This paper presents an analysis of author productivity in The Accounting Review for the period 1967 through 1993. The stratification observed in other disciplines is evident and is associated with a set of “elite” schools. The most productive authors in TAR are dominated by graduates of these schools. It is also the case that these elite authors increasingly rely on other social science disciplines, notably financial economics and cognitive psychology, for producing accounting knowledge. Evidence is also provided which indicates that the process of elite formation at TAR is more consistent with the use of particularistic rather than universal criteria. There is a paradigm consensus in the U.S. academic community, which is contrary to what would be expected in a low-paradigm consensus field like accounting. The possible contribution of the AAA in forcing this consensus is discussed.
