research and offer potential solutions in Section 4. Section 5 concludes with implications for future reviews of qualitative accounting research.

To discuss these choices and challenges in reviews of qualitative accounting research, I draw on related advice from other disciplines and my own experience. Hence, the following advice comes with the limitation that parts of it are subjective. I nevertheless hope that it is useful to account researchers interested in crafting reviews of qualitative accounting research.

2. Three potential advantages and three basic use cases of reviews of qualitative accounting research

Literature reviews can be classified in various ways ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Cronin and George, 2023 ; Fan et al. , 2022 ; Kraus et al. , 2022 ; Paul and Criado, 2020 ; Snyder, 2019 ). Many of these classifications include choices on the kind of topic addressed in a literature review and the scholarly advantages to be gained. Importantly, these choices on the topic and desired advantages of a literature review inform the rest of the literature review process ( Hiebl, 2021 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ), which is why I first discuss three potential advantages of literature reviews in Section 2.1, followed by three use cases in Section 2.2.

2.1 Three potential advantages of literature reviews

Analyzing a certain strand of the literature may result in finding that it is incomplete and has missed several important aspects of the phenomenon. The advantage of such an analysis is pointing out future research avenues worthy of further inquiry ( Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997 ). Many reviews covering qualitative accounting research follow this approach, as their main purpose is to analyze a certain domain of accounting research and suggest aspects of the domain that still need (more) research attention ( Hopper et al. , 2009 ; Ndemewah et al. , 2019 ). An advantage of such reviews might also be that they tie together research that has been published in several research fields and outlets ( Ndemewah et al. , 2019 ; Nguyen et al. , 2018 ). Based on such reviews, research on a certain domain of accounting might, thus, be synthesized more comprehensively and missing knowledge on the topic identified.

A strand of the literature may be viewed as inadequate in that certain perspectives, frameworks or theories have been insufficiently incorporated or used in a field. The advantage of such a literature review, thus, lies in suggesting alternative ways to analyze a phenomenon or field of study, which may suggest a different future direction ( Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ; Jones and Gatrell, 2014 ). Thus, such reviews tend to carry a more critical stance when analyzing the literature. An example heavily drawing on qualitative accounting research is the review by Hardies and Khalifa (2018) . These authors review gender in accounting research and identify “two persistent pitfalls” (p. 385) in this literature, and thus, portray large parts of it as inadequate . Another example is the review by Wolf et al. (2020) , who review the literature on the roles and identities of management accountants and conclude that this research strand has not yet made sufficient use of the “identity concept” (p. 312).

A literature review may find that a certain strand of the literature is incommensurate in that it has not only overlooked certain perspectives or theories (as in the “inadequate” category above) but also made claims that are just wrong. In this case, a literature review may identify the misguided perspective and try to correct the errors made ( Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997 ). Reviews following this approach are the most critical of the current literature and not as numerous as reviews using the two advantages above. An example of this type of review might be the recent work by Modell (2022b) . Modell (2022b) reviews institutional research on management accounting and concludes that parts of this literature show no progress and even some degenerative tendencies in continuing to draw on one-sided views that predominantly focus on either human agency or structures to explain institutional processes around management accounting. In line with the incommensurate category proposed by Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) , Modell (2022b) also suggests ways in which these shortcomings in institutional research on management accounting can be rectified.

While Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) analytically separate these three advantages of scholarly engagement with the prior literature, it seems fair to assume that a literature review must achieve at least one of these advantages and may pertain to several at the same time.

Regardless of the specific scholarly advantages of a literature review, we can further distinguish two ways in which literature reviews are integrated into the research process: they can result in standalone papers and/or inform a broader research project that may, for instance, be geared toward further empirical, formal/analytical or conceptual work ( Andiola et al. , 2017 ; Booth et al. , 2021 ; Jesson et al. , 2011 ; Petticrew and Roberts, 2012 ). In fact, Petticrew and Roberts (2012) argue that a literature review should be conducted at the start of any research project, particularly PhD theses, to avoid overlooking research relevant to the project at hand. In the following, I mostly use examples of literature reviews published as standalone papers, as these examples can be more easily traced by the reader. Reviews informing a broader research project may be less restricted by page count and the usual setup of the review than their counterparts published as standalone papers. However, aside from that, the following issues to be considered when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research should pertain to both types of reviews.

Publishing a literature review as a standalone paper has several advantages. For instance, review articles are appealing to authors and editors of accounting journals because they usually attract higher citation rates than other research articles ( Dechow et al. , 2020 ; Guffey and Harp, 2016 ). In addition, review articles can help sharpen an author’s profile in the research community and associate the author’s name with a specific domain, theory or method.

At the same time, the decision on whether a literature review should or could be published as a standalone paper rests not only on these considerations but also on several additional factors. Among these factors, to be publishable in an academic journal, a literature review needs to cover a field in which “a number of conceptual and empirical articles have amassed without previous review efforts or a synthesis of past works” ( Short, 2009 , p. 1312). We currently lack meta-analytic information on where such a “critical mass” ( Short, 2009 , p. 1316) lies for reviews of (qualitative) accounting research. For reviews of management research that are published in the most-cited specialist journals for such reviews, we know that they cover about 140 articles each on average and 30–50 articles as a minimum ( Hiebl, 2021 ). Compared with reviews of (mostly) qualitative accounting research, we can infer that the standards in the latter field differ little from the above numbers. The critical mass for a standalone review article in accounting journals seems to start at about 30 articles, too ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ; Modell, 2022a ), but most such works cover larger review samples [ 2 ] of approximately 50–90 articles ( Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ; Fiandrino et al. , 2022 ; Hardies and Khalifa, 2018 ; Hiebl, 2018 ; Hopper et al. , 2009 ; Parker and Northcott, 2016 ; Weigel and Hiebl, 2022 ), and some cover over 100 ( Baldvinsdottir et al. , 2011 ; Modell, 2022b ; Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ; van der Stede et al. , 2005 ). Methodological literature reviews of accounting research may even cover several hundred articles; however, at the same time, they usually feature a narrower focus on the applied methodological issues ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ).

Together with the three potential advantages of literature reviews, the right-hand box of Figure 1 includes the two main publication forms of reviews. This figure does not intend to provide a step-by-step guide of how to perform a literature review of qualitative accounting research. In fact, the advantages, use cases and process steps included in Figure 1 do not necessarily only apply to literature reviews of qualitative (accounting) research; but the terminology (e.g. method theory, domain theory) used in this figure and the rest of this paper are mostly taken from the qualitative accounting research literature. I use these steps, use cases and advantages when later highlighting some of the specific challenges of reviews of qualitative accounting research (Section 4). Figure 1 , thus, aims to provide readers with a map to locate the typical issues I discuss when crafting a review of qualitative accounting research and summarize the main use cases and potential advantages of such reviews.

2.2 Three potential use cases for literature reviews

reviews that cover a certain domain within accounting research;

reviews that focus on the application of a certain method theory in accounting research; and

reviews that examine a specific research method as applied in accounting research.

Just like the three potential advantages of literature reviews, these three use cases are summarized in Figure 1 .

The first use case is related to what Lukka and Vinnari (2014 , p. 1309) term the “domain theory” of a field within accounting research: “A domain theory refers to a particular set of knowledge on a substantive topic area situated in a field or domain”. They contrast a domain theory with a method theory, the latter being defined as “a meta-level conceptual system, or theoretical lens, which originates from another field such as organization studies or sociology” ( Lukka and Vinnari, 2014 , p. 1312) and is more related to the second use case of a literature review sketched above. Lukka and Vinnari (2014) further note that a “method theory offers a vocabulary and syntax, often also substantive propositions, which are, at least with adaptations, applicable to another disciplinary domain” (p. 1312), such as accounting research. To illustrate their argument, they draw on a review of the use of actor network theory (i.e. the method theory in focus) in management accounting research. They conclude that most prior studies in this field have exclusively contributed to the domain of management accounting research, with only a small fraction contributing to actor network theory more generally. However, even if researchers are only aiming to contribute to a particular domain theory of a field within accounting research, they need to know the current state of that domain theory to properly reflect and frame their contribution to prior knowledge. And such prior knowledge can be identified by means of a literature review ( Lukka and Vinnari, 2014 ). Likewise, Mahama and Khalifa (2017 , p. 324) argue that for qualitative accounting research based on interviews, the literature review forms the basis of deriving interview questions and later “determining whether new knowledge is generated from the interview data, thereby paving the way for the researcher to claim empirical contribution”.

Examples for use case (i) that covered a certain domain within accounting research and covered qualitative accounting research include reviews on the role of emotions ( Repenning et al. , 2022 ), gender ( Hardies and Khalifa, 2018 ), technology ( Garanina et al. , 2021 ; Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu, 2018 ) and trust ( Baldvinsdottir et al. , 2011 ); reviews of certain accounting practices and principles ( Fiandrino et al. , 2022 ; Hoque, 2014 ; Nguyen et al. , 2018 ) and the roles of accountants ( Wolf et al. , 2020 ); and reviews of accounting research in certain countries or regions ( Hopper et al. , 2009 ; Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ), certain industries ( Gooneratne and Hoque, 2013 ; Ndemewah et al. , 2019 ) and types of organizations ( D’Andreamatteo et al. , 2022 ; Kapiyangoda and Gooneratne, 2021 ; Weigel and Hiebl, 2022 ). All these reviews have focused on a certain substantive topic within accounting research or, in the words of Lukka and Vinnari (2014) , a certain domain of accounting research. These use case (i) literature reviews may provide authors with the largest set of choices. As detailed below, such domain theory reviews can include either research items from only accounting journals or content from other sources; they may or may not be informed by a guiding theory and may include both qualitative and nonqualitative empirical papers. This, therefore, necessitates the inclusion of papers resting on various methodologies and underlying research paradigms (cf. Modell, 2010 ), which may pose an additional challenge for authors of such reviews.

