Advanced Accounting Theory Paper

End of Semester Examinations 2022/2023ASB3211 Advanced Accounting Theory
(Final exam- Accounting & Finance BSc Year3)
Answer only Two QUESTIONS
This is a 60 marks exam
All questions carry equal weight
To be submitted through Turnitin within 48 HOURS
Late submissions will be awarded a mark of zero
Turnitin will be used to assess for plagiarism and collusion
Do not copy and paste answers or share answers
Academic Procedures for Unfair Practice will be implemented as normal In-text citations and
referencing must be used where appropriate Your answer must be submitted in a Word document
only
Word limit is up to: 3000 Words
1
Answer only Two questions. Use the parts as a guideline on how you should structure your answer.
Take note that a specific required length of 1,500 words is expected for each Question, totalling
3,000 words for the exam. Reference to the material utilized throughout the course is encouraged.
“All Accounting research is at its core interdisciplinary in that it draws from its theory and
methodology from other disciplines” (Roslender & Dillard, 2003:326). Having said this, accounting
scholars had deployed different theories as lenses that questioned many issues that were taken for
granted. These questions include what is accounting; its regulatory bodies neutrality; the role it is
playing in the economy; behavioural accounting and accounting reporting; and its role in
constructing or legitimising particular social structures.
Your Task: you have four different topics you are required to write an Essay that answer only Two of
the following topics:
Question 1: (30 Marks)
In accounting research, a enormous range of questions can be sightsaw using qualitative
research methods as qualitative research does not rely on database analysis or focus on the
economics of an agency problem.
According to Carlin 2018 and Ohlson 2015, in qualitative research, these two criteria could
deliver to data in answering a question instead of the other way around. Additionally,
qualitative research leads to develop new understandings and theories.
These new understandings and theories likely have to expand further research in both
qualitative and quantitative research methods. For example, prior studies may have claimed
the main impacts of capital markets in large samples. However, such studies may have
reviewed the significant differences among certain sub-samples or otherwise may not have
examined fairly factors considered to be important determinants of the phenomenon being
explored. Having said that, your task is to discuss:
•
•
Why should we restrict our inquiries to the effects of accounting on investors or a
manager’s choice of accounting methods when there are so many other interesting
questions to explore?
why should we restrict our questions to those that can be answered using readily
available numerical data when there are so many interesting questions that relate to
complex individual interpretations of how accounting should be used and what it
should be used for?
Question 2: (30 Marks)
Unlike financial accounting with its mandatory reporting frameworks, companies are still
free to cherry pick which social and environmental framework(s) to use and when to use
them. Quantitative/positivist accounting research has taken on the role of attempting to
understand whether these frameworks do provide more reliable information to investors.
2
•
•
Do these frameworks result “in efficient and productive capital allocation” or “act as
a force for financial stability and sustainability”?
Do they truly promote social and environmental sustainability?
Question 3: (30 Marks)
Van and Johnson (2006) examine three related methods in which the gap between theory
and practice has been outlined. They concluded their study with these three methods one
approach outlooks it as a knowledge transfer problem, a second claims that theory and
practice represent distinct types of knowledge, and a third combines a strategy of arbitrage
leading to the interpretation that the gap is a knowledge production problem.
Van and Johnson (2006) suggested a method of engaged scholarship for addressing the
knowledge production problem, debating that engaged scholarship not only boosts the
relevance of research for practice but also adds significantly to advancing research
knowledge in a given field.
Your task is to debate the following to relevant question:
•
•
•
What knowledge does the practitioner of an occupation or profession use?
How does he or she obtain it?
What does the practitioner think, and how does he or she go about constructing
thought and action?
(Total: 60 Marks).
General Instructions & Format:
1) This is an individual assignment that you should be writing on your own.
2) The word limit for this assignment is 3,000 words (+/- 10%); excluding graphs and tables.
3) The assignment must be submitted on time (a soft copy to be uploaded on Turnitin) to be
considered for evaluation.
4) If you face any problem, please make sure to contact your lecturer before the due date.
5) You are expected to support your work with sources from the literature and use Harvard
referencing style as appropriate, in text and in the list of references at the end of your
assignment.
6) Format:
1. Font: Times New Roman
2. Use double spacing and sufficient margins (3-4 cm)
3. Headings & subheadings font size: 14 points; the rest of the text: 12 points
3
4. All pages should be numbered; include a table of content .
Grading:
•
The assignment will be graded out of a 60 and will count for 60% of your final grade for
this module.
•
The attached grading scheme will be used to evaluate your work.
Academic Integrity:
•
By submitting your work on Turnitin, you confirm that:
–
The work is your own, and that you have not copied another’s work or allowed
anyone to copy your work, and that you have referenced the work of others in an
appropriate way.
–
You have read and understood the BIBF guidelines on Plagiarism and abided with the
necessary practice
•
Students who are suspected to have encountered any form of academic dishonesty
will face further investigation.
How do you answer a question in an essay example?
Try using the following steps for your next Q&A essay:
•
Write a direct answer to the question.
•
Restate the question in a way that includes the answer.
•
Explain your reasons in sequence.
•
Give examples to expound your reasoning.
•
Use citations to give credit to your sources.
•
Conclude with your position in the answer.
Can Turnitin detect Chat GPT?
