مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد تنوع و اعتبار در پژوهش حسابداری مدیریت پوزیتیویسم – الزویر 2017

This paper assesses the development and state of positivist management accounting research (PMAR). Based on a content analysis of 375 papers published in nine accounting journals over four decades, we conclude that a diverse set of research methods and theories, along with a consideration of validity, are necessary prerequisites for the accumulation of knowledge on management accounting (MA) practice. In light of diversity, we examine the studies with regard to their contents, methods and theoretical perspectives. Our analyses on validity comprise multiple facets of internal, external, construct and statistical conclusion validity. Regarding diversity, our findings suggestthat PMAR has recently become narrower in terms of topics as it increasingly focuses on control issues. However, PMAR continues to rely on a variety of research methods and theoretical perspectives. Regarding validity, we find improvements for all four types of validity over time. However, potential for further progress persists. We discuss our findings in light of recent debates regarding the state of PMAR and highlight avenues for future research. Overall, we consider our study useful for assessing the discipline’s achievements and evaluating its future paths.

Introductio

n This paper analyses the diversity and validity in positivist management accounting research (PMAR) papers published in leading accounting journals over four decades. The study intends to advance our knowledge on the state and development of this field of research. We expect our paper to be useful for a critical assessment of past achievements and for a reflection on future avenues. In particular, recently expressed concerns regarding the path of management accounting (MA) research (e.g., Birnberg, 2009; Chow, 2010; Merchant, 2013; Salterio, 2015) emphasize the relevance of the insights provided by our study. Our notion of diversity refers to the employment of different research methods and theoretical perspectives for investigations of MApractices (Birnberg et al., 1990). Employing differenttheoretical perspectives is important as each theory relies on specific assumptions and thus explains MA phenomena only partially (Hoque et al., 2013; Luft and Shields, 2002). Similarly, reliance on different methods is important due to the limitations that each method implies (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2006; Shields, 2015). Illuminating a MA phenomenon from different perspectives thus appears more likely to contribute to a comprehensive understanding rather than to remain entrenched in one (Chapman, 2012; Davilla and Oyon, 2008;Hopwood, 2008b;Merchant et al., 2003).Validity refers to the approximate truth of knowledge claims gathered through PMAR (Shadish et al., 2002, p. 34). Even if MA practices are illuminated from different perspectives but with considerable inherent flaws, diversity is unlikely to advance our understanding in the intended manner. Therefore, we consider diversity and validity primary dimensions for evaluating PMAR. Consequently, these dimensions serve as a backbone of the content analysis of the 375 PMAR papers presented in this study. In light of recent debates on the state of MA research (e.g., Mittendorf, 2015; Scapens and Bromwich, 2010a), our evaluation focuses particularly on temporal trends. In so doing, we place the current state on a larger temporal scale to assess achievements and drawbacks. More precisely, we provide a comparative perspective on four periods. Our time frame reflects various watershed moments in the development of the discipline: The first period (1980–1982) captures the “empirical turn” of MA from a primarily normative discipline that relied on analytical modelling towards empirical research (Hopper et al., 2001; Klemstine and Maher, 1984).