2007年12月，美国会计学会会刊Accounting Horizons发表了Brad Tuttle教授和Jesse Dillard教授合作的学术评论《Beyond Competition: Institutional Isomorphism in U.S. Accounting Research》（第21卷第4期，第387–409页）。该评论响应了时任2005-2006年度美国会计学会会长的Judy Rayburn教授对美国会计学术研究单一化的呼吁，根据制度理论对美国会计学术研究的同态化倾向进行了成因分析，对美国会计学术研究的同态化倾向提供了大量的数据支持（包括在顶级会计学刊发表论文、优秀学术论文评选、SSRN会计论文下载统计、会计博士论文选题、终身教职的提供与职称晋升等多个维度），并提供了一系列改进建议。该评论较有挑战性，本篇仅摘列其摘要，有兴趣的学生可在中央财经大学会计学院资料室借阅、复印全文。

Beyond Competition: Institutional Isomorphism in U.S. Accounting Research

by Brad Tuttle and Jesse Dillard

Accounting Horizons Vol. 21, No. 4 (December 2007): pp. 387–409

SYNOPSIS:

We propose remedies to the dramatic reduction in the diversity of research topics within the academic accounting literature. As a basis for our recommendations, we apply institutional theory in the field of academic accounting research and propose that responses to identifiable institutional influences rather than competitive forces account for the current exclusion of nonfinancial accounting topics. All three processes of institutional isomorphism (mimetic, coercive, and normative) appear to shape the organizational field of accounting research. However, the field has reached a stage where it is primarily, but not exclusively, motivated by the normative isomorphism. As such, institutional pressures often eclipse theoretical relevance, individual research preferences, and practical applicability. These effects pervade aspects of the accounting academy beyond publishing. We outline programs and propose actions for enhancing diversity as prescriptions for countering the institutional forces acting within the field of academic accounting research.

About the authors:

Brad Tuttle is a Professor at the University of South Carolina and Jesse Dillard is a Professor at Portland State University.