Thinking critically about intellectual capital accounting

By R. Roslender, R. Fincham. 2001

214 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management Information Systems, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/82336496720f0048997960c5f7dfc7d855d80d33

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

1. Jan Mouritsen
2. V. Beattie
3. P. Vergauwen
4. Nick Bontis
5. Indra Abeysekera
6. James P. Guthrie
7. John Dumay
8. Laury Bollen

In Management Information Systems

1. Jan Mouritsen
2. V. Beattie
3. Indra Abeysekera
4. P. Vergauwen
5. Nick Bontis
6. James P. Guthrie
7. R. Roslender
8. R. Fincham

In Strategy and Management

1. Jan Mouritsen
2. John Dumay
3. V. Beattie
4. P. Vergauwen
5. Indra Abeysekera
6. Nick Bontis
7. Ruzita Jusoh
8. Kaveh Asiaei

Citations in the corpus

• Intellectual capital and performance measurement systems in Iran (2018, background): “This stream of research has enabled a gap in the empirical academic literature to be filled (Roslender and Fincham, 2001).”
• Linking intellectual capital and intellectual property to company performance (2005, background): “In other words, IP and IC are to be associated with the most intangible dimensions of the whole organization, such that the implications of the maxim “what gets measured, gets managed” are fully captured (Roslender and Fincham, 2001; Nerdrum and Erikson, 2001).”
• Theoretical perspectives on intellectual capital: A backward look and a proposal for going forward (2011, background): “Roslender and Fincham (2001, 2004) and Hussi and Ahonen (2002) differentiate between primary intellectual capital, hich they view as the most important intangibles, and secondary intellectual capital, which are those intangibles created Source: Edvinsson (1997), p. 52. by putting primary…”
• Moving the financial accounting research front forward: the UK contribution (2005, background): “UK studies of this nature are Holland (2001), who examines the link between intangibles reporting and corporate governance and Roslender & Fincham (2001) who argue for a more critical approach to the reporting of intellectual capital.”
• Intellectual capital accounting as management fashion: a review and critique (2003, background): “A number of critical perspectives on ICA have been put forward which have tended to focus on the underlying logic of the method and the objective of securing control of knowledge by imposing a structure of metrics (e.g. Yakhlef and Salzer-Morling, 2000; Roslender and Fincham, 2001).”
• Problematising intellectual capital research: ostensive versus performative IC (2006, methodology): “An illustration is Roslender and Fincham’s (2001) idea to develop self-accounts – new Intellectual capital research”
• Human capital measures, strategy, and performance: HR managers' perceptions (2008, unknown): “For this reason, many authors, using different approaches and names, have advocated the accounting of HC in organizations' performance measurement systems (for reviews, see Roslender, 1997; Roslender and Dyson, 1992; Roslender and Fincham, 2001).”
• Comparative justification on intellectual capital (2004, background): “This will entail exploring the possibilities of intellectual capital providing its own accounts, rather than remaining imprisoned within accounts devised by others ( Roslender and Fincham, 2001”
• Human Capital Reporting in a Developing Nation (2004, background): “Fourth, Roslender and Fincham (2001) argue that HC disclosure promotes a higher level of awareness of the involvement of the stakeholder in the broader context of the firm.”