In turn, other reviews have been less concerned with specific accounting phenomena and more interested in the application of a certain method theory to accounting research. Reviews following use case (ii) are similar to the above example of Lukka and Vinnari (2014) , who use the application of actor network theory in management accounting research to illustrate the differences between domain and method theory. Further examples of use case (ii) that have mostly focused on qualitative accounting research are reviews of the use of Gidden’s structuration theory in accounting research ( Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ) and reviews of accounting research drawing on the concepts of institutional work ( Modell, 2022a ), institutional theory ( Modell, 2022b ) and institutional logics ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ). These reviews all critically analyze how a certain method theory has been applied in and has contributed to the development of accounting research. To provide such a critical analysis, the researcher usually needs to have a very good understanding of the current state of this theory, not just within accounting research, but ideally across all relevant fields to compare the application of a method theory in accounting research with the more general state-of-the-art on this theory.

In contrast to use case (i) reviews, use case (ii) reviews usually only include research from accounting journals in their sample and clearly focus on a specific theory. Hence, authors have less variability in use case (ii) reviews than in use case (i) reviews. This lower variability also pertains to the papers to be included in use case (ii) reviews. While empirical accounting research papers that adopt the same kind of theory may be based on various research methods, many use case (ii) literature reviews ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ; Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ; Modell , 2022a, 2022b ) are exclusively based on qualitative empirical accounting research, which does not come with the potential challenge of bridging the underlying research paradigms of the research items in the review sample.

In addition to focusing on a certain domain or method theory, Aguinis et al. (2023) highlight that many impactful literature reviews of management research focus on methodological issues – just as the present paper does [ 3 ]. Systematic “methodological literature reviews”, and thus, use case (iii) for literature reviews, typically examine a specific research method applied to a certain field, systematically identify the challenges and shortcomings in its current application and often end with suggestions or best practices on how these methods should be used in the future ( Aguinis et al. , 2023 ; Kreamer et al. , 2021 ). While not yet frequent, some methodological literature reviews of accounting research are available ( Bedford and Speklé, 2018 ; Hiebl and Richter, 2018 ; Nitzl, 2016 ; van der Stede et al. , 2005 ), and a small number of systematic reviews of qualitative methods in accounting research also exist ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ; Parker and Northcott, 2016 ) [ 4 ]. Such reviews may be specifically helpful and impactful if researchers have seen relatively new methods or noticed shortcomings or open questions with existing research methods applied in qualitative accounting research. Methodological reviews may, thus, chart ways in which researchers can use new methods and avoid methodological pitfalls.

Similar to use case (ii) reviews, these use case (iii) reviews usually focus solely on the accounting literature and typically only include research published in accounting journals in their review samples. Unlike the first two use cases, use case (iii) reviews are rarely informed by a specific theory and are naturally bound to the specific method adopted by the research items in the review sample. Unlike the other two use cases, the methodological choices taken are often more of interest to the review authors than the findings of the papers for use case (iii) reviews. Such reviews may, therefore, predominantly extract the necessary information from the methods sections of the research items in the review sample ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ).

The decision on which of the three use cases to pursue in a literature review is driven by several factors, including personal interest in certain domains, theories and research methods in accounting research. Nevertheless, from my personal observations, some tendencies can be identified. The literature review sections of doctoral theses are often geared toward the domain of accounting research in which the thesis is positioned, and thus, use case (i) ( Batt, 2020 ; Braumann, 2017 ; Löhlein, 2015 ; Weigel, 2020 ), although exceptions do exist, including those more geared toward the method theories applied in accounting research, and thus, use case (ii) ( Janka, 2019 ). By contrast, all the examples of use case (ii) reviews noted above ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ; Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ; Modell , 2022a, 2022b ) are (co-)authored by senior scholars. In addition, these reviews often portray the current application of certain method theories in accounting research as inadequate or even incommensurate and are, thus, critical. While not relying on a full analysis of all available use case (ii) reviews, this observation may imply that this type of literature review rests on extended experience with a certain theory, and thus, having deep insights into the strengths, weaknesses and shortcomings of its application in accounting research. Similarly, the available examples of methodological reviews of accounting research (see above), and thus, use case (iii) have mostly been (co-)authored by experienced scholars. Just as with use case (ii), this observation may indicate that to conduct such methodology-oriented reviews, authors might benefit from having practical experience of a certain method to provide authentic recommendations for its future application in accounting research. However, less experienced researchers need not necessarily shy away from use cases (ii) and (iii). As some of the aforementioned examples show ( Damayanthi and Gooneratne, 2017 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ), junior researchers can still collaborate with more experienced researchers to conduct impactful reviews according to the latter two use cases.

Regardless of which use case is pursued, my experience of crafting, supervising and reviewing literature reviews is that authors usually decide upfront which use case to follow because all three use cases usually lead authors in different directions. Put differently, the choice of the use case and central topic of the literature review shapes the remainder of the review process ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Hiebl, 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ). This process is detailed next.

3. Process and systematicity of literature reviews

identify a review topic;

search for and select the relevant literature;

analyze the relevant literature; and

report the review findings.

Traditionally, literature reviews published in accounting journals, but also those in other social science disciplines, have often been opaque in terms of the second and third steps; they only motivated a topic and reported their findings. That is, they provided a critique of the literature and suggestions on how to move on without disclosing which methodological steps they had taken to select and analyze the literature. Such reviews are now often referred to as “traditional reviews” and contrasted with “systematic reviews” ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Jesson et al. , 2011 ; Knoll et al. , 2018 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ).

The main [ 5 ] differences between these two types of reviews are summarized in Table 1 , along with the four process steps of reviews mentioned above. The most significant difference between traditional and systematic reviews could be that systematic reviews follow a clear review protocol that defines the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the research items to be included in the review and transparently report how the literature was searched and selected. Thus, just like empirical research papers, systematic reviews usually carry a method section, too, where the researcher discloses the steps taken to arrive at and analyze a review sample ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ). This way, it should become clear on what basis – and, in particular, on which selected research items – the review’s findings were created. Ideally, readers – and journal editors and reviewers before them – should be able to fully trace the methodological steps taken by the literature review’s authors to arrive at their findings ( Hiebl, 2021 ). It is then possible to assess whether the review sample may be biased or important parts of the literature uncovered. Hence, just as with empirical articles, methodological transparency is usually the key ingredient for systematic reviews ( Aguinis et al. , 2018 ). In turn, the main criticism of traditional reviews is that their selection and analysis of the reviewed literature is opaque and may be selective and biased ( Knoll et al. , 2018 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ).

At least for review articles published in premier management journals, systematic reviews have become the new norm ( Breslin et al. , 2021 ; Hiebl, 2021 ; Rojon et al. , 2021 ). Hence, there are a few strong reasons for authors to produce a methodologically opaque traditional review. Indeed, methodological reviews in accounting research [i.e. those following use case (iii)] have long been more transparent in their focus, search and selection of research items ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Hiebl and Richter, 2018 ; Nitzl, 2016 ; Van der Stede et al. , 2005 ). Likewise, more recently published literature reviews strongly relying on qualitative accounting research mostly feature at least a short section on the main search strategies and sampling criteria ( Modell , 2022a, 2022b ; Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ; Wolf et al. , 2020 ). Hence, authors of reviews of qualitative accounting may be advised to present some of the methodological details on how they identified the research items and selected the inclusion and exclusion criteria for crafting their final review sample. If reporting these details would take up too much space in the main review article, many publishers nowadays offer online appendices where additional and more technical details can be reported (for examples, see Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Tank and Farrell, 2022 ; Weigel and Hiebl, 2022 ).

To be able to report these details of the literature search, authors of literature reviews are advised to establish a clear search strategy with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and document their search in detail. Some recent advice on sample selection as part of literature reviews presents details on the choices that can be rendered and documented when searching the literature ( Hiebl, 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ). In the accounting literature, some recent literature reviews also report in detail on their search procedures and provide examples of the choices to think about and data to document during the search process (see the online supplemental materials published along with Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Tank and Farrell, 2022 ; Weigel and Hiebl, 2022 ).

When it comes to specific literature reviews of qualitative empirical research, several names for such literature reviews have been coined, such as “meta-syntheses” ( Hoon, 2013 ), “qualitative research synthesis” ( Denyer and Tranfield, 2006 ), “critical interpretive synthesis”, “meta-ethnography” and “meta-narrative mapping” ( Dixon-Woods, 2011 ; Dixon-Woods et al. , 2006 ). While the features of these techniques differ (slightly), Dixon-Woods (2011 , p. 337) argues that these approaches are “all, practically, very similar, but have different names and slightly different variants”. She further notes that they can all be organized on a spectrum from more traditional literature reviews to more systematic reviews ( Dixon-Woods, 2011 ). We can, thus, broadly conclude that techniques to cover qualitative research in literature reviews show different degrees of “systematicity” ( Simsek et al. , 2021 ; see also Rojon et al. , 2021 ) and range from less to more systematic approaches (see the left-hand box in Figure 1 ). I return to this issue as one of the challenges in reviews covering qualitative accounting research, which is discussed in more detail in the next section. Figure 1 summarizes the three typical use cases discussed in Section 2.2, the typical process steps presented in this section, and the typical advantages of literature reviews explained in Section 2.1.

