Search results

Several scholars have recently highlighted the narrowness of accounting research regarding it as a threat to scholarly developments in the field. The aim of this study was to chart progress in management accounting research using a sample of doctoral dissertations published in Finland. In particular, the study examines the range and diversity of research strategic choices in Finnish dissertations over time, including the topics and methodological and theoretical approaches chosen. The authors also briefly compare findings over time and with other progress studies.

A longitudinal historical investigation was selected. All of the 80 management accounting doctoral dissertations published in Finnish business schools and departments during 1945-2015 were analysed.

The findings reveal that an expansion of doctoral education has led to an increasing diversity of research strategic choices in Finland. Different issues have been of interest at different times; so, it has been possible to cover a wide range of cost, management accounting and other topics and to use different methodological and theoretical approaches over time. Consequently, management accounting has become a rich and multifaceted field of scientific research.

While this analysis is limited to doctoral research in Finland, the results should be relevant in advancing the understanding of the development of management accounting research.

Overall, the findings support the view that there have been, and continue to be, many ways to conduct innovative research in the field of management accounting.

Dissertation research in this field has been extensive and vital enough to educate new generations of academics, guarantee continuity of the subject as an academic discipline and make management accounting a significant academic field of research.

The paper contributes to current research on management accounting change by an analysis of a sample of doctoral dissertations.

This study examines how the strong emphasis placed on the purposes of budgeting, referring to a comprehensive focus on budgeting, is related to top managers' education and tenure while controlling for their functional positions in their respective firms and ages, as well as several company-specific predictors (information quality, firm size, information technology, importance of profit and strategy).

Survey data were collected from senior managers of large manufacturing firms in Finland and Sweden.

The results suggest that academic business education is positively associated with a comprehensive focus on budgeting, but tenure as well as functional position in the company (Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or not) and age are not. Overall, the company-specific control variables in general and information quality in particular are shown to have greater explanatory power than the top management characteristics analyzed.

This study identifies several empirically supported factors that seem to contribute to a comprehensive focus on budgeting. The effects of information quality, business education, the importance of profit and firm size could be considered in future research.

Academic business education matters more than the other top management characteristics analyzed. If organizations want to make comprehensive use of budgets, they should employ business graduates and be mindful of company-specific variables.

This study is the first to address a comprehensive focus on budgeting and some of its determinants. Future research could investigate a broader set of such determinants in different contexts.

The need to change budgeting has been frequently debated. Drawing on the literature on management accounting and budgeting change, this study aims to explore changes in budgeting and whether experienced success of budgeting varied with time and budget type. Changes in the use of the following budget types were investigated: fixed, revised, rolling, flexible and hybrid budgets.

This study uses a mixed research methodology. Survey data was collected from the same business units of large Finnish manufacturing firms in 2004 (Time 1) and 2016/2017 (Time 2) (N = 28). In addition, some of the respondents of the latter survey were interviewed in 2023 (Time 3).

Almost all business units were found to have remained loyal to budgeting. However, changes in budget types were not uncommon and varied considerably. Overall, the use of fixed budgets continued strongly, the use of revised and hybrid budgets declined, and the use of rolling budgets increased over time. Moreover, the joint use of budgets declined. The perceived success of budgetary processes was, initially, weakened by the use of fixed budgets and, later, by the use of revised budgets. The interview data further illustrates some of the patterns of, and reasons behind, the changes.

Longitudinal analysis of change in the same business units was useful in revealing the patterns of change in budgeting and on relationships between the variables analysed over time. Further research could be carried out using more extensive case studies in companies or sector-focused surveys longitudinally.

This paper seeks to further the understanding of the rather fragmented research in the area of quantitative management accounting research. The purpose of this study is to provide a synthesis and an extended discussion of the literature from the performance outcome standpoint and to foster future research in this area by identifying promising recent developments in the assessment of performance outcomes and gaps in the literature.

A literature analysis was adopted based on empirical studies and literature reviews published in a wide range of journals.

The overall conclusion of this study is that future management accounting research can still make progress in the measurement of performance outcomes.

