Structuration theory in accounting research: Applications and applicability

Ever since Giddens’ structuration theory (ST) was introduced into the accounting literature some 25 years ago, it has strengthened its position as one of the major schools of thought used to explore accounting as organizational, social and political phenomena. The purpose of this study is to review how ST has been applied, and can be applied, in this sizeable literature. Overall, the review of some 65 published papers, suggests that not only has ST contributed to challenge the assumptions of ‘inherent and functional’ features of accounting systems per se characterizing mainstream research, but also to develop other alternative theoretical perspectives. However, our review also suggests several limitations. These include that the accounting community has not really worked as a collective to develop a structurationist understanding of accounting practices, and that most researchers remain largely uncritical to ST as a theory. We also find that accounting scholars have not yet developed a mutual understanding of how to interpret ST (i.e. there are conceptual unclarities and even inconsistencies), or how to apply ST methodologically in empirical research. Based on these limitations, and the identification of a number of ‘black spots’ in the literature, we suggest several directions for future scholarly effort.     

Relating alternative forms of contingency fit to the appropriate methods to test them

At the core of contingency theory, a major theory in management accounting, is the concept of fit. We critically discuss forms of fit as presented in overview articles from the management accounting field, highlighting forms of fit that have not appeared in prior overview articles (matching fit with hetero-performance on the fit line and/or asymmetric effects of mis-fit on performance). We also address some confusing arguments in the literature concerning the moderation form of fit and what has been referred as the mediation form of fit. In a second step, we reevaluate the appropriateness of statistical techniques used to test sub-forms of fit, highlighting the difficulties in differentiating conclusively between them. Specifically, we present polynomial regression analysis (PRA) in conjunction with the response surface methodology (RSM) as a powerful methodological alternative and discuss its ability to differentiate between the sub-forms of fit. We also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of structural equation modeling (SEM) to test for forms of fit.     

An Analysis of Concepts and Evidence on the Question of Whether IFRS Should be Conservative

Do international accounting standards require conservative accounting? The IASB's conceptual framework suggests that they should not, while the research literature is largely silent on the matter, typically presuming conservatism to be an outcome of private contracting rather than standardized, public, general purpose financial reporting. In this paper, we analyze the actual requirements of IFRS. We find multiple examples of recognition requirements that lead to unconditional conservatism, measurement requirements that lead to conditional conservatism, and also presentation/disclosure requirements that further support a conservative reporting environment. These findings complement, support and deepen existing evidence in the empirical literature that accounting is in practice conservative. We show, however, that the requirements for conservatism in IFRS conflict with, first, the IASB's stated position in its conceptual framework that accounting should not be conservative and, second, the private contracting explanation for conservatism that is generally accepted in the literature. What is missing, and lies behind both conflicts, is an acknowledgement and understanding of the role of an agency/contracting perspective in enhancing the decision‐usefulness of general purpose accounting standards, given the information/incentive asymmetry and uncertainty that characterizes the real‐world context in which those standards operate. From a policy perspective, such an understanding would reconcile the IASB's conceptual framework with the actual requirements of IFRS. From a research literature perspective, such an understanding would re‐position accounting standards as central to the practice of accounting conservatism, which would in turn require revision to the generally accepted theory of a private contracting explanation for the empirical evidence of conservative accounting practice.     

Research horizons for public and private not‐for‐profit sector reporting: moving the bar in the right direction

The examination of public and private not‐for‐profit sector financial reporting has been a topic of interest on a cyclical basis in Australia over the last 30 years. Traditional topics have included examinations of the intended and unintended consequences of specific standards, the accountability value of financial reports, transaction neutrality, compliance with the accounting standards, and more recently, the prospective implications of new, differently focused reporting standards considering such issues as income measurement and outcomes reporting. With increased recent attention from standard setters and regulators, and greater data availability, the opportunities for undertaking impactful research in these and related areas are increasing. In this paper, we focus on research that has examined the following questions: (i) Which private and public NFPOs lodge financial reports and what is reported; (ii) Who are the users and what are their information needs? (iii) Which private and public NFPs should lodge financial reports and what should be included in them; and (iv) How should the accounting frameworks for NFP sector reporting be set? For each of these issues, we identify the research gaps and opportunities for further research.     