Turnitin is a well-known plagiarism checker used by most universities and colleges. The software is
built to detect whether students have copied someone else’s work in their assignments.
Turnitin is designed to simply detect plagiarism and not detect the use of Chat GPT. However, in
recent news, the organization has released a new service called the Turnitin AI Innovation Lab.
4
As part of their AI detection scheme, they have launched a new AI writing and Chat GPT detector.
The new software is said to have 97% accuracy and a false positive rate of only 1%. Unfortunately,
the detector is not available yet but is predicted to be released in April this year.
While we wait for the new service, if you have concerns about getting caught for using Chat GPT by
Turnitin, it really only boils down to if Chat GPT’s response is plagiarized.
According to OpenAI, none of Chat GPT’s responses are necessarily copies of the specific text. The
model generates its texts by analysing the data it was trained on. Where it then creates its response
in its ‘own’ words.
The developers do say the model does not intend to plagiarize any text, although it does have the
potential to produce a response closely similar to another source already out there.
5
Grading Scheme (out of 100)
Category
Grade
Primary Marking Criteria
Outstanding
Excellent
Distinction
70+
Good
Meets
requirements
of Class
Good
Merit
Mid-Level
60-69
Meets
requirements
of Class
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive knowledge
Detailed understanding of the subject area
Extensive background study
Highly focussed answer and well structured
Logically presented and defended arguments
No factual/computational errors
Original interpretation
New links between topics are developed
New approach to a problem
Excellent presentation with very accurate
communication
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strong knowledge
Understands most but not all of the subject area
Evidence of background study
Focussed answer with good structure
Arguments presented coherently
Mostly free of factual/computational errors
Some limited original interpretation
Well known links between topics are described
Problems addressed by existing
methods/approaches
Good presentation with accurate communication
•
Secondary Marking Criteria
• Exceeds expectations for most primary criteria
• Complete command of subject and other relevant
areas
• Ideas/arguments are highly original
• Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria
• Complete command of subject
• Ideas/arguments are highly original
• Meets all primary criteria
• Command of subject but with minor gaps in
knowledge
• Ideas/arguments are mostly original
• Meets most but not all primary criteria
• Command of subject but with some gaps in
knowledge
• Ideas/arguments are mostly original
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria
Command of subject but with gaps in knowledge
Some ideas/arguments are original
Meets all primary criteria
Strong factual knowledge and understanding
Ideas/arguments are well presented but few are
original
Meets most but not all primary criteria
Strong factual knowledge with minor weaknesses in
understanding
Most but not all ideas/arguments are well presented
and few are original
6
Category
Grade
Good within the
Class
Credit
Mid-Level
50-59
Meets
requirements
of Class
Good within the
Class
Pass
Mid-Level
40-49
Meets
requirements
of Class
Primary Marking Criteria
• Knowledge of key areas/principles
• Understands the main elements of the subject area
• Limited evidence of background study
• Answer focussed on question but also with some
irrelevant material and weaknesses in structure
• Arguments presented but lack coherence
• Has several factual/computational errors
• No original interpretation
• Only major links between topics are described
• Limited problem solving
• Some weaknesses in presentation and accuracy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge of key areas/principles only
Weaknesses in understanding of the subject area
Limited evidence of background study
Answer only poorly focussed on question and with
some irrelevant material and poor structure
Arguments presented but lack coherence
Several factual/computational errors
No original interpretation
Only major links between topics are described
Limited problem solving
Many weaknesses in presentation and accuracy
For PGT – Insufficient to fulfil the associated learning
outcomes
Secondary Marking Criteria
• Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria
• Strong factual knowledge with some weaknesses in
understanding
• Ideas/arguments are limited but are well presented
• Matches all primary criteria
• Moderate factual knowledge with some weaknesses
in understanding
• Ideas/arguments are limited with weaknesses in
logic/presentation
• Matches most but not all primary criteria
• Moderate factual knowledge with several
weaknesses in understanding
• Ideas/arguments are limited with weaknesses in
logic/presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria
Moderate factual knowledge with several weaknesses
in understanding
A few ideas/arguments are presented but with
weaknesses
Matches all primary criteria
Limited factual knowledge with several weaknesses in
understanding
Very few ideas/arguments are presented
Matches most but not all primary criteria
Limited factual knowledge with many weaknesses in
understanding
Very few ideas/arguments are presented and with
errors in logic/presentation
7
Category
Grade
Good within the
Class
Mid-Level
Fail
39 and
below
Meets
requirements of
Class
Primary Marking Criteria
• Insufficient to fulfil the associated learning
outcomes
• No evidence of relevant knowledge or understanding
• No evidence of background study
• Answer relies on irrelevant material and lacks a
coherent structure
• No arguments presented or arguments are not
relevant to the assessment
• Many factual/computational errors
• No attempt at interpretation
• No links between topics are described
• No attempt to solve problems or to address the
assessment brief
• The presentation is very weak containing many
inaccuracies
Secondary Marking Criteria
• Exceeds expectations for most primary criteria
• No evidence of knowledge/understanding
• Only limited evidence of an attempt to answer the
question
• Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria
• No evidence of knowledge/understanding
• Very limited evidence of an attempt to answer the
question
• Matches all primary criteria
• No evidence of knowledge/understanding and/or
evidence of misunderstanding
• No attempt to answer/address the question
8