مطالعات حسابداری و حسابرسی

مطالعات حسابداری و حسابرسی

راهکارهای رفع شکاف بین تحقیق‌ های مبتنی بر اقتصاد و جامعه‌شناسی در حسابداری مدیریت

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
محمدباقر رسولخانی 1
پرستو دهپور 2
1 دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
10.22034/iaas.2025.230967
چکیده
این مقاله به بررسی شکاف موجود میان تحقیقات مبتنی بر اقتصاد و جامعه‌شناسی در حوزه حسابداری مدیریت می‌پردازد که غالباً به تفاوت‌های پارادایمی میان این دو رویکرد نسبت داده می‌شود. در دهه گذشته، گام‌های فزاینده‌ای برای رفع این شکاف برداشته شده است. مقاله حاضر تلاش‌های نوظهور برای هم‌راستا کردن این دو رویکرد در حسابداری مدیریت را مرور کرده و نحوه پیشرفت این تلاش‌ها و تحقیقات ترکیبی از تئوری‌های اقتصادی و نهادی را تحلیل می‌کند. رویکردهای تحقیقاتی عمده در این زمینه شامل رویکرد تعبیه اجتماعی، رویکرد تقابل تئوری و رویکرد واقع‌گرایی انتقادی هستند که همگی در تلاش برای نزدیکی دیدگاه‌های اقتصادی و اجتماعی در حسابداری مدیریت می‌باشند. یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که رویکرد واقع‌گرایی انتقادی برای حسابداری مدیریت مناسب‌تر است. این رویکرد، به‌ویژه در تلاش برای رفع محدودیت‌ها و نقاط ضعف رویکردهای پیشین مانند رویکرد تعبیه اجتماعی و تقابل تئوری، مزیت‌های خاصی دارد. در نهایت، هر سه رویکرد به دنبال دستیابی به یک دیدگاه یکپارچه اجتماعی و اقتصادی در حسابداری مدیریت هستند و میراث‌های قوی و پارادایمیک پژوهش‌های مبتنی بر اقتصاد و جامعه‌شناسی را در این حوزه به‌نمایش می‌گذارند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
حسابداری مدیریت
پارادایم‌‌ها
جامعه‌شناسی
اقتصاد
واقع‌گرایی انتقادی
  1. عظیمی یانچشمه، مجید؛ میرزائی، مهدی. (۱۳۹۹). بررسی پارادایم‌های پژوهش در حسابداری مدیریت. فصلنامه مطالعات حسابداری و حسابرسی، انجمن حسابداری ایران، 9(36)، 63–84. https://doi.org/10.22034/iaas.2020.128136
  2. Ansari, S., & Euske, K. J. (1987). Rational, rationalizing and reifying uses of accounting data in organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(6), 549–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(87)90008-0
  3. Ashraf, M. J., & Uddin, S. (2015). Military, “managers” and hegemonies of management accounting controls: A critical realist interpretation. Management Accounting Research, 29, 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2015.07.002
  4. Ashraf, M. J., & Uddin, S. (2016). New public management, cost savings and regressive effects: A case from a less developed country. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 41, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.07.002
  5. Baker, M., & Modell, S. (2019). Rethinking performativity: A critical realist analysis of accounting for corporate social responsibility. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(4), 930–956. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2017-3247
  6. Balakrishnan, R., Eldenburg, L., Krishnan, R., & Soderstrom, N. (2010). The influence of institutional constraints on outsourcing. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(4), 767–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2010.00381.x
  7. Barber, B. (1995). All economies are “embedded”: The career of a concept, and beyond. Social Research, 62(2), 387–413.
  8. Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds, UK: Leeds Books.
  9. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibilities of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.
  10. Bol, J. C., & Moers, F. (2010). The dynamics of incentive contracting: The role of learning in the diffusion process. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(8), 721–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2010.09.003
  11. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London, UK: Heinemann.
  12. Callon, M. (Ed.). (1998). The laws of the market. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
  13. Chua, W. F. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought. The Accounting Review, 61(4), 601–632.
  14. Chua, W. F. (2019). Radical developments in accounting thought? Reflections on positivism, the impact of rankings and research diversity. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 31(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-52377
  15. Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1983). Budgets as a means of control and loose coupling. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(4), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(83)90047-8
  16. Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., & Samuel, S. (2003