The moral potential of individualism and instrumental reason in accounting research

The dominance of positivism in accounting research is at the root of a deep malaise felt by many scholars. Although the methodological limitations of positivist research, as well as the political and cultural foundations of its hegemony, have regularly been highlighted in the literature, the merits of interdisciplinarity are still denied by the major institutions dominating the field. The present paper argues that the case in favor of academic pluralism is nonetheless worth pursuing, because not only it represents a central feature of the interdisciplinary identity, but also because it provides support to those engaged in a relentless (and sometimes successful) bid for greater openness in accounting research. The paper's main goal is to promote and further this endeavor by moving the line of argument off the beaten track of methodology and domination in order to focus on morality. The largely unexplored terrain of morality can be used as a basis for original arguments supportive of intellectual pluralism that may help to raise awareness of alternative research avenues and possibilities – though it is important not to harbor unrealistic hopes. Drawing on Charles Taylors’ view of modernity, we highlight the richer moral background from which the current stress in the discipline on individualistic values and instrumental reason took its rise. As a result, we provide the accounting mainstream with the perspective of an alternative framework for its research agenda by (re)adopting an ethic of compassion. Merchant's (2008) analysis of the marginalization of interdisciplinary research in North America will be used as a critical basis and starting-point for our argument.     

Accounting for privatisation in Africa? Reflections from a critical interdisciplinary perspective

The interrelation of privatisation and accounting constitutes a wide-ranging focus for research that is attractive from a critical theoretical and interdisciplinary perspective. A number of studies may be considered part of this focus in holding themselves out as types of evaluation of – or as an accounting, or accountability, for – privatisation. For us, the evaluation of privatisation programmes is properly a concern of critical accounting research and of those interested in the development of more holistic forms of accounting and auditing for appraisal, such as is envisaged in forms of social accounting and social auditing. Indeed the assessment of privatisation has been deemed within the ambit of the social audit movement. Privatisation in Africa is controversial. In today's context it is often integral to the particular form of the globalisation process and carries related ambiguities. Apparently something of a panacea for its advocates, it is problem-ridden for its critics. How should we account for privatisation in Africa? We promote the delineation of a holistic accounting evaluation model by reflecting on a critical review of research constituting accounts of privatisation in Africa. Of course such research, to the extent that it is holistic or comprehensive, would include attention to the mobilisation in context of various accountings as well as related practices of governance at micro- and macro-levels—in turn reflecting the sense in which accounting, along with related systems of governance, is pervasive in privatisation processes. While we find strengths in the research analysed and acknowledge its contribution, we point to deficiencies and gaps from a critical theoretical and interdisciplinary perspective. These gaps and deficiencies delimit policy discourse and praxis vis-à-vis privatisation in Africa and beyond. They also point to a more holistic accounting model of appraisal. We acknowledge the particularities of Africa, and indeed of the differing nations, cultures and regions of Africa, but also suggest the model's relevance not only for African contexts but beyond.     

Management accounting and integrated information systems: A literature review

In order to further advance research within management accounting and integrated information systems (IIS), an understanding of what research has already been done and what research is needed is of particular importance. The purpose of this paper is to uncover, classify and interpret current research within management accounting and IIS. This is done partly to identify research gaps and propose directions for future research and partly to guide researchers and practitioners investigating and making decisions on how to better synthesise the two areas. Based on the strengths of existing frameworks covering elements of management accounting and IIS a new and more comprehensive theoretical framework is developed. This is used as a basis for classifying and presentation of the reviewed literature in structured form. The outcome of the review is an identification of research gaps and a proposal of research opportunities within different research paradigms and with the use of different methods.     

Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting

This paper analyses interpretive research in management accounting from the perspective of naturalistic philosophy of science. We focus on the relation of interpretive research to the subjective/objective dichotomy appearing in the methodological literature of the social sciences. In management accounting research, it is often routinely assumed that interpretive studies, following the reasoning by Burrell and Morgan [Burrell, G., & Morgan. G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann], are based on subjectivism only. The major purpose of this paper is to give flesh to the existing debates around the nature of interpretive research with the help of in depth analysis of one example of such research in management accounting. Since abstract and general philosophical arguments are often used merely to cloud more relevant case specific issues concerning the focus of explanation and the nature of empirical evidence offered, our analysis aims at providing conceptual tools for articulating with greater precision what is being asserted in a given study. The specific target of the examination is the interpretive study by Dent [Dent, J. F. (1991). Accounting and organisational cultures: A field study of the emergence of a new organisational reality. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 16, 693–703], which is one of the highly appreciated and extensively quoted pieces of research picked from the interpretive management accounting literature. Our analysis indicates that though there certainly are, and needs to be, unique subjectivist features in interpretive studies as compared to more ‘objectivist’ approaches, there are also important similarities, and that the view of sociological paradigms as necessarily mutually exclusive does not hold water. Hence interpretive research straddles between paradigms. As we argue that interpretive studies, in addition to including subjectivist elements, also encompass objectivist features, we invert the typical social theory critique of ‘scientific’ (management) accounting research that it cannot be an objective ‘mirror of reality’ by claiming that interpretive studies cannot be exclusively subjectivist and still they remain theoretically relevant. Our philosophically tuned analysis explicates how concepts from different paradigms, such as interpretations, understanding meanings, and causality, can successfully co-exist and co-operate within a single study.     

Participation in budgeting: A critical anthropological approach

Accounting researchers adopting structural and post-structural interpretive approaches have long criticized mainstream assumptions about the enduring economic aspects of accounting systems, highlighting their roles in reflecting and shaping social realities that are contradictory, diverse, and changing. The paper aims to develop this critique by inquiring empirically and philosophically into the roles that constructing participation in budgeting might play in enhancing ‘ontological plurality’, that is, supporting actors’ perspectives, abilities and concerns which are generally excluded by structuring action to maximize private profits. It defines and elaborates a critical anthropological approach using Marx’s notion of ‘social praxis’ and Latour’s idea of ‘modes of existence’ to highlight the theoretical contribution of anthropologists exploring beyond traditional divides over social agency through studies of grassroots participative responses to contemporary socio-economic crises. Drawing on ethnographic data collected through a multiple site case study of eight worker cooperatives in Argentina, the paper analyses how reciprocal relations between the actors’ levels of agency in wider associative actions, and their degrees of participation in budgeting, caused gradual expansions in ontological plurality, moving the actors beyond their particular tensions and broader structural conflicts. Exploring the notion of ‘ontological movements’, the paper develops a continuum of participation and ontological pluralism in budgeting, which it argues contributes to the structural and post-structural interpretive accounting literatures through historical, constructive, and participative components.     

Governance,tax and folk tales

This paper develops a particular narratological approach to analyse a common category of narratives: individuals’ accounts of their organization’s context and purpose. In two phases of interview research with 45 senior UK accounting professionals (tax officials, tax advisors to, and tax directors of, multinational companies) we focus on a pivotal period in the governance of UK taxation. We advocate analysing what ordinarily could be called ‘real world’ narratives about this context (‘tax tales’) as if they were folk tales. This approach draws on an influential analysis of folk tales by Propp. Our theoretical contribution is to show how features of strong or dominant plots, of the kind that structure folk tales, also help accounting professionals to make sense of this complex governance environment. This helps us understand personal projects of sense making in a context that is technically, legally and morally complex and has implications for governance, for policy, and for accounting as a professional project.     

Generic Skills in Audit Education

The academic literature and higher education benchmark statements identify groups of skills that are desirable both for students seeking employment and for employers seeking to recruit students. Professional accounting education pronouncements also stipulate skills that are necessary for an individual to possess in order to act as a competent accountant and auditor. Through a questionnaire survey, this research examines: (i) which of these skills audit and accounting practitioners expect UK universities to teach; (ii) which skills audit and accounting academics believe are important for students to acquire; (iii) which skills audit academics believe that employers require; and (iv) which skills audit academics teach in the UK. Institutional theory is used to develop and interpret this research.     

Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet

The emergence of sustainable development as the complex notion through which social and environmental issues must be addressed – whether at policy, personal or organisational levels – has had a growing influence in the accounting literature. In addition to explorations of what sustainability may mean for accounting and finance, we have experienced a growth in both critiques of sustainability reporting (sic) and in experiments and speculations on how accounting for sustainability might advance. This growth – as with social and environmental accounting before it – has very properly attracted critique. One convergent theme in that critique has been a challenge that much of the realist and procedural baggage associated with conventional accounting is no longer apposite when seeking to account for sustainability. What may be required, is a more nuanced understanding of what ‘sustainability’ actually is and how, if at all, it can have any empirical meaning at the level of the organisation. This essay seeks to initiate an auto-critique of accounting for sustainability via an examination of meanings and contradictions in sustainable development which, in turn, leads towards a suggestion for the development of multiple and conditional narratives that whilst no longer realist or totalising, explicitly challenge the hegemonic claims of business movements in the arena of sustainability and sustainable development.     

Further critical reflections on a contribution to the methodological issues debate in accounting

Laughlin's (1995) contribution to the methodological issues debate in accounting (Laughlin R. Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for “middle-range” thinking. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 1995;8(1):53–87.) is often cited. Here, we assess and clarify the contribution, including in reflecting upon some critical reception. We initially provide an overview of Laughlin (1995), enhancing appreciation of this by relating it to prior work. We then appraise some previous critical assessments of Laughlin (1995) and take into consideration Laughlin's interaction therewith. We go on to elaborate our own critical appreciation. We conclude that Laughlin (1995) substantively provides for a number of insights that continue to be positive for the development of research into accounting and related practices. Developing our analysis, we indicate the continuing strengths of a German critical theoretical orientation in researching and developing theoretical appreciation of accounting and related practices today.     

The failure of accounting research to improve accounting practice: a problem of theory and lack of communication

There is anecdotal evidence to support the assertion that accounting research, or what is alleged to be research, is of little or no value to the practice of accounting, nor to the development of accounting as an academic discipline. The problem is not that efforts have not been made to conduct research, but rather there is a fundamental flaw in the accounting research process itself.Tricker suggests that the research process can be understood using two models. One is a set of relationships which “feed-forward”. That is, a known theory suggests a hypothesis, which is tested through the accumulation of data. If the hypothesis is proven to be true, it is added to the body of knowledge, enhancing the legitimacy of the underlying theory. The second model is intended to provide “feed-back”. That is, the real world is observed and a model of it is proposed, based on known theory. Data is collected and processed, and the model is refined. When the model is consistent with the real world and known theory, it is added to the body of knowledge. These research models depend on the existence of known theory for their usefulness.The central problem of accounting research is that there is no known theory to use as a reference for creating hypotheses or models to be empirically researched. The absence of theory can be seen in education, practice, and the research literature itself. Practitioners, for example, because of their training and lack of experience with and interest in research tend not to look to research findings to meet their professional needs. Accounting researchers, on the other hand, have created what appears to be a highly advanced research context which, in effect, is an environment dominated by sophisticated methodology, rather than theory. The research basically emulates the hard sciences, which makes its pursuit academically acceptable, but it lacks substance. This explains the failure of accounting research to improve accounting practice.     

