Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how practical relevance of management accounting knowledge relates to research paradigms and theoretical pluralism.

The paper is conceptual in nature.

As the management accounting discipline is considered to be an applied discipline, a number of authors claim that management accounting research should develop relevant theory that can be used in practice. This call for increased practical relevance of management accounting knowledge interrelates with a debate on the desirability of theoretical pluralism and paradigm diversity in management accounting research. Drawing on the work of Nicolai and Seidl, the paper distinguishes different forms of practical relevance, and analyses the effects of theoretical pluralism on these different forms. The paper argues how theoretical pluralism particularly enhances relevance in a conceptual sense rather than an instrumental sense. The conceptual relevance of research may further be enhanced by interpretive research that acknowledges complexity and that has the potential to challenge the performativity of mainstream management accounting knowledge, without challenging the pursuit of efficiency as such. This is different from critical research. The instrumental relevance stemming from mainstream management accounting research entails de‐contextualization and simplification, and might create unintended self‐fulfilling prophecies.

The paper broadens the concept of relevance so that it includes conceptual relevance and legitimative relevance. It links these concepts of relevance to three research paradigms: a mainstream paradigm, an interpretive paradigm and a critical paradigm. For each paradigm, relevance is related to the use of theory.

The paper broadens the concept of relevance and advocates the pursuit of conceptual relevance, particularly through interpretive research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the body of literature on environmental management accounting (EMA) and provides a quantitative overview of the academic as well as the professional literature constituting the field. By doing so, the paper discusses whether EMA has developed as a discipline.

Based on a database containing 814 (396 of them published in academic journals) publications in English, German and French with a publication date prior to 2012 a bibliometric analysis is conducted. Data on the publications, journals, authors and citations were collected, double‐checked and examined by applying bibliometric measures.

The bibliometric analysis identifies trends in EMA research publications which show that EMA has developed as a young discipline, but is still faces challenges to get better established in mainstream accounting and management research. Although the publication number is growing, a substantial part of the publications have been published outside mainstream accounting journals in non‐accounting journals, books and reports. A recent trend towards establishing specialised environmental (and sustainability) accounting journals is also rendered apparent. The low number of highly cited publications of few authors, however, indicates that EMA is still to become a mainstream field of research.

The paper discusses with the help of bibliometric analysis and measures whether EMA has developed as a discipline and whether it has become part of mainstream accounting research.

The purpose of this paper is to use qualitative research findings to describe and analyze the use of a new teaching approach for a better understanding of earnings management.

Three classroom workshop designs with finance professionals were performed as an experiment to discuss the underlying assumptions of mainstream earnings management research. The outcome of the experiment is analyzed and serves as a basis for reflection on the new teaching approach.

The teaching experiment revealed the value to participants in discussing the complexity of the accounting choice process. The workshops provided insights into the wide range of accounting choices that finance professionals are confronted with and into the differences in perception of the participants relating to the accounting choices to be made. These insights contradict the assumptions of a “neutral reporting process” and solely “purposeful interventions” used in mainstream earnings management research. Analyzing the elements of the different workshop settings in relation to the outcome of the discussion identified strengths and weaknesses of each setting and generated ideas for further development of the teaching approach.

This research note adds to the understanding on how qualitative research can be used in teaching and shows that it is also coherent with using teaching as a site for qualitative research.

The discussions relating to the limitations of mainstream accounting research are predominantly of a general nature. This research note takes these discussions into consideration by exploring the subject of earnings management, offering an alternative teaching approach.

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 present the results of an analysis of 137 articles concerning accounting in the People's Republic of China (PRC) published in 25 of the mainstream English language accounting journals from 1999 to 2008.

Within the tradition of bibliometric evaluation of literature in scholarly accounting journals, a content analysis is undertaken of the journal articles to identify and evaluate a range of features and trends in relation to publication outlets, authorship, research design and methods and subject matter.

