The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interrogating accountability: An illustration of the use of Leximancer software for qualitative data analysis
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The paper has a dual purpose, being to report on an interrogation of concepts and contexts of accountability used in the accounting literature and to illustrate the application of a qualitative data analysis software tool in this interrogation. Design/methodology/approach: A content analysis was undertaken of 114 journal articles related to accountability and published in highly ranked accounting journals from 2000 to 2007. Findings: Accountability is a concept used in a variety of contexts, particularly in connection with public accountabilities and accountability in the public sector, as well as within social contexts. The emphasis appears to be on accountability reporting in these settings, with less concern for the management perspective. The variety of contextual usage and categorisations of the term “accountability” indicate it has not become more precise over the period in question. Research limitations/implications: Since only 21 accounting journals are sampled, there is scope for investigating accountability concepts across a broader base of publication outlets. The findings suggest that greater effort should be devoted to developing frameworks of accountability, researching accountability in relatively under‐explored contexts and settings, and considerable scope for researchers to more frequently utilise computer‐assisted qualitative data analysis in content analysis studies concerning accounting and accountability. Originality/value: While there is anecdotal evidence of the elusive nature of accountability, this paper provides a window on conceptions of accountability employed by accounting scholars and the contexts in which accountability is discussed and researched. Further, the use of the Leximancer software tool in qualitative content analysis is demonstrated, noting that the accounting literature is currently devoid of examples of applications of this software.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/hebz/9780198869443.001.0001 · Cited by 10,965
Weber, R. (1990) · doi:10.4135/9781412983488 · Cited by 7,750
Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework 1
Bovens, M. (2007) · European Law Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x · Cited by 2,667
Cited by
Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review
Stechemesser, K., & Guenther, E. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.021 · Cited by 411
Anthropomorphism in hospitality and tourism: A systematic review and agenda for future research
Ding, A., Lee, R. H., Legendre, T. S., & Madera, J. (2022) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.07.018 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Crofts, K., & Bisman, J.
- Venue
- Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-06-22
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 180-207
- ISSN
- 1176-6093 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2036417809
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interrogating accountability: An illustration of the use of Leximancer software for qualitative data analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/11766091011050859
- The paper
- Crofts, K., & Bisman, J. (2010). Interrogating accountability: An illustration of the use of Leximancer software for qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091011050859
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.