Structuration theory and mediating concepts: Pitfalls and implications for management accounting research |
| |
Authors: | Hans Englund Jonas Gerdin |
| |
Institution: | aDepartment of Business Administration, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden |
| |
Abstract: | Giddens’ way of conceptualizing how structures work as both the medium for and outcome of human action – duality of structure – has been emphasized as a valuable point of departure when studying management accounting in its social context. However, we argue that in the literature there are different ways of using mediating concepts between social structure and action, whereby management accounting systems are conceptualized as both the medium for action, and human action as such. Using the often-cited article by Burns and Scapens Burns J, Scapens RW. Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework. Management Accounting Research 2000;11(1):3–25] as an illustrative example, we discuss theoretical and methodological consequences of these different ways of conceptualizing management accounting. A main conclusion is that when management accounting is defined through concurrently referring to both ‘virtual’ structures that generate action and the situated doings of individuals, structure and action risk becoming conflated and there is a risk of drawing erroneous conclusions about structural change or stability. The paper closes with some methodological suggestions as to how these problems can be avoided. |
| |
Keywords: | Rules Routines Institutional theory Structuration theory Duality Modality Scripts Structure Action Management accounting change |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|