While prior studies have suggested the literature on accounting in the PRC is relatively immature, the analysis reveals an increased sophistication in relation to the subject matter, research paradigms and methods and characteristics of authorship of this literature within mainstream accounting journals.

Since a sample of only 25 mainstream international accounting journals is utilised, there remains obvious potential for examining the literature published in other types and other rankings of journals.

Results of the analysis reveal apparent scope for researchers of accounting in China to investigate a broader range of topics, utilise an extended panoply of research perspectives and methods, and encourage new and emerging researchers to the area.

The paper represents a follow‐up to an earlier study on the topic, providing comparisons and contrasts with that earlier work. Further, the current review also explores significant issues arising from the analysis and provides several suggestions for furthering the research effort in this field.

Accounting theorists agree that no comprehensive theory of accounting has yet been developed. In the absence of such a theory, the question arises whether sufficient accounting principles are created through accounting research. This article acknowledges that accounting principles are not solely the result of academic research and that current accounting practice through its standard‐setting process contributes far more to the development of accounting principles. Hence the role that accounting theory and research should play in developing accounting principles is a vital academic question. The discussion in the article focuses on the normative and descriptive (or the more modern positivistic) approach to the development of accounting theory, the positivistic nature of mainstream accounting research, a possible decision‐useful theory of accounting and the role of interpretative and critical research. All of these developments are beneficial to accounting since they open up accounting to a diversity of research approaches that will collectively improve the status of accounting research and possibly accounting theory. The role that these developments fulfil in creating appropriate accounting principles, however, is debatable.

The purpose of this paper is two-fold. The first is to provide insight into the academic life, teaching and research activities of active participants in the sustainability accounting and management academic community in North America. The second is to provide readers with an overview of the papers in this special issue.

To meet the first objective, we specifically sought out those who self-identify as sustainability accounting and management academics, based in North American universities and who actively engage in the sustainability academic community in North America. Using an anonymous online survey, this group was asked to respond to various questions about their academic life, research and teaching activities.

Survey respondents report that they choose to focus on sustainability accounting and management because they want to make a difference (change the world). To that end, the respondents identify carbon emissions and climate change, social issues such as inequalities, as well as grand challenges and sustainable development goals, as important research topics to pursue in the future. While passionate about their research topics, respondents generally note that research outlets that will serve to significantly move their careers forward are difficult to find. A relatively small number of respondents teach sustainability accounting or management, however, most courses taught are dedicated to the topic and teaching sustainability was identified as amongst the most enjoyable aspects of their academic lives.

With study respondents feeling closed out of a number of mainstream journals, career paths at North American institutions could appear somewhat limited for those choosing sustainability accounting and management research as a focus, interest and even passion. This is perhaps even more profound on the teaching side where from a practical perspective, we need to be teaching accountants and managers the significance of sustainability in and for the profession, yes – but even more so for society broadly.

As we move into the digital age, it is important that professionals bend their minds to sustainability as much as they do to keep up with the “pace of change” on other fronts. A potential risk is that “high-tech” subsumes equally important social aspects that need to be embedded in the process of generating accounting and management professionals.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time a survey on the work experiences of a sample of scholars teaching and doing research in the area of sustainability accounting and management has been presented for publication. It is meant to provide some descriptive insights into what drives some active participants in this group of academics and reflect on where the future might lead as sustainability becomes an urgent necessity rather than a choice. These descriptive insights and reflections provide a starting point for future inquiries.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure is receiving increased attention from the mainstream accounting research community. In general, this recently published research has failed to engage significantly with prior CSR-themed studies. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it examines whether more recent CSR reporting differs from that of the 1970s. Second, it investigates whether one of the major findings of prior CSR research – that disclosure appears to be largely a function of exposure to legitimacy factors – continues to hold in more recent reporting. Third, it examines whether, as argued within the more recent CSR-themed studies, disclosure is valued by market participants.

