Search results

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a paradigmatic foundation for educators to prepare students of management accounting for the new demands of the role of trusted business partner in practice.

The paper argues for the use of pragmatic constructivism as a basis for development of a paradigmatic foundation for educating advanced students of management accounting. Furthermore, it contains an empirical insight through a case example of how pragmatic constructivism can be used as a pedagogical tool in different management accounting educational situations.

The analysis shows how pragmatic constructivism can be used as a less reductionist paradigm than realism to tackle the research-teaching-practice deficiencies found in conventional thinking on accounting education. Pragmatic constructivism is shown to provide important methodological and conceptual elements in developing, understanding and guiding the application of management accounting techniques in dynamic business practices. Placing an emphasis on teaching methodological skills relevant for management accountants is shown to have an important impact on students and their ability to act as business partners.

The analysis is exploratory in the sense that a new paradigmatic framework for educating students of management accounting to be business partners is outlined and illustrated through its implementation in a specific master’s degree programme. However, this analysis should be viewed as only a first step towards developing pragmatic constructivism as a paradigmatic foundation for teaching management accounting as a basis for a business partner role.

The proposed use of research on pragmatic constructivism as a basis for management accounting education to support a future business partner role is novel in the literature on management accounting. The value of its application lies in its potential to create successful utilisation of the practices of management accounting.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the meaning of social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk from which disaster risk policy can be analysed. In particular, the paper attempts to explore the implications of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk which is essential in explaining why disaster risk has different nuances and consequently policy responses.

A literature survey was used to explore social constructivism and objectivism within the context of disaster risk. The survey involved documentary searches from academic books, journal articles and disaster risk reports to serve as primary research data.

The analysis revealed that viewing and managing disasters through the lens of objectivism might not yield the desired results of minimising risk as it conceals the vulnerabilities to disaster risk. The objectivist perspective is therefore in itself considered inadequate for the study of disaster risk and that social constructivist assumptions are required in order to analyse disaster risk. Towards this end, social constructivism offers a discursive approach to disaster risk policy science; one that more optimally illuminates competing local perspectives.

An epistemological and ontological assessment of social constructivism and objectivism in disaster risk can assist greatly in understanding the discursive dimension of disaster risk through explanations of how and why disasters are framed the way they are framed and the implications of this on policy formulation and implementation.

This paper aims to examine Socratic dialogue in asynchronous online discussions in relation to constructivism. The links between theory and practice in teaching are to be discussed whilst tracing the origins of Socratic dialogue and recent trends and use of seminar in research based institutions.

Many online degree courses employ asynchronous discussions where the teacher, acting as a moderator, is seen as the guide on the side rather than the sage on the stage. Such an approach, employing collaborative learning, is often described as constructivist. Practitioners may see the term constructivist as simply a convenient label to describe a range of effective teaching practices. Even when it is said that knowledge is constructed, this may be viewed as little more than a metaphor. There are however, behind these labels, epistemological theories such as radical constructivism and social constructivism which pose serious challenges to traditional views that perception is guided by contact with an independent reality and that science involves a search for objective truth. Many significant philosophical objections can be raised against these theories. The links between the theory and teaching practices of proven value are tenuous. There is an alternative explanation of the origins of teaching practices associated with asynchronous discussions.

Asynchronous discussion makes it possible for all students to make an initial written contribution based on both research and industry experience, as well as an extensive participation in a written debate. The relative ease of assessing contributions to a written debate helps overcome the problem of the seminar where only one person may get credit for his or her contribution. Contributions can to a great extent be made when it is convenient for both moderator and students.

The present study has considered the case of one institution; it will be useful to examine it for many.

Asynchronous online discussion is one of the highest forms of Socratic dialogue.

This is a different approach to the traditional belief and new ideas for consideration are presented. The Socratic dialogue has been developed as both an oral and written tradition from the works of authors like Plato, through to the development of the medieval university with its disputations and oral examinations, the introduction of seminars in research based universities inspired by Humboldt, the development of scholarly journals, and on to the asynchronous online discussions in the era of the Web.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework (pragmatic constructivism) for a new paradigm for accounting practice. The paradigmatic base of practice is an important element in explaining, understanding, justifying and defending practice.

The paper is designed to argue the case for the use of pragmatic constructivism as a basis for the development of a paradigmatic foundation of accounting practice. To achieve this, pragmatic constructivism is explained and its application to accounting is illustrated and contrasted with the traditional paradigm of realism.

The analysis shows how the use of a less reductionist paradigm than realism can assist accountants both in the creation of a rationale and a defence for practice.

The analysis is exploratory in the sense that a new paradigmatic framework is outlined and used to illustrate its potential to develop a paradigm for practice. The creation of a full practice paradigm for accounting is beyond the scope of one paper. Hence this analysis should be viewed as only a first step towards developing a paradigm of accounting practice.

The proposal of pragmatic constructivism for this purpose is novel to the accounting literature. The value of its application lies in its potential to explain and defend accounting practice.

This paper aims to provide a review of the two often-confusing learning theories: constructivism and constructionism. It then presents their similarities and differences by identifying various learning dimensions of the two philosophies. The authors then develop a teaching-learning framework that integrates those dimensions. The authors have also implemented the framework in two information technology (IT) courses and obtained students’ feedback that relate to various learning dimensions of both of the two philosophies.

The authors review existing literature to understand the difference between constructivism and constructionism and develop a list of learning dimensions that can be applied to classroom education. They then discuss the background information or tools necessary to develop a teaching-learning framework and apply that framework through a case study. They finally present the results.