4. Challenges, potential solutions and opportunities for reviews of qualitative accounting research

As indicated above, I now detail three specific challenges pertinent to literature reviews of qualitative accounting research – from my own experience. In this qualitative insights piece, I cannot cover all the potential challenges when conducting and publishing literature reviews more generally [ 6 ]. The following should, thus, not be read as an exhaustive list of such challenges and potential solutions but rather as a subjective list of those challenges specific to literature reviews of qualitative accounting research, especially when trying to publish such reviews as standalone papers in well-regarded accounting journals. I discuss these challenges as they typically occur during the process of conducting literature reviews, as displayed in Figure 1 . Section 4.1 addresses the general setup and chosen research question(s) to be addressed by a literature review (process Step 1), Section 4.2 addresses the search for and selection of relevant research items (process Step 2) and Section 4.3 addresses teasing out an original contribution from such reviews (process Steps 3 and 4).

4.1 Skepticism about evidence-based reviews

theory discovery;

theory refinement; and

theory testing.

Theory refinement and theory testing studies start from one or several existing theoretical ideas and test and refine them by drawing on data ( Hoon, 2013 ; Keating, 1995 ; Sutton and Staw, 1995 ). Such data can be empirical data or a body of published work, as is typical in literature reviews ( Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ; Post et al. , 2020 ). By contrast, theory discovery studies “map novel, dynamic, and/or complex phenomena ignored or inadequately explained by existing theories” ( Keating, 1995 , p. 69). Hence, such studies do not adopt a certain theoretical lens to start with but rather develop theory inductively based on the available data. Again, such data could be empirical or extracted from a review sample ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ; Cronin and George, 2023 ; Hoon, 2013 ).

In the management literature, such inductive theory discovery reviews are often rooted in evidence-based thinking, and they focus on analyzing empirical research items without a particular informing theory ( Leuz, 2018 ; Rousseau et al. , 2008 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ). Because such evidence-based reviews focus on a phenomenon observed in organizational practice or a related question, they would mostly apply to use case (i) reviews of a certain domain of accounting research. Authors of evidence-based reviews usually collect all relevant research items that can shed light on the phenomenon ( Kunisch et al. , 2023 ; Rousseau et al. , 2008 ) – without defining in advance on which theoretical basis the research items must rest to qualify for inclusion in the review sample. Researchers may then inductively – and thus, without a predefined theoretical framework in mind – analyze the review sample. The theoretical contribution of such theory discovery or evidence-based literature reviews could be, for instance, to identify emerging themes that are later developed into a more formal theory, to create a new perspective of the phenomenon in question or to propose a framework that identifies so-far unexamined relationships from a cross-analysis of a review sample ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ; Cronin and George, 2023 ; Hoon, 2013 ; Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ). Take, for example, Aguinis and Glavas’ (2012) review of the corporate social responsibility literature. While Aguinis and Glavas (2012) do not cite “evidence-based thinking” as their guiding paradigm, they also do not commit to a particular theory a priori but rather incorporate research findings from different areas of management to inductively develop a theoretical framework that can guide future research. Through this evidence-based approach, they have been able to synthesize research findings from different levels of analysis (i.e. institutional, organizational and individual) that were previously largely disconnected.

However, my experience is that accounting scholars are skeptical about literature reviews of accounting research that follow such an evidence-based route without starting from a predefined theory. Put in Keating’s (1995) theory development categories, qualitative accounting researchers seem to prefer theory refinement and, potentially to a lesser degree, theory testing reviews of the literature but are rarely open to theory discovery reviews. This may be problematic, as theory-led reviews may reinforce existing theory and be less open to alternative and novel theoretical explanations of phenomena that do not fit existing theories [ 7 ]. As argued by Adams et al. (2017) , this may be less problematic for phenomena that have been intensively researched and existing theories tested extensively. However, for less mature and more emerging phenomena, theoretical explanations may be unavailable. In such situations, evidence-based reviews that are not (mis-)guided by existing theory may help discover theory ( Adams et al. , 2017 ). The integration of different strands of the literature resting on different theoretical paradigms may, however, be hampered if the review examines the phenomenon in question from a predefined theoretical viewpoint only, a practice sometimes observed in qualitative accounting research.

For instance, in the first two versions of a recently published review paper I co-authored ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ), we tried to convince the reviewers that we followed evidence-based thinking in the paper and would, thus, rather not use a predefined theoretical lens to analyze our review sample. In our view, such an evidence-based approach was warranted because we sought to integrate largely disjointed research findings that were originally based on very different theoretical assumptions. In addition, we did not originally intend this review to analyze whether these existing research findings fit into predefined theoretical categories. However, we could not convince the editor or the reviewers with this approach. Only when we changed this argument and identified two opposing theoretical positions as being dominant in our review sample and letting these guide the analysis of our results were the reviewers more convinced and recommended minor revisions or acceptance right away. This is not to say that the reviewers or we were wrong; we just started from different epistemological positions. Similar to many systematic reviews of management research, our starting position could be coined as “empiricist” or “evidence-based”, whereas the reviewers were probably more focused on the broader theoretical threads and explanations behind our review findings (cf. Modell, 2017 ). The latter, more theory-led view may have the advantage that the underlying theory can be used as an organizing framework to analyze the findings gathered in the review sample, which may be especially useful for junior scholars because an informing theory provides them with a basic template of the relationships to be analyzed based on a specific theory. Another potential benefit of this theory-led approach is that an alternative theory may be suggested, and the current state of the field may be portrayed as inadequate or even incommensurate, as detailed in Section 2.

While most experienced qualitative accounting researchers may be aware of the latter benefits of theory-led use case (i) reviews, few, in my experience, are open to more inductive, evidence-based reviews of a certain domain of accounting research. Thus, most qualitatively oriented literature reviews of accounting research that are published in well-regarded journals rather adopt a guiding theory and try to distill how the reviewed research items may confirm or challenge prior work that has adopted the same or a similar theoretical lens. This is different to my experience of quantitatively oriented literature reviews of accounting research ( Hiebl, 2014 ; Hiebl and Richter, 2018 ; Lavia López and Hiebl, 2015 ; Plöckinger et al. , 2016 ) in which fellow accounting researchers seem more open to evidence-based reviews.

Thus, after several failures and my apparent inability to convince qualitatively oriented reviewers of the value of evidence-based reviews and inductively generated review findings, I have concluded that – for the time being – I could either not try publishing review articles covering qualitative accounting research or just submit to the conventions of the field [ 8 ]. I concede that this position may come across as overly instrumental and as blindly submitting to the rules of the current publish-or-perish culture ( Becker and Lukka, 2022 ; van Dalen and Henkens, 2012 ; Weigel and Müller, 2020 ). However, since I had a non-tenured co-author on board in the above example ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ), to submit to the conventions of the field, as I did not want my beliefs to get in the way of my co-author’s career prospects.

Just as the short history of this published review paper ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ) shows, the final literature review (e.g. as published in a standalone paper or PhD thesis) may differ significantly from earlier versions. The published paper appears to have followed a straightforward linear process: select a topic to review, focus on one or two central theories, analyze the underlying literature with these theories in mind, and then report on the results. However, junior scholars should not let themselves be blinded by the published paper: the underlying engagement with the literature and theory is often much less straightforward. That is, just as with empirical qualitative research papers, researchers often play around with different theoretical angles to make sense of data – the review sample in the case of a literature review – and then select the theory that seems most promising for making a certain argument and getting this argument published ( Ahrens, 2022 ; Huber, 2022 ). Alternatively, if authors have analyzed a review sample and concluded that available theories may be inadequate for fully grasping the phenomenon in question, they could then opt for a more evidence-based or theory discovery type of review ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ). In any case, it seems hard to decide whether a literature review should be more theory-led or more evidence-based before a full analysis of the review sample. Only after this analysis has generated sufficient knowledge of the available literature can authors decide how to frame and present their review results.

As indicated above, the observations shared in this section especially relate to use case (i), namely, literature reviews that cover a certain domain of accounting research leaning heavily toward qualitative research methods. That is, I have not experienced such theory issues for the use case (iii), namely, methodological literature reviews ( Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ; Hiebl and Richter, 2018 ), including one focusing on qualitative accounting research ( Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ). The reason is probably that reviewers do not expect much theory guidance in methodologically oriented reviews, although we did present some underlying theory in the mentioned methodological review paper, too ( Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ). By contrast, for the use case (ii), the application of a method theory is at the core of the review, and thus, focusing on a predefined theoretical lens to analyze the review sample is an inherent ingredient of such reviews.

4.2 Sample selection and comprehensiveness of review samples

4.2.1 comprehensiveness of review samples..

