@krishardies.bsky.social
Scientist, accounting, philosophy of science
My bad! I meant it as support for your argument(s) – even if a scientific community (re)discovers something that was already known in another community, that's still knowledge.
27.10.2025 23:01 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
27.10.2025 17:53 — 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 2 📌 0
Agree with all you're saying here, but I do understand it a bit when it's directed at economists – even though other disciplines should probably update their stereotypes about ours.
You'll probably recognize the text in the picture ... we create knowlegde when we give it to more people!
And all while "laypeople mistake correlation for causation with large Ns" seems just as interesting (and closer to the actual evidence here – ignoring any potential data quality issues because I didn't see any screening or quality control).
25.10.2025 10:18 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Something like these?
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
I don't know of any that have looked at it recently, but concerns over data quality have surely increased.
Neither the paper nor the preregistration documents seem to mention anything about it ... that's, euhm, a bit weird.
25.10.2025 10:04 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
Quite a lot of such research exists; just some examples:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
link.springer.com/article/10.3...
I'd expect quite a lot of screening of participants [I think anyone using these sort of platforms understands the necessity of doing so]. Maybe not clearly reported?
And not really disagreeing with anything else, but I guess I'm thinking that it doesn't seem weird to me that we try to "close" things sooner nowadays than in the past given that science has become a much bigger (faster) enterprise. But yeh, often prematurely so.
21.10.2025 09:45 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
100% agree with the last point; the last section of an editorial I just wrote is titled "Science is hard" 😂
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Dat soort regels scheert dan natuurlijk wel weer alle domeinen (nodeloos) over dezelfde kam. In mijn domein (accounting) heeft de UGent enkele jaren geleden om die reden een ZAP-vacature niet ingevuld gekregen. En veel kans dat het dit jaar opnieuw zo zal zijn. Gelukkig is die regel er bij ons niet.
20.10.2025 17:54 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Thanks for sharing. I love Chang's work. One thing I've wondered about though – triggered more by your comments than Chang's work – is how transposable these historical accounts are to today's research (environment). Research looks quite different now than, say, 200y ago. Any thoughts on this?
18.10.2025 10:44 — 👍 3 🔁 0 💬 2 📌 0These are only very small first steps towards the improvement of accounting research, but it is a start, an encouraging start.
Not much discussion on #Accounting #research here on Bluesky, but well ... maybe it's also interesting to some people outside of our small field.
🧾 The very first paper is out as well!
It's a good paper, and it nicely showcases that it doesn't need to take long to publish high-quality research (it took less than 5 months, compared to the ~20 months it typically takes at the traditional top accounting journals).
👉 lnkd.in/ebXhmViQ
A big moment for #Accounting Open!
🔓 Milestones unlocked:
🔥 My opening editorial is now out: "Shaping the Future of Accounting Research: Less, Better, More Interesting"
👉 lnkd.in/eyKr-T4K
#AccountingResearch #OpenAccess
#AccountingCommunity
In our applied econ program, all statistics courses use JMP.
No idea how that ever came to be, but hey, at least it's the same software for all these courses ... but then none of our faculty uses that, so most students will also encounter Stata, and/or R, and some of them Python.
This is one of the things that really annoys me – already from when I was still a student myself.
18.10.2025 10:08 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
It was quite interesting – did wonder though what ecologists would have to say about it.
My favorite presentation of the day though was by @ambra-prg.bsky.social on meta-analyses ... still thinking about her question of how big the problem should be for it to be a problem ...
Excellentie is gewoon geen heel nuttige term. Nu moet ik hieraan denken: www.nature.com/articles/pal...
15.10.2025 22:38 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Ik durf niet zeggen hoe groot het probleem is, maar het is sowieso een competitief nadeel. We kunnen daardoor moeilijk mensen uit het buitenland aantrekken en verliezen er mensen door aan het buitenland (en in sommige domeinen ook aan de privé).
15.10.2025 22:36 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Think of how much better off we'd be if every established researcher got in the habit of writing papers entitled "Second thoughts on [thing I'm famous for]"
11.10.2025 03:49 — 👍 110 🔁 13 💬 4 📌 0Isn't this just, the times they are a-changin?
It's hardly 10y ago that Stanford hosted the "Causality in the Social Sciences Conference", which was quite eye opening for many people in accounting and finance.
Before the credibility revolution there was no need to think about all of this.
This seems a bit of a common thread among a lot of anti-AI discourse: Sensible/obvious/interesting commentary mixed with rather stupid anti-capitalism sentiment.
04.10.2025 13:00 — 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Is dat wel zo? Ik weet dat Kathryn Harden (*) dat zegt, maar het is minder evident, zie bijv. www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=...
(*) Ik las recent haar boek en het is goed geschreven, maar uiteindelijk vond ik het toch wat teleurstellend (ietwat oppervlakkig qua filosofisch denken en sociaalbeleid).
Would you care to elaborate about this?
27.09.2025 09:31 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0"Vakantie is voor watjes" hangt er op een poster bij ons op de campus, ter aanmoediging van studenten tijdens de 2de zit, ik erger er me dood aan.
Die normalisering van 2de zittijd, mede door de universiteit zelf, is echt problematisch – en best recent, ik ben nog niet zo oud.
Immediately have to think about this now -- fitting it's in German, even though Asterix is French.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...
I think Colin is 100% right here. Obviously, fake data, fake citations, etc. are a problem, but I see no reason why they'd be more problematic if authors used AI. Not only does that seem the only workable stance, I also think it's the only principled stance that makes sense.
26.08.2025 07:55 — 👍 2 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0I think Colin is 100% right here. Obviously, fake data, fake citations, etc. are a problem, but I see no reason why they'd be more problematic if authors used AI. Not only does that seem the only workable stance, I also think it's the only principled stance that makes sense.
26.08.2025 07:55 — 👍 2 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0Referees make the journal system work. They are selfless in volunteering their time to ensure that our science continues to progress.
All of the great referees out there please know that editors recognize your hard work and tireless effort. We do not always say it, but we do! Thank you.
Accounting. (*)
(*) Some would say the pay is better as well, but, of course, that's mostly just in the US.
I do want to invent "accounting OF PoS" now 😀