Why is research on management accounting change not explicitly evolutionary? Taking the next step in the conceptualisation of management accounting change

In this article we discuss the evolutionary foundation of the OIE-guided management accounting change research building on the framework of [Scapens R.W. 1994. Never mind the gap: towards an institutional perspective on management accounting practice. Management Accounting Research, 5, 301–321.] and [Burns, J. and Scapens, R.W., 2000. Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework. Management Accounting Research, 11, 3–25.]. We argue that research on management accounting change should be based on evolutionary theory, but that the full potential of evolutionary theory has not yet been described or used in management accounting research. The conceptualisation and understanding of management accounting change can be improved and expanded if the evolutionary approach is developed beyond the general belief that it describes only small and gradual, often slow, changes. In this article we show that an evolutionary perspective on management accounting change implies that management accounting’s development is explained as the interaction between the evolutionary sub processes of retention (inheritance), variation and selection. Thus, both continuity and change are seen as evolutionary outcomes. These processes follow the cumulative causality that Charles Darwin proposed and Thorstein Veblen applied to the social sciences. Such a comprehensive theory, here labelled Universal Darwinism, must, however, be given substance with supporting details.     

Accounting and strategising: A case study from new product development

This paper explores the relationship between accounting and strategy in a context that is characterised by pluralistic demands and high uncertainty about outcomes. By way of an ethnographic field study in an R&D intensive company, we analyse new product development (NPD) projects and the way in which decisions and practices concerning these projects are accounted for. Building upon a practice theory perspective, we find that actors account for the appropriateness of NPD practices not only or primarily on the basis of accounting information, but also by “strategising”, i.e. by mobilising different strategic objectives to which these practices are supposed to contribute. We argue that this has to do with the ambiguous demands on NPD and the limits of calculability inherent in NPD design decisions. At the same time, accounting information is not necessarily irrelevant in such a case; it can enter the picture as a general understanding that guides actors’ strategising efforts by reminding them of the ultimate importance of financial numbers.     

Capitalist accountability and the British Industrial Revolution: The Carron Company, 1759–circa. 1850

The paper argues that accounting historians can help us to understand the origins of the British Industrial Revolution (BIR) by explaining the contribution of accounting to financial success. It re-examines the archive of the Carron Company (hereafter, ‘Carron’) from its formation in 1759 to around 1850 to explore the theory derived from Marx that class conflict, the capitalist mentality, its social relations of production, and accounts, drove the BIR. It shows that, contrary to the currently accepted view that Carron’s early financial accounts were a ‘shambles’, its partners used integrated financial and management accounts based on double entry bookkeeping to impose capitalist accountability on their managers and workers. The paper argues that zealous accounting was critical to Carron’s financial success because accountability for capital drove organisational and technical innovation and it underlay the partners’ early social solidarity. Carron’s partners worked collectively during the company’s difficult formative period up to the 1780s, using accounts to hold the managing partner and his subordinates accountable to them for the circulation of capital and to conduct class war against their workers. From the 1790s, the managing partner exploited a weakness in Carron’s system of corporate governance to understate its profits to demoralise other partners into selling their shares to give him control, which he used to divert a disproportionate share of its accumulating wealth to him and his family. The paper concludes that Carron’s history supports the Marxist theory that accounts played an important role in fuelling the BIR by giving capitalists a technology for controlling production for profit, what Marx called controlling the ‘valorization process’, and for promoting the social cohesion of capital. It calls on accounting historians to test this theory by revisiting the archives of other leading BIR firms, so that we can construct a history of this pivotal shift in the trajectory of world economic development on solid empirical foundations.     

Movements toward holism in futures inquiry

This article takes up the question of the various movements toward holism in futures inquiry. The Ken Wilber inspired integral futures, developed by Richard Slaughter and others, and put forth as the most comprehensive approach to-date, is critiqued and assessed. While Wilber's integral and the variant it has inspired in futures represent significant innovations, it also contains the tendency to un-necessarily close down, lock out or to sub-ordinate alternative conceptions of holism, what I term ‘Wilber-ism’. Wilber's ‘theory of everything’ and integral futures are analysed, re-assessed and re-situated in the context of the alternative approaches to holism that exist. What emerges is a rich view of potential genealogies and ontogenies as movements toward holism. One variant from the action research tradition, which I call ‘integrative foresight’, is put forward as an example of an alternative. The article concludes by proposing a process of dynamic dialogue between diverse conceptions of holism, which can at once honour the great diversity of approaches, while likewise continuing the journey of creating shared meaning and common understandings of the complex contexts in which futures inquiry works.