Research published in English, and the period of the past decade was emphasized to examine recent frontiers of knowledge. The results imply that increasing and simultaneous analysis of various kinds of performance outcomes could be conducted, ranging from accounting‐based to social and environmental outcomes and relative‐to‐peers assessments in different settings. If possible, development of performance outcomes could be investigated with longitudinal and panel, in addition to cross‐sectional, research designs. Attempts could be made to analyze the nature of causality to advance both management accounting literature and social science research.

This study furthers understanding of behaviorally‐, organizationally‐ and strategically‐oriented management accounting research that has played a central role in assessing to what extent people are likely to succeed with their management accounting and control systems in various settings.

This paper presents a theoretical framework and several examples potentially useful for both academic scholars and practitioners.

This paper aims to address the reporting of validation and evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies, which is a topic of critical debate in qualitative social science research. The objective of this study is to investigate the ways researchers have reported the use of evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies and whether they are associated with certain paradigmatic affiliations.

Building on the work of Eriksson and Kovalainen [Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London, Sage], the following three approaches are examined: the adoption of classic concepts of validity and reliability, the use of alternative concepts and the abandonment of general evaluation criteria. Content analysis of 212 case and field studies published during 2006 to February 2015 was conducted to be able to offer an analysis of the most recent frontiers of knowledge.

The key empirical results of this study provide partial support for the theoretical expectations. They specify and refine Eriksson and Kovalainen’s (2008) classification system, first, by identifying a new approach to evaluation and validation and, second, by showing mixed results on the paradigmatic consistency in the use of evaluation criteria.

This paper is not necessarily exhaustive or representative of all the evaluation criteria developed; the authors focused on the explicit reporting of criteria only and the findings cannot be generalized. Somewhat different results might have been obtained if other journals, other fields of research or a longer period were considered.

The findings of this study enhance the knowledge of alternative approaches and criteria to validation and evaluation. The findings can aid both in the evaluation of management accounting research and in the selection of appropriate evaluation approaches and criteria.

This paper presents a synthesis of the literature (Table I) and new empirical findings that are potentially useful for both academic scholars and practitioners.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the threats to quality in mixed methods accounting research, wherein quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined in data collection, analysis and interpretation.

The paper is framed according to three perspectives. The authors first synthesize the threats to validity and reliability in quantitative and qualitative parts of mixed methods research using the quality standards of each; they then introduce an integrative framework of mixed methods research quality by Teddlie and Tashakkori. Thereafter, they address the specific threats to quality that come to the fore when inferences from the quantitative and qualitative components of the study are combined to form meta‐inferences using a legitimation framework by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson.

The authors' analysis not only indicates a wide range of threats to the validity and reliability of mixed methods research in a range of categories, but also clarifies how the three perspectives described in this paper are linked and supplement each other.

Methodological research published in English over the last decade is emphasized to create an approach to assess mixed methods accounting research. The frameworks analyzed could still be studied in greater detail. Additional perspectives on the validity and reliability of mixed methods research could also be studied and developed.

This paper furthers our understanding of such new developments in methodological research, which may be of great importance to those conducting or evaluating empirical research.

Based on a comprehensive synthesis, this paper presents and analyzes theoretical frameworks potentially useful for scholars, students and practitioners. It focuses on both traditional and novel areas of validity and reliability in mixed methods research.

The purpose of this study is to further our understanding of how and why interpretations of budget targets differ from one person to another even in the same business unit.

A qualitative case study research approach is adopted, involving a review and analysis of the literature and interviews conducted among controllers and managers of a highly successful business unit.

Both the theoretical and empirical results suggest that organizational budgetary processes do not provide a similar understanding of budget targets for each person. While some shared interpretations are evident, individual‐level variations occur in the personal and subjective meanings that controllers and managers give to budget targets in their own consciousness, situationality and corporeality. A personal historical basis for understanding may impact a manager's interpretation of budget targets, but the interpretations can also be dynamic and change over time.

The study is both facilitated and limited by its basic assumptions and approaches, and the findings may be most relevant to companies with similar profiles. Nevertheless, the study furthers our understanding of the characteristics of controllers and managers and their perception of the meaning of this important feature of accounting in practice.

It could be highly useful to jointly discuss the intended primary purposes and nature of organizational budget targets. Otherwise, people may understand targets in different and perhaps even contradictory ways, which could in turn impair the functioning of control systems.

This paper contributes to current budgeting research in that it interprets individual‐level differences.