One of the interesting things about going to conferences is to see a WIDE variety of research. We also are regularly exhorted to do “relevant” research. But really, does anyone set out to do non- relevant research?
Well I poked around at the MAC and I could find no one willing to admit their research was not relevant!!?! Maybe I was at a rare conference where there was no research that was not relevant! But do you really believe that all 100 plus papers in Orlando were relevant?. If you do you would also buy that famous swampland in FL!,!
So why do we do non- relevant research?.???
1. Sometimes what started as a relevant project gets overtaken by events. For example all those archival and experimental audit studies done in 1999-2002 when SOX changed so many of the ceterius paribus assumptions.
2. Potentially relevant research gets overtaken by competing paper or even worse by a paper that subsumed the findings in the research.
Most people understand these things happening but surely it does not mean all non relevant paper get to this point for these reasons?.?
Later, more on other reasons.