A further challenge for literature reviews of the qualitative accounting literature lies in the identification of relevant research items. Given the different ways, a qualitative piece of accounting research can be read or (re)interpreted (see above), a truly comprehensive review sample may be unattainable, as whether a research item is related to the review’s research question lies in the literal eye of the beholder. Thus, in my experience, published reviews of qualitative accounting research and their handling editors rarely focus on a comprehensive review sample and rather zone in on the (theoretical) implications arising from the analysis as long as the most relevant and most cited work is included in the review sample. That is, if we consider a comprehensive review sample as the cornerstone of systematic reviews ( Rojon et al. , 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ), reviews of qualitative accounting research may be more relaxed in terms of systematicity than reviews covering more quantitative research. This may be related to several qualitative accounting research items being case studies and including rich empirical material and in-depth explanations of the examined phenomena ( Ahrens and Dent, 1998 ; Lukka and Modell, 2010 ; Parker and Northcott, 2016 ; Parker, 2017 ). Such material may be read in several ways. Hence, there is often no clear-cut or objective criterion of whether a research item should be included in or excluded from a review sample. Relatedly, accounting researchers may discuss the same or a similar empirical phenomenon using a set of different terms and language. A mere search in electronic databases that rests on a predefined and potentially narrow set of keywords is, thus, unlikely to identify all the research items that could be relevant to such a literature review’s research question(s). Extensive snowballing and exchange with experienced authors in the field ( Hiebl, 2021 ) might, thus, be especially relevant to reviews of qualitative accounting research.

To illustrate this point, the first version of a review article I authored ( Hiebl, 2018 ) was built on a review sample of only 22 articles. According to the editors and reviewers, several important and well-cited articles were missing from this sample owing to the restrictions of my keyword search. Thanks to the feedback and advice from the reviewers and editors on additional, potentially relevant articles and ways to identify them, the sample was gradually enlarged to 43 articles (first revision) and finally 64 articles (second and later revisions). The expansion of the review sample was mostly due to relaxing my search terms and making more extensive use of snowballing. Still, I acknowledge in the paper that these 64 articles may not represent a comprehensive list of relevant articles to the phenomenon under focus, but they were certainly more comprehensive than the 22 articles included in the initial version. Despite potentially resting on an incomplete review sample, I still managed to tease out novel contributions.

Hence, for researchers reviewing mainly qualitative accounting research, the standard criterion of a truly comprehensive review sample known from the methodological literature on systematic reviews ( Hiebl, 2021 ; Rojon et al. , 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ) may not fully apply. Instead, following the advice of the editors of some of the review papers I have (co-)authored ( Hiebl, 2018 ; Lavia López and Hiebl, 2015 ) [ 9 ], it may not be necessary to present a truly comprehensive review sample, but rather one that includes the most relevant and cited research items in a field and that enables the author to address the literature review’s central research question in sufficient depth.

Still, keyword searches and sufficient snowballing techniques may help identify further relevant research items published in nonaccounting journals that may enrich the literature review and domain with new insights (cf. Greenhalgh and Peacock, 2005 ; Hiebl, 2021 ; Webster and Watson, 2002 ). Not least, such research relevant to the chosen research question but that may be less well known to the accounting research community than other included research items may enable the author to tease out new insights or anomalies from the review sample (cf. Dixon-Woods, 2011 ; Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ). Such insights may, in turn, provide the basis for creating an original contribution from a standalone review paper, which is an important challenge discussed in Section 4.3.

4.2.2 Inclusion of research items from accounting journals and other fields.

In some of the review articles I have submitted to accounting journals, the reviewers voiced skepticism about why we included articles published in nonaccounting journals in our review sample. Just as with other methodological choices, the authors of literature reviews are free to frame their central research questions more narrowly or widely, and thus, have discretion about what should be included in or excluded from the review sample ( Hiebl, 2021 ). Apart from such discretion, the most important meta-criterion is a good fit between the literature review’s research question and inclusion criteria. However, this argument has not always convinced qualitatively oriented reviewers I have faced during peer review. Indeed, some reviewers and editors recommended only using articles published in accounting journals even though the literature review’s guiding research questions or objectives did not include any focus on research only published in accounting journals. To be clear, such reviewer and editor opposition to research items from other fields has been the exception in the numerous review processes of literature reviews in which I have participated. However, I am afraid that in such cases, the authors of literature reviews must also make a judgment call as to whether they submit to the reviewer and editor’s recommendations or try to publish their reviews elsewhere.

In my view, there are usually no logically compelling reasons as to why rigorous and relevant research from other disciplines should be excluded from literature reviews submitted to accounting journals – except, of course, for research questions that exclusively focus on accounting research, such as the application of certain method theories ( Englund et al. , 2011 ; Englund and Gerdin, 2014 ; Modell , 2022a, 2022b ) and methodological issues in accounting research ( Dai et al. , 2019 ; Feldermann and Hiebl, 2020 ; Parker and Northcott, 2016 ). For instance, in one of our review papers heavily leaning on qualitative research ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ), more than half of the research items in the review sample were published in non-accounting journals, including general management, finance and economics journals. We discovered these research items by running a keyword-based search in several electronic databases such as EBSCO and Google Scholar, as well as extensive snowballing, as indicated above. This search was not restricted to accounting journals and helped identify many research items relevant to our research topic, resulting in a more comprehensive review of the focused domain of accounting. Hence, going forward, I hope that the small number of editors and reviewers at accounting journals that believe in the usefulness of disciplinary borders and only include articles published in accounting journals in accounting-focused review papers will eventually lift these restrictions.

An alternative – and probably less conflict-riddled – route for authors of review articles is to use a journal-focused approach when searching for potentially relevant research items. In this approach, authors specify ex ante a selected group of journals and then search only these journals ( Hiebl, 2021 ). When applied to reviews of qualitative accounting research, this has the advantage that authors only need to consider research published in a predefined group of accounting journals. A few literature reviews of mainly qualitative research published in accounting journals have followed this strategy ( Hopper et al. , 2009 ); however, as detailed above, such a search approach may come with the limitation that relevant research from other fields is just ignored despite enriching the review sample and potentially paving the way to creating an original contribution with a standalone review paper (see also Section 4.3).

Only including research items from accounting journals in the review sample does not necessarily mean that the findings of the literature review could not later be discussed using arguments taken from non-accounting fields. In fact, many literature reviews that have exclusively taken research items from accounting journals ( Modell , 2022a, 2022b ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ) have drawn on more general advances in the respective theory or topic from other fields. For example, in his review of accounting research drawing on the concept of institutional work, Modell (2022a) mobilizes recent advances in institutional work in management research and sociology to discuss this perspective’s current application in accounting research and chart the way forward.

4.2.3 Narrowing an overly long list of potentially relevant research items.

After having chosen the inclusion criteria and searched for relevant research items, the review author is usually left with a long list of potentially relevant research items that may include several hundred or even thousands of search hits ( Hiebl, 2021 ). While this list can be narrowed further, one clear problem may be that the sample of relevant research items is too large to be covered in a single literature review. This problem may be rooted in the initially chosen topic for review or the research question(s), which may simply be too broad to be answered by the literature review, especially if the authors want to publish it as a standalone paper, and thus, need to comply with typical page length restrictions for journal articles. Therefore, although cumbersome, authors may need to narrow the initial scope of the review, refine their research question(s) and re-run their search for literature.

In the final version of a literature review, the central topic and research question of the review must align with the search methods ( Simsek et al. , 2021 ; Tranfield et al. , 2003 ). Therefore, after having motivated – and potentially adjusted and narrowed – the overall theme of the literature review, some published literature reviews ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ; Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu, 2018 ) offer detailed definitions of what should and should not be covered in the review. For instance, Repenning et al. (2022 , p. 243) detail that they aim to focus their review on the role of emotions in accounting research, and thus, exclude research items focusing on “other affective states, such as moods, sentiments, and attitudes”. Keeping the review sample manageable in this way may also be achieved by limiting potentially relevant research items according to their publication date. An example is the paper by Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu (2018) , who limit their review on business intelligence and business analytics in management accounting to a specific timeframe (2005–2015) and two research fields (accounting, information systems/technology) to identify the latest research results in this fast-moving topic in accounting research.

As these examples show, and similar to the search for research items, there is room for discretion in the final selection of articles to be included in the review sample, given the abovementioned subjectivity in judging whether a research item touches upon the phenomenon in question and discretion on the detailed definitions of the research topic and timeframe to be covered. Despite such discretion, a general quality criterion of literature reviews remains in place: that all methodological choices are well explained and justified and do not contradict the review’s central objectives and research question(s) ( Hiebl, 2021 ). If this quality criterion of literature reviews is met, the review sample is ready for analysis, which usually needs to result in original observations that warrant publication as a standalone review article; this is discussed next as the third challenge of such reviews.

4.3 What is the contribution?

Probably the most challenging issue I have encountered when crafting literature reviews that heavily lean on qualitative accounting research has been the question of a literature review’s contribution. This is particularly relevant for standalone review papers. Just as for empirical papers, accounting journals typically require from a review article a “contribution in its own right”. Indeed, given the important role of theory in qualitative accounting research (see Section 4.1; Lukka et al. , 2022 ; Pfister et al. , 2022 ), in my experience, this should preferably be a theoretical contribution and most often a contribution toward theory refinement (cf. Keating, 1995 ; Sutton and Staw, 1995 ). Junior scholars, thus, often face a paradox: if I only review existing research, how should I tease out something novel and original that makes my review paper worth publishing in an esteemed accounting journal? In other words, where could the potential contributions of literature reviews lie?

