so some reader might say well there are no general lessons from this conference experience and you are just being called out for the impolite devil that you are!  No doubt there is some truth to that charge and I wish I had it in me to word things a bit nicer, to be naturally constructive iN conference questions the way I am when I write reviews and editorial letters!

BUT that is not the real issue that should concern accounting academics!  

Every time we deliberately do not cite relevant literature, we are partaking in the silencing of those researchers not cited!  Whether it is a markets researcher not citing experimental research, a field study researcher ignoring markets or experiments on their topic, a markets or experimental researcher ignoring field studies on point to there research – it diminishes the field as a WHOLE. 

While some of the time it is from ignorance that such citations are not made, more and more I ann seeing this as being done deliberately and given the use of databases to readily do literature reviews it is hard to accept the ignorance argument. 

 Furthermore, capital markets and interpretive field researchers tend to be most ” guilty” of such selective citation practices!!!!  I know the term guilty has strong normative tone to it, BUT readers of this blog know that I call it as I see it and deliberately not citing relevant research is wrong – no matter how much you like the person doing it or how much you believe it helps the cause of your research!  Indeed, some field researchers justify this choice by saying markets researchers will not cite me so why should I cite them??? 

 Did your mother not ever tell you ” two wrongs do NOT make a right!”?