Using Fortune 500 data from the late 1970s (from Ernst & Ernst, 1978) and a more recent sample (2010), the authors identify differences in CSR disclosure by computing adequate measures in terms of disclosure breadth and comparing them for any potential changes in the influence of legitimacy factors between 1977 and 2010. In the second stage of the analysis, the authors use a standard valuation model to compare the association between CSR and firm value between the two time periods.

The authors first find that the breadth of CSR disclosure increased significantly, with respect to both environmental and social information provision. Second, the authors find that the relationship among legitimacy factors and CSR disclosure does not differ across the two time periods. However, the analysis focusing on environmental disclosure provides evidence that industry membership is less powerfully related to differences in reporting, but only for the weighted disclosure score. Finally, the results indicate that CSR disclosure, in apparent contrast to the arguments of the more recent mainstream investigations, is not positively valued by investors.

The authors explore changes in CSR disclosure only for industrial firms and as such the authors cannot generalize findings to companies in other industries. Similarly, the authors focus only on companies in the USA while different relationships may hold in other countries. Further, the disclosure metrics are limited by the availability of firm-specific information provided by Ernst & Ernst. Limitations aside, however, the findings appear to suggest that the failure of the new wave of CSR research in the mainstream accounting community to acknowledge and consider prior research into social and environmental accounting is potentially troublesome. Specifically, recent CSR disclosure research published in mainstream journals often lends credence to voluntary disclosure arguments that ignore previous contradictory findings and well-established alternative explanations for observed empirical relationships.

This paper provides supporting evidence that the unquestioned acceptance by the new wave of CSR researchers that the disclosure is about informing investors as opposed to being a tool of legitimation and image enhancement makes it less likely that such disclosure will ever move meaningfully toward transparent accountability.

The study suggests that CSR disclosure, while used more extensively today than three decades ago, may still largely be driven by concerns with corporate legitimacy, and still fails to provide information that is relevant for assessing firm value. As such, the failure of the mainstream accounting community to acknowledge this possibility can only hinder the ultimate development of better accountability for all of the impacts of business.

Generalization in accounting research is always suspect as the social context and institutions of accounting change over time and space. However, exactly for this reason, there are a number of different ways to reach pragmatic and somewhat generalizable results. No research programme or approach has an absolute upper hand in understanding the true dynamics of economic development. The genuine puzzle of inductive reasoning creates a rhetorical element for all attempts to generalize in accounting research. The main rhetorics used in accounting studies are statistical, contextual, and constructive generalization. To put it in broad terms, statistical generalization rhetoric relies on formal arguments brought from a mathematical theory, contextual generalization rhetoric is based on understanding of the historical and institutional context, and constructive generalization relies on the diffusion of innovation. Combining the often silenced opportunities of contextual or constructive generalization rhetorics in case studies, and noticing the typically omitted problems of statistical generalization rhetoric, argues that these research approaches are not as far from each other as current methodological discussion would suggest. On the contrary, argues that in terms of generalization, both case and statistical studies face the same obstacles of justifying real induction, and both approaches, if conducted properly, have a chance of producing results that are generalizable to some extent.

Explores the possibilities that accounting could become a resource in a movement towards fairer and more just societies. Considers specifically the ways in which mainstream management accounting textbooks, as tools of management accounting education, have the effect of encouraging students of the discipline to be unaware, unquestioning and uncritical of the social and organizational effects of management accounting practice. Aims to explore, through illustrations from a leading mainstream management accounting text, both the obvious and the more subtle ways in which such texts can inculcate these future practitioners with norms of practice that preclude management accounting’s emancipatory role in society. Considers in the course of this analysis the described purpose of management accounting; the assumptions made about human behaviour; the presentation of class structures and interests; and the importance of cultural specificity when considering management accounting. Counter‐illustrations are offered of how accounting educators might move towards encouraging students to consider accounting’s enabling possibilities. Finally, suggests areas for further investigation and effort which are material to the development of an enabling accounting.