To make matters worse, at least for junior scholars entering the field, the hurdle rate for publishing standalone review papers in accounting journals has risen recently. The accounting research community produces more review articles today than a few years ago, and many of them in a more systematic and rigorous manner. For instance, the European Accounting Review , a well-regarded accounting journal according to most rankings, has recently published a special review issue. This special issue has received a record 103 submissions ( García Osma and Stolowy, 2020 ), of which only nine were published (including some covering qualitative accounting research: Modell, 2022a ; Repenning et al. , 2022 ). Given this recent popularity in the submission of literature reviews – not only to the mentioned special issue but also to accounting research journals generally – the requirements for literature reviews have certainly risen. Journal expectations now typically go beyond a summary and synthesis of prior research on a topic, as suggested in the definition of literature reviews presented earlier by Andiola et al. (2017) . This is not to criticize this definition but only to pinpoint that for a standalone review article to be published in a well-regarded accounting journal, it now needs more than a sound summary and synthesis.

A related problem I often encounter when discussing literature reviews authored by junior scholars such as PhD students is that they heavily focus on the rigor and systematicity of such reviews ( Hiebl, 2021 ; Simsek et al. , 2021 ). Such scholars sometimes concentrate on identifying a comprehensive list of research items and providing extensive descriptive information on the items covered in their reviews ( Snyder, 2019 ). Thus, junior scholars sometimes focus more on the technicalities of reviews and less on what we can learn from the analysis of the review sample. The result is often that such reviews tend to appear overly descriptive and do not generate substantive implications for further accounting research. In other words, junior scholars need to keep in mind that getting the technicalities of a review right (e.g. a systematic sample selection process) is usually not the reason why a review is published as a standalone paper ( Hulland and Houston, 2020 ; Palmatier et al. , 2018 ); more importantly, the “primary value resulting from […] reviews is often the usefulness of the insights generated” ( Hiebl, 2021 , p. 25).

Probably to the disappointment of the reader, I have yet to find a standard formula to tease out original contributions from review samples. Nonetheless, thanks to many supportive editors and reviewers, I think that I have a better understanding now than some years ago. One specific way to consider the contribution of a review paper is to step into the shoes of a well-read scholar in the domain, theory or method covered by the literature review. Such a scholar can be expected to have read the vast majority of the research items included in a review sample. Hence, the mere synthesis of the individual findings brings a few fresh insights. This is not to say that only established scholars can move beyond a mere synthesis of individual findings. I mention this “well-read scholar” aphorism to pinpoint that to create an original contribution with a review article, the author must tease out something that cannot be read from all the individual research items but that only emerges from a thorough cross-reading and analysis of the entire review sample. Such a cross-analysis can also be performed by less experienced scholars and might then result in novel observations that might convince even a well-read scholar (who could end up serving as the reviewer of this review article at the same time) that the literature review is worth publishing as a standalone paper [ 10 ]. For instance, such fresh insights might stem from identifying some form of inadequacy or even incommensurability in the current state of the field, as detailed in Section 2. Another insight might be to identify some irregularity in the specifics of the review sample (cf. Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ) compared with other strands of accounting research.

To illustrate this kind of thinking, I refer to one of the review articles I have co-authored ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ). We observed that quantitative accounting research was actually in the minority in the domain we covered, and that qualitative accounting research was much more common. We could, thus, tease out that the dominant epistemological position in that domain was not positivist as in “mainstream accounting research” ( Chua, 1986 ; Hopwood, 2008 ; Merchant, 2010 ) but rather critical ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ). What follows from our review results is that in the domain we covered, the available evidence could paint an overly critical picture of accounting, which may need to be complemented by more research resting on mainstream quantitative methods. Hence, for the domain we covered, the argument put forward by more critically oriented accounting scholars that many mainstream accounting scholars tend to ignore qualitative and critical research ( Ahrens et al. , 2008 ) was flipped on its head.

Of course, not all review articles need to focus on mainstream versus minority research. However, this example illustrates the kinds of observations that can emerge from a cross-reading of all the research items in a review sample that would not emerge from just knowing the individual results of each item. Put more formally, as detailed in Section 2, literature may be portrayed as incomplete, inadequate or incommensurable. Another way to think about the original findings provided by a literature review has recently been coined by Hoon and Baluch (2020) . These authors suggest that for reviews of management research, the contributions – including theoretical contributions – of review articles primarily arise from observing similarities or observing anomalies. My above example ( Ndemewah and Hiebl, 2022 ) probably falls into the anomalies camp, as large parts of the literature we covered shared epistemological positions that clearly differed from what is usually considered to be mainstream accounting research (i.e. quantitative research primarily based on archival data and carrying a positivist worldview), rendering most research in the domain we covered as featuring abnormal epistemological positions compared with mainstream accounting research. Independent of this example, another way to tease out anomalies from a review sample could be providing counter instances on a theory that has become dominant in a research domain ( Hoon and Baluch, 2020 ), and thus, portray the literature – at least in parts – as inadequate or even incommensurable ( Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997 ). Therefore, review articles may challenge the dominant assumptions in the field and ignite further debate and research ( Alvesson and Kärreman, 2007 ).

By contrast, as illustrated by Hoon and Baluch (2020) , the second route for creating a contribution from a literature review lies in the identification of similar theoretical thinking within a domain, even if the important parts of that strand of the literature would not have identified or exploited such similarities before. The recent review paper by Repenning et al. (2022) illustrates this sort of contribution. Repenning et al. (2022) focus on the role of emotions in accounting research and find that the paradigmatic boundaries between accounting research resting on more positivist paradigms and those with a more constructivist spirit have much in common and show several similarities in the phenomena they examine. At the same time, Repenning et al. (2022) reveal that while each paradigmatic camp acknowledges the existence of the other camp, contributions are regularly framed compared with existing research within the own camp. That is, Repenning et al. (2022) argue that there is much potential for more interparadigmatic exchange in accounting research on the role of emotions.

A related opportunity for qualitatively oriented accounting scholars may lie in the richness and depth of the explanations provided in many published research articles. I used this richness in one of my review articles ( Hiebl, 2018 ). In this paper, I reanalyzed the empirical parts of published qualitative accounting research articles with a so-far underused theoretical paradigm in mind (i.e. embedded agency). My argument was that we could learn much from published case studies for the theory under focus, even if most of the papers I analyzed originally featured a (slightly) different theoretical framing. From a cross-analysis of the research items included in my review sample, I produced three ways in which management accounting instruments may play a role in the theoretical paradox in question. That is, from this cross-analysis, I could identify three roles for management accounting practices – and thus, the similarities between individual papers – that may not have been obvious from reading the individual papers only and without that alternative theoretical framing in mind [ 11 ]. As a limitation of this strategy, it may be infeasible for phenomena and theoretical perspectives that deviate too much from the theory adopted in the qualitative research items to be included in the review sample. In my paper, most of the research items rested on other strands of institutional theory, and thus, shared similarities in terms of terminology and focal phenomena with the theoretical paradigm on which I focused (i.e. embedded agency). Still, even when the originally adopted theories and “new” theory adopted for reexamining the selected research items are sufficiently close, this strategy still comes with the risk of misinterpreting earlier research findings. This risk cannot be avoided unless the authors of such a literature review were to seek feedback on their reinterpretation from the authors of all the research items included in the review sample. In lieu of such comprehensive feedback, however, it seems all the more important for such “reanalysis” literature reviews to seek feedback from the research community when presenting to workshops, conferences and research seminars.

Seeking feedback from the qualitative accounting research community not only pertains to the last strategy for teasing out contributions from literature reviews but also relates to reviews of qualitative accounting research generally. As indicated in the Introduction, qualitative accounting research offers rich qualitative data that can be analyzed using different theoretical paradigms and be read and interpreted differently by scholars ( Huber, 2022 ). To stress test the interpretations, conclusions and contributions from a review of qualitative accounting research, it, therefore, seems prudent to not only conduct the review and submit it as a “virgin paper” to an academic journal but also use the opportunity to present the literature review at seminars, workshops and conferences ( Scapens and Bromwich, 2010 ). These presentations not only provide an ideal opportunity to discuss and develop empirical qualitative accounting research ( Ahrens, 2022 ) but also to discuss the conclusions and contributions drawn from a literature review of qualitative accounting research.

5. Conclusions

This qualitative insights piece provides an overview of the typical advantages, use cases, process steps and outputs of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. While excellent books on conducting literature reviews in general have been written ( Booth et al. , 2021 ; Jesson et al. , 2011 ), including some that emphasize the social sciences ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2012 ), in this paper I tried to highlight several important choices that authors can make when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. First, I discuss how review authors may generally approach the existing literature and portray it as incomplete, inadequate or incommensurate ( Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1997 ). This general stance toward the literature can be applied in all three use cases of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research: reviews of a domain of accounting research, reviews of a method theory applied in accounting research and methodological reviews of accounting research. As visually summarized in Figure 1 , all these choices inform the remainder of the review process, which is portrayed in general terms in Section 3. Importantly, as summarized in Table 1 , this process can be organized more or less systematically, the latter often being referred to as more “traditional” ( Jesson et al. , 2011 ). Section 4 then details three specific challenges faced when conducting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research and potential ways to overcome these barriers based on my personal experience.

In particular, I hope the discussion of these challenges may contribute to increased awareness of the dominance of theory refinement and, to a lesser extent, theory testing literature reviews of certain domains of accounting research and encourage more estimation of evidence-based, and thus, theory discovery reviews. I tried to point out that the comprehensiveness of review samples in reviews of qualitative accounting research cannot be definitively judged in most cases; rather, such reviews may benefit from an openness toward relevant research conducted and published in other research disciplines. In addition, I offered ideas for reducing overly long lists of potentially relevant research items to a manageable review sample. Finally, I discussed examples of how original contributions to the literature can be rendered from literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. While, in the final version of a literature review, all these choices may be presented as resulting from a straightforward process, I also tried to highlight in Section 4 that just like most empirical research papers, literature reviews include a great deal of discretion on the authors’ side. They often require “playing around” with theories and the construction of the review sample as well as discussing the potential contributions of a literature review at conferences and through other avenues.

