Compared to other disciplines, there is relatively little methods work published accounting, especially in the experimental world but also in the positivist field study area (lots of interpretive methods research published in AOS, CPA, AAAJ etc – we have no competitive advantage here but we welcome it if authors think they want to convey something to a broader audience.).  While discussion/theory based pieces are welcome, I would like to see methods pieces that critically engage with data, either to illustrate how to do something better or to show alternative understandings about conclusions drawn from methods we already know.  Two examples from my own recent work illustrate this.  First, the field methods piece in BRIA (Kenno, McCracken and Salterio 2017) that not only provides guidance for carrying out field research in financial accounting but also provides a concrete example based on a study that was carried out.  Second, the reanalysis of data using methods like structural equations modeling (SEM) that allow us to learn more about previous experiments.  Christopher Koch (one of our editors) and I did this in a forthcoming TAR (Koch and Salterio 2017 September) piece that reanalysed data from a Kadous et al 2002 paper using SEM techniques to substantially expand our understanding of their results in addition to corroborating the results of a new experiment (the latter would not have to be done in a methods piece as I envision them for BRIA).