A constructivist teacher sets up the learning environment for students that fosters individual learning and presents a problem to be solved, while the students go on their own way to produce a personally meaningful artifact without any further teacher’s intervention. On the other hand, the constructionist teacher sets up the environment for collaborative learning for students, then he or she defines the problem to be solved and the meaningful end product to be developed, and then guides them to reach towards the goal. Student assessment supports this difference.

Researchers and teachers should look carefully which methodology they are discussing and which one they are applying. They can further the authors’ research in a different angle than the authors did by finding the learning dimensions.

Teachers should use constructionist approach to set up their classroom and guide their students throughout the course time, such that students can work collaboratively on a project to learn the important concepts to be developed. They should also use appropriate tools and technologies that enhance classroom activities and learning. Teacher should act as a guide/facilitator or a project manager to plan for the classroom/project and monitoring and controlling project/class throughout the semester.

Understanding the critical differences between the two learning philosophies, educators in all levels should be clear how to set up their classrooms – from kindergarten to university education, such that all students can develop their knowledge not only through personal cognition but also through interaction with others. A collaborative environment produces knowledgeable people in the society with better understanding and respect toward each other.

Collaborative learning environment provides a better learning opportunity over personal cognition – a major enhancement in constructionism over constructivism. Sharing the creation process as well as the product, and the use of various tools and technologies in the development process, provide a better understanding of a subject matter. The discussions and results presented here might bring some insights to the instructors who might be contemplating to implement the educational philosophies of constructivism or constructionism, or intermixing of the two in their classrooms.

Many educators have advocated constructivist‐based pedagogies as a way to develop the skills needed in knowledge societies. However, many countries have a tradition of instructivist‐based practices, which rely on didactic lectures, rote memorization and high‐stakes exams. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize the reactions to constructivist‐based pedagogy in instructivist‐based learning cultures.

The author employs a literature review to compare the philosophical and pedagogical differences between constructivism and instructivism, and proposes a conceptual model for introducing constructivist‐based pedagogies into instructivist learning cultures.

The needs of teachers, students, and institutions intersect during pedagogical innovations, which take place within national systems. The alignment between students' and teachers' educational philosophies, as well as an institutional system's resources, policy, and culture can bring conflict or congruence, as teachers, students, administrators and other stakeholders dismiss, adapt, ignore or celebrate the (mis)alignment.

The model described in this paper is intended to serve as a guide for educators who are introducing innovative pedagogies in a variety of settings, and will continued to be validated through a design‐research study in Oman.

Describes the basic premises of three metatheories that represent important or emerging perspectives on information seeking, retrieval and knowledge formation in information science: constructivism, collectivism, and constructionism.

Presents a literature‐based conceptual analysis. Pinpoints the differences between the positions in their conceptions of language and the nature and origin of knowledge.

Each of the three metatheories addresses and solves specific types of research questions and design problems. The metatheories thus complement one another. Each of the three metatheories encourages and constitutes a distinctive type of research and learning.

Outlines each metatheory's specific fields of application.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a response to a comment written by Richard Laughlin on a previous paper by the authors, which appeared in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume 23 Number 6.

The paper addresses three issues central to the analysis of the comment on their past paper.

In addressing each of the issues in turn the authors clarify their analysis.

The paper provides an argument for the development of a paradigm for accounting practice derived from the use of pragmatic constructivism.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the practice paradigm of pragmatic constructivism.

Pragmatic constructivism emphasizes the role of the actors in the construction of organized reality. For such construct to function successfully, four dimensions of reality must be integrated in the actor-world relations.

This includes an examination of pragmatic constructivist theory as an alternative to traditional realism and critical theories of organizational reality. The papers of the special issue include methodological, conceptual and empirical studies to expand the understanding of management accounting in relation to the actors’ construction of functioning organizational practices.

As pragmatic constructivism is a relatively new paradigm, there is a need for further methodological and conceptual development and empirical studies of functioning practices.

In a discipline such as management accounting that can be theoretically polarized between the “realist” scientific mainstream and social constructivist criticism, pragmatic constructivism offers a mediating model in which realism is retained as the pragmatic criteria of success of the organizational actors’ construction.

This article aims to explain the role of philosophical anchors and research paradigms in business research, and how they can be extrapolated in the transformative era of automation, digitalization, hyperconnectivity, obligations, globalization and sustainability (ADHOGS) in the midst of disruption, volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (DVUCA).

This article entails a general review based on the 3Es of exposure, expertise and experience, delving into the ontological, epistemological, methodological, axiological and rhetorical aspects of the major research paradigms—i.e. positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, interpretivism and pragmatism—and their interplay with the emergent trends shaping business research.

This article underscores the multifaceted nature of business research in the modern day, with an increasing need for blending, or shifting between, research paradigms to address the complex issues arising from automation, digitalization, hyperconnectivity, obligations, globalization and sustainability (ADHOGS). This article also highlights the nuanced interplay between research paradigms and theoretical perspectives, demonstrating the rich, diverse potential of business research inquiries.

While this article provides a broad overview of the interplay between research paradigms and emerging trends, future research could explore each of these interplays in greater detail, conducting empirical studies or utilizing specific case studies.

Researchers and practitioners should be open to adopting, combining or switching between different paradigms according to the demands of their research questions, context and trends shaping the business landscape, thereby underscoring the need for methodological flexibility and reflexivity in business research.

The shift toward embracing digital transformations and integrating sustainability in business research holds significant implications, driving socially responsible and sustainable business practices at the micro-level, and by extension, industrial revolution and sustainable development at the macro-level.

This article offers a holistic and contextualized view of the philosophy of science and research paradigms for business research, bridging the gap between philosophical foundations and contemporary research trends.