In conclusion, I hope that this paper offers food for thought and guidance, especially for less experienced accounting researchers, and can, thus, complement existing methodological advice for conducting literature reviews of accounting research ( Andiola et al. , 2017 ; Massaro et al. , 2016 ) for the specific case of reviewing qualitative accounting research. Considering the ever-rising volumes of accounting research, I suspect that demand for such reviews will remain high in the future. However, given the increasing number of high-quality reviews by accounting researchers, the expectations for literature reviews are rising, too. Researchers must, thus, not only stay abreast of their own substantive focus domains within accounting research but also be aware of what is expected from state-of-the-art literature reviews, particularly when coaching junior scholars or crafting such literature reviews on their own. I hope that this paper will at least offer some assistance in these endeavors.

At the same time, given the lack of systematically generated advice in the literature, the challenges and potential solutions I discuss in this qualitative insights piece rest on my own experience and are, thus, subjective. Similar to business and management research, where advice on conducting impactful literature reviews has long been scarce ( Breslin et al. , 2021 ; Kraus et al. , 2020 ; Kunisch et al. , 2018 , 2023 ), advice resting on more systematic analyses of past practices of reviewing the accounting literature may be needed for accounting research, too. For the time being, I hope that the challenges and potential solutions discussed in this paper will help researchers, particularly early-career researchers, better understand some of the unwritten conventions when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

Typical use cases, process steps and advantages of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research

Main differences between traditional and systematic reviews

Source: Based on Booth et al. (2021) , Hiebl (2021) , Jesson et al. (2011) , Knoll et al. (2018) , Kraus et al. (2020) , Simsek et al. (2021) , Snyder (2019)

Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) focus on ways of building a contribution in management research as well as how authors can engage with the present body of the literature to make such contributions. Since this engagement with the existing literature lies at the heart of most literature reviews, I include their findings when discussing the potential advantages of literature reviews.

I refer to the “review sample” as the group of research items selected for closer analysis in a literature review. The results of analyzing research items in the review sample are usually considered to be the review findings.

However, this paper is based on personal experience that usually does not end up being published in academic journals rather than being built on a systematic review of prior reviews.

I acknowledge that several further articles in the accounting literature include valuable advice for qualitatively oriented researchers (e.g. Ahrens, 2022 ; Ahrens and Chapman, 2006 ; Bruesch and Quinn, 2022 ; Lillis and Mundy, 2005 ; Grafton et al. , 2011 ; Qu and Dumay, 2011 ). These pieces are not viewed as methodological literature reviews here, as they do not disclose any details of a formal or systematic review of the prior literature as the basis for their methodological advice. The latter aspect, however, is a defining feature of best practice methodological literature reviews, as framed by Aguinis et al. (2023) .

For more details on systematic and traditional review approaches, see the excellent and detailed guidance offered by Booth et al. (2021) and Jesson et al. (2011).

For general advice on conducting up-to-date literature reviews of business-related research topics, see the references mentioned in the Introduction.

A related problem is that some accounting researchers seem to dislike integrating research from other research fields in literature reviews geared toward an accounting readership (see Section 4.2.2). This limited openness to research from other disciplines and skepticism toward evidence-based reviews may be related, as theory discovery via literature reviews often occurs when confronting research from different disciplines on the same phenomenon ( Breslin and Gatrell, 2023 ).

Alternatively, another route of action would be to submit such review articles to (accounting) journals that do not (yet) enjoy comparably high esteem in the field and high rankings. However, given the growing prevalence of the “an A is an A” mentality in business schools ( Aguinis et al. , 2020 ) and perceived need to produce A-level journal “hits” to gain tenure ( Alvesson et al. , 2017 ), such action may not be advisable to junior accounting researchers interested in literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

In particular, I am grateful to Hans Englund, Jonas Gerdin and Michael Williamson for this advice.

I am indebted to Hans Englund and Jonas Gerdin for having shared this analogy with me. This analogy has been instructive in writing and revising some of my reviews that were later published as review papers in accounting journals.

This review paper was motivated by a theoretical question and a certain theory to begin with; thus, it followed the conventions for reviews of qualitative accounting research described in Section 4.1.

Adams , R.J. , Smart , P. and Huff , A.S. ( 2017 ), “ Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 19 No. 4 , pp. 432 - 454 .

Aguinis , H. and Glavas , A. ( 2012 ), “ What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 38 No. 4 , pp. 932 - 968 .

Aguinis , H. , Cummings , C. , Ramani , R.S. and Cummings , T.G. ( 2020 ), “‘ An a is an a’: the new bottom line for valuing academic research ”, Academy of Management Perspectives , Vol. 34 No. 1 , pp. 135 - 154 .

Aguinis , H. , Ramani , R.S. and Alabduljader , N. ( 2018 ), “ What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research ”, Academy of Management Annals , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 83 - 110 .

Aguinis , H. , Ramani , R.S. and Alabduljader , N. ( 2023 ), “ Best-practice recommendations for producers, evaluators, and users of methodological literature reviews ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 46 - 76 .

Ahrens , T. ( 2022 ), “ Paper development in qualitative accounting research: bringing social contexts to life ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 19 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 17 .

Ahrens , T. and Chapman , C.S. ( 2006 ), “ Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 31 No. 8 , pp. 819 - 841 .

Ahrens , T. and Dent , J.F. ( 1998 ), “ Accounting and organizations: realizing the richness of field research ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 10 , pp. 1 - 39 .

Ahrens , T. , Becker , A. , Burns , J. , Chapman , C.S. , Granlund , M. , Habersam , M. , Hansen , A. , Khalifa , R. , Malmi , T. , Mennicken , A. , Mikes , A. , Panozzo , F. , Piber , M. , Quattrone , P. and Scheytt , T. ( 2008 ), “ The future of interpretive accounting research – a polyphonic debate ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 19 No. 6 , pp. 840 - 866 .

Alvesson , M. and Kärreman , D. ( 2007 ), “ Constructing mystery: empirical matters in theory development ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 32 No. 4 , pp. 1265 - 1281 .

Alvesson , M. , Gabriel , Y. and Paulsen , R. ( 2017 ), Return to Meaning: A Social Science with Something to Say , Oxford University Press , Oxford, New York, NY .

Anderson , M.H. and Lemken , R.K. ( 2023 ), “ Citation context analysis as a method for conducting rigorous and impactful literature reviews ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 77 - 106 .

Andiola , L.M. , Bedard , J.C. and Hux , C.T. ( 2017 ), “ Writing a literature review in behavioural accounting research ”, in Libby , T. and Thorne , L. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Behavioural Accounting Research , Routledge , Abingdon , pp. 473 - 483 .

Antons , D. , Breidbach , C.F. , Joshi , A.M. and Salge , T.O. ( 2021 ), “ Computational literature reviews: method, algorithms, and roadmap ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 107 - 138 .

Baldvinsdottir , G. , Hagberg , A. , Johansson , I. , Jonäll , K. and Marton , J. ( 2011 ), “ Accounting research and trust: a literature review ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 8 No. 4 , pp. 382 - 424 .

Batt , C.E. ( 2020 ), “ Budgeting and the impact of context: developments and perspectives ”, Doctoral Dissertation, Reykjavik University , Reykjavik .

Becker , A. and Lukka , K. ( 2022 ), “ Instrumentalism and the publish-or-perish regime ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2022.102436 .

Bedford , D.S. and Speklé , R.F. ( 2018 ), “ Construct validity in survey-based management accounting and control research ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 30 No. 2 , pp. 23 - 58 .

Booth , A. , Sutton , A. , Clowes , M. and Martyn-St James , M. ( 2021 ), Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review , 3rd ed. , Sage , London .

Braumann , E.C. ( 2017 ), “ On enterprise risk management implementation in non-financial firms ”, Doctoral Dissertation, Vienna University of Economics and Business , Vienna .

Brennan , N.M. ( 2019 ), “ 100 Research rules of the game ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 32 No. 2 , pp. 691 - 706 .

Breslin , D. and Gatrell , C. ( 2023 ), “ Theorizing through literature reviews: the miner-prospector continuum ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 139 - 167 .

Breslin , D. , Callahan , J. and Iszatt‐White , M. ( 2021 ), “ Future‐proofing IJMR as a leading management journal: reach, relevance and reputation ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 23 No. 4 , pp. 431 - 442 .

Bruesch , A. and Quinn , M. ( 2022 ), “ Concept maps and visualisation as a means of triangulation in management accounting and control research ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 217 - 230 .

Chua , W.F. ( 1986 ), “ Radical developments in accounting thought ”, The Accounting Review , Vol. 61 No. 4 , pp. 601 - 632 .

Cronin , M.A. and George , E. ( 2023 ), “ The why and how of the integrative review ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 168 - 192 .

D’Andreamatteo , A. , Grossi , G. , Mattei , G. and Sargiacomo , M. ( 2022 ), “ The intersection between ‘the audit society’ and public sector corruption and fraud – a literature review and future research agenda ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , doi: 10.1108/QRAM-01-2022-0012 .

Dai , N.T. , Free , C. and Gendron , Y. ( 2019 ), “ Interview-based research in accounting 2000–2014: informal norms, translation and vibrancy ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 42 No. 8 , pp. 26 - 38 .

Damayanthi , S. and Gooneratne , T. ( 2017 ), “ Institutional logics perspective in management control research ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 13 No. 4 , pp. 520 - 547 .

Dechow , P.M. , Sloan , R.G. and Zeng , J. (. ( 2020 ), “ Is it a home run? Measuring relative citation rates in accounting research ”, Accounting Horizons , Vol. 34 No. 1 , pp. 67 - 91 .

Denyer , D. and Tranfield , D. ( 2006 ), “ Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base ”, Management Decision , Vol. 44 No. 2 , pp. 213 - 227 .

Dixon-Woods , M. ( 2011 ), “ Systematic reviews and qualitative methods ”, in Silverman , D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice , Sage , Los Angeles , pp. 331 - 346 .

Dixon-Woods , M. , Bonas , S. , Booth , A. , Jones , D.R. , Miller , T. , Sutton , A.J. , Shaw , R.L. , Smith , J.A. and Young , B. ( 2006 ), “ How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective ”, Qualitative Research , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 27 - 44 .

Dyckman , T.R. and Zeff , S.A. ( 2015 ), “ Accounting research: past, present, and future ”, Abacus , Vol. 51 No. 4 , pp. 511 - 524 .

Englund , H. and Gerdin , J. ( 2014 ), “ Structuration theory in accounting research: applications and applicability ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 25 No. 2 , pp. 162 - 180 .

Englund , H. , Gerdin , J. and Burns , J. ( 2011 ), “ 25 Years of giddens in accounting research: achievements, limitations and the future ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 36 No. 8 , pp. 494 - 513 .

Fan , D. , Breslin , D. , Callahan , J.L. and Iszatt‐White , M. ( 2022 ), “ Advancing literature review methodology through rigour, generativity, scope and transparency ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 24 No. 2 , pp. 171 - 180 .

Feldermann , S.K. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2020 ), “ Using quotations from non-English interviews in accounting research ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 17 No. 2 , pp. 229 - 262 .

Fiandrino , S. , Tonelli , A. and Devalle , A. ( 2022 ), “ Sustainability materiality research: a systematic literature review of methods, theories and academic themes ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 19 No. 5 , pp. 665 - 695 .

Garanina , T. , Ranta , M. and Dumay , J. ( 2021 ), “ Blockchain in accounting research: current trends and emerging topics ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 35 No. 7 , pp. 1507 - 1533 .

García Osma , B. and Stolowy , H. ( 2020 ), “ European accounting review: editor’s report on the year 2019 ”, Veröffentlicht im Internet unter , available at: www.eaa-online.org/UserFiles/Item%204.1%20-%20EAR_2019_Editorial_report_EAR.pdf

Gond , J.-P. , Mena , S. and Mosonyi , S. ( 2020 ), “ The performativity of literature reviewing: constituting the corporate social responsibility literature through re-presentation and intervention ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/1094428120935494 .

Gooneratne , T.N. and Hoque , Z. ( 2013 ), “ Management control research in the banking sector ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 144 - 171 .

Grafton , J. , Lillis , A.M. and Mahama , H. ( 2011 ), “ Mixed methods research in accounting ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 5 - 21 .

Greenhalgh , T. and Peacock , R. ( 2005 ), “ Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources ”, BMJ , Vol. 331 No. 7524 , pp. 1064 - 1065 .

Guffey , D.M. and Harp , N.L. ( 2016 ), “ The journal of management accounting research: a content and citation analysis of the first 25 years ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 93 - 110 .

Hardies , K. and Khalifa , R. ( 2018 ), “ Gender is not ‘a dummy variable’: a discussion of current gender research in accounting ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 15 No. 3 , pp. 385 - 407 .

Hiebl , M.R. ( 2014 ), “ Upper echelons theory in management accounting and control research ”, Journal of Management Control , Vol. 24 No. 3 , pp. 223 - 240 .

Hiebl , M.R. ( 2018 ), “ Management accounting as a political resource for enabling embedded agency ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 38 , pp. 22 - 38 .

Hiebl , M.R. ( 2021 ), “ Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/1094428120986851 .

Hiebl , M.R. and Richter , J.F. ( 2018 ), “ Response rates in management accounting survey research ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 30 No. 2 , pp. 59 - 79 .

Hoon , C. ( 2013 ), “ Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 522 - 556 .

Hoon , C. and Baluch , A.M. ( 2020 ), “ The role of dialectical interrogation in review studies: theorizing from what We see rather than what We have already seen ”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 57 No. 6 , pp. 1246 - 1271 .

Hopper , T. and Bui , B. ( 2016 ), “ Has management accounting research been critical? ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 31 , pp. 10 - 30 .

Hopper , T. , Tsamenyi , M. , Uddin , S. and Wickramasinghe , D. ( 2009 ), “ Management accounting in less developed countries: what is known and needs knowing’, accounting ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 469 - 514 .

Hopwood , A.G. ( 2008 ), “ Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an age when curiosity is not enough ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 87 - 96 .

Hoque , Z. ( 2014 ), “ 20 Years of studies on the balanced scorecard: trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research ”, The British Accounting Review , Vol. 46 No. 1 , pp. 33 - 59 .

Huber , C. ( 2022 ), “ Whereof one cannot speak … a comment on vollmer (2019) ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , doi: 10.1108/QRAM-11-2021-0206 .

Hulland , J. and Houston , M.B. ( 2020 ), “ Why systematic review papers and meta-analyses matter: an introduction to the special issue on generalizations in marketing ”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 48 No. 3 , pp. 351 - 359 .

Humphrey , C. and Lee , B. ( 2004 ), “ Section one: the meaning of research ”, in Humphrey , C. and Lee , B. (Eds), The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research: A behind-the-Scenes View of Using Qualitative Research Methods , Elsevier , Amsterdam, Boston , pp. 1 - 4 .

Janka , M. ( 2019 ), “ Management control in the context of innovation: three essays on the design and use ”, Doctoral Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden , Dresden .

Jesson , J.K. , Matheson , L. and Lacey , F.M. ( 2011 ), Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques , Sage , London .

Jones , O. and Gatrell , C. ( 2014 ), “ The future of writing and reviewing for IJMR ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 249 - 264 .

Kapiyangoda , K. and Gooneratne , T. ( 2021 ), “ Management accounting research in family businesses: a review of the status quo and future agenda ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 17 No. 3 , pp. 352 - 372 .

Keating , P.J. ( 1995 ), “ A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 7 , pp. 66 - 86 .

Knoll , T. , Omar , M.I. , Maclennan , S. , Hernandez , V. , Canfield , S. , Yuan , Y. , Bruins , M. , Marconi , L. , Van Poppel , H. , N’Dow , J. and Sylvester , R. , EAU Guidelines Office Senior Associates Group Authorship ( 2018 ), “ Key steps in conducting systematic reviews for underpinning clinical practice guidelines: methodology of the european association of urology ”, European Urology , Vol. 73 No. 2 , pp. 290 - 300 .

Kraus , S. , Breier , M. and Dasí-Rodríguez , S. ( 2020 ), “ The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research ”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 1023 - 1042 .

Kraus , S. , Breier , M. , Lim , W.M. , Dabić , M. , Kumar , S. , Kanbach , D. , Mukherjee , D. , Corvello , V. , Piñeiro-Chouse , J. , Liguori , E.W. , Marqués , D.P. , Schiavone , F. , Ferraris , A. , Fernandes , C. and Ferreira , J.J. ( 2022 ), “ Literature reviews as independent studies in business and management: guidelines for academic practice ”, Review of Managerial Science , Vol. 16 No. 8 , pp. 2577 - 2595 .

Kraus , S. , Mahto , R.V. and Walsh , S.T. ( 2021 ), “ The importance of literature reviews in small business and entrepreneurship research ”, Journal of Small Business Management , Vol. 64 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 12 .

Kreamer , L.M. , Albritton , B.H. , Tonidandel , S. and Rogelberg , S.G. ( 2021 ), “ The use and misuse of organizational research methods ‘best practice’ articles ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/10944281211060706 .

Kunisch , S. , Denyer , D. , Bartunek , J.M. , Menz , M. and Cardinal , L.B. ( 2023 ), “ Review research as scientific inquiry ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 45 .

Kunisch , S. , Menz , M. , Bartunek , J.M. , Cardinal , L.B. and Denyer , D. ( 2018 ), “ Feature topic at organizational research methods ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 21 No. 3 , pp. 519 - 523 .

Lavia López , O. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2015 ), “ Management accounting in small and medium-sized enterprises: current knowledge and avenues for further research ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 27 No. 1 , pp. 81 - 119 .

Lee , B. and Humphrey , C. ( 2017 ), “ Case studies in accounting research ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 163 - 183 .

Leuz , C. ( 2018 ), “ Evidence-based policymaking: promise, challenges and opportunities for accounting and financial markets research ”, Accounting and Business Research , Vol. 48 No. 5 , pp. 582 - 608 .

Lillis , A.M. and Mundy , J. ( 2005 ), “ Cross-Sectional field studies in management accounting research: closing the gaps between surveys and case studies ”, Journal of Management Accounting Research , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 119 - 141 .

Locke , K. and Golden-Biddle , K. ( 1997 ), “ Constructing opportunities for contribution: structuring intertextual coherence and ‘problematizing’ in organizational studies ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 40 No. 5 , pp. 1023 - 1062 .

Löhlein , L. ( 2015 ), “ Guarding the guardians: essays on audit regulation ”, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Luxembourg , Luxembourg .

Lukka , K. and Modell , S. ( 2010 ), “ Validation in interpretive management accounting research’, accounting ”, Organizations and Society , Vol. 35 No. 4 , pp. 462 - 477 .

Lukka , K. and Modell , S. ( 2017 ), “ Interpretive research in accounting: past, present and future ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 36 - 54 .

Lukka , K. and Vinnari , E. ( 2014 ), “ Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 27 No. 8 , pp. 1308 - 1338 .

Lukka , K. , Modell , S. and Vinnari , E. ( 2022 ), “ Exploring the ‘theory is king’ thesis in accounting research: the case of actor-network theory ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 35 No. 9 , pp. 136 - 167 .

Mahama , H. and Khalifa , R. ( 2017 ), “ Field interviews: process and analysis ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 321 - 338 .

Malmi , T. ( 2010 ), “ Reflections on paradigms in action in accounting research ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 121 - 123 .

Massaro , M. , Dumay , J. and Guthrie , J. ( 2016 ), “ On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a structured literature review in accounting’, accounting ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 29 No. 5 , pp. 767 - 801 .

Merchant , K.A. ( 2010 ), “ Paradigms in accounting research: a view from North america ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 116 - 120 .

Messner , M. , Moll , J. and Strömsten , T. ( 2017 ), “ Credibility and authenticity in qualitative accounting research ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 432 - 443 .

Modell , S. ( 2010 ), “ Bridging the paradigm divide in management accounting research: the role of mixed methods approaches ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 124 - 129 .

Modell , S. ( 2017 ), “ Critical realist accounting research: in search of its emancipatory potential ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 42 No. 4 , pp. 20 - 35 .

Modell , S. ( 2022a ), “ Accounting for institutional work: a critical review ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 33 - 58 .

Modell , S. ( 2022b ), “ Is institutional research on management accounting degenerating or progressing? A lakatosian analysis ”, Contemporary Accounting Research , Vol. 39 No. 4 , pp. 2560 - 2595 .

Moher , D. , Liberati , A. , Tetzlaff , J. and Altman , D.G. ( 2009 ), “ Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement ”, PLoS Medicine , Vol. 6 No. 7 , p. e1000097 .

Ndemewah , S.R. and Hiebl , M.R.W. ( 2022 ), “ Management accounting research on africa ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 31 No. 4 , pp. 1029 - 1057 .

Ndemewah , S.R. , Menges , K. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2019 ), “ Management accounting research on farms: what is known and what needs knowing? ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 15 No. 1 , pp. 58 - 86 .

Nguyen , D.H. , Weigel , C. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2018 ), “ Beyond budgeting, review and research agenda ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 314 - 337 .

Nitzl , C. ( 2016 ), “ The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: directions for future theory development ”, Journal of Accounting Literature , Vol. 37 No. 1 , pp. 19 - 35 .

Palmatier , R.W. , Houston , M.B. and Hulland , J. ( 2018 ), “ Review articles: purpose, process, and structure ”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 46 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 5 .

Parker , L.D. ( 2017 ), “ Participant observation at the coalface ”, in Hoque , Z. , Parker , L.D. , Covaleski , M.A. and Haynes , K. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods , Taylor and Francis , London , pp. 339 - 353 .

Parker , L.D. and Northcott , D. ( 2016 ), “ Qualitative generalising in accounting research: concepts and strategies ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 29 No. 6 , pp. 1100 - 1131 .

Paul , J. and Criado , A.R. ( 2020 ), “ The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we need to know? ”, International Business Review , Vol. 29 No. 4 , p. 101717 .

Petticrew , M. and Roberts , H. ( 2012 ), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide , 12th ed ., Blackwell Publishing , Malden .

Pfister , J.A. , Peda , P. and Otley , D. ( 2022 ), “ A methodological framework for theoretical explanation in performance management and management control systems research ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , doi: 10.1108/QRAM-10-2021-0193 .

Plöckinger , M. , Aschauer , E. , Hiebl , M.R. and Rohatschek , R. ( 2016 ), “ The influence of individual executives on corporate financial reporting: a review and outlook from the perspective of upper echelons theory ”, Journal of Accounting Literature , Vol. 37 No. 1 , pp. 55 - 75 .

Post , C. , Sarala , R. , Gatrell , C. and Prescott , J.E. ( 2020 ), “ Advancing theory with review articles ”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 57 No. 2 , pp. 351 - 376 .

Qu , S.Q. and Dumay , J. ( 2011 ), “ The qualitative research interview ”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management , Vol. 8 No. 3 , pp. 238 - 264 .

Repenning , N. , Löhlein , L. and Schäffer , U. ( 2022 ), “ Emotions in accounting: a review to bridge the paradigmatic divide ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 241 - 267 .

Rikhardsson , P. and Yigitbasioglu , O. ( 2018 ), “ Business intelligence and analytics in management accounting research: status and future focus ”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems , Vol. 29 , pp. 37 - 58 .

Rojon , C. , Okupe , A. and McDowall , A. ( 2021 ), “ Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: what do we know and where do we go from here? ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 23 No. 2 , pp. 191 - 223 .

Rousseau , D.M. , Manning , J. and Denyer , D. ( 2008 ), “ Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses ”, Academy of Management Annals , Vol. 2 No. 1 , pp. 475 - 515 .

Scapens , R.W. and Bromwich , M. ( 2010 ), “ Management accounting research: 20 years on ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 21 No. 4 , pp. 278 - 284 .

Sharma , G. and Bansal , P. ( 2020 ), “ Partnering up: including managers as research partners in systematic reviews ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/1094428120965706 .

Short , J. ( 2009 ), “ The art of writing a review article ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 35 No. 6 , pp. 1312 - 1317 .

Simsek , Z. , Fox , B. and Heavey , C. ( 2021 ), “ Systematicity in organizational research literature reviews: a framework and assessment ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/10944281211008652 .

Smith , M. ( 2019 ), Research Methods in Accounting , 5th ed ., Sage , London .

Snyder , H. ( 2019 ), “ Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 104 No. 5 , pp. 333 - 339 .

Sutton , R.I. and Staw , B.M. ( 1995 ), “ What theory is not ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 40 No. 3 , pp. 371 - 384 .

Tank , A.K. and Farrell , A.M. ( 2022 ), “ Is neuroaccounting taking a place on the stage? A review of the influence of neuroscience on accounting research ”, European Accounting Review , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 173 - 207 .

Tranfield , D. , Denyer , D. and Smart , P. ( 2003 ), “ Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review ”, British Journal of Management , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 207 - 222 .

van Dalen , H.P. and Henkens , K. ( 2012 ), “ Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: a worldwide survey ”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , Vol. 63 No. 7 , pp. 1282 - 1293 .

van der Stede , W.A. , Young , S.M. and Chen , C.X. ( 2005 ), “ Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: the case of survey studies ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 30 Nos 7/8 , pp. 655 - 684 .

Villiger , J. , Schweiger , S.A. and Baldauf , A. ( 2021 ), “ Making the invisible visible: guidelines for the coding process in meta-analyses ”, Organizational Research Methods , doi: 10.1177/10944281211046312 .

Webster , J. and Watson , R.T. ( 2002 ), “ Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review ”, MIS Quarterly , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 13 - 23 .

Weigel , C. ( 2020 ), “ Essays on the role and impact of accountants in mittelstand firms ”, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Siegen , Siegen .

Weigel , C. and Hiebl , M.R. ( 2022 ), “ Accountants and small businesses: toward a resource-based view ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , doi: 10.1108/JAOC-03-2022-0044 .

Weigel , C. and Müller , A. ( 2020 ), “ Living under the restrictions of a publish or perish culture ”, in Welter , F. and Urbano , D. (Eds), How to Make Your Doctoral Research Relevant , Edward Elgar Publishing , Cheltenham , pp. 119 - 129 .

Wolf , T. , Kuttner , M. , Feldbauer-Durstmüller , B. and Mitter , C. ( 2020 ), “ What we know about management accountants’ changing identities and roles – a systematic literature review ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 311 - 347 .

Zeff , S.A. ( 2019 ), “ A personal view of the evolution of the accounting professoriate ”, Accounting Perspectives , Vol. 18 No. 3 , pp. 159 - 185 .

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Thomas Ahrens and Lukas Goretzki for giving him the idea and the opportunity to create this qualitative insights piece for QRAM and to two anonymous reviewers for their highly constructive and cogent comments on earlier versions of this paper. In addition, the author is indebted to the numerous editors and referees who have reviewed his own review papers over the years. Their insights and constructive comments are reflected in this paper, but given the blind review process, the author can only name a few of them here. Thus, special thanks go to Jean Bartunek, Laura Cardinal, David Denyer, Hans Englund, Ralf Ewert, Jonas Gerdin, Lukas Goretzki, Thomas Günther, Zahirul Hoque, Steven Kachelmeier, Sven Kunisch, Bill Lee, Markus Menz, Utz Schäffer, Roland Speklé and Michael Williamson for smooth editing and sharing insights on crafting literature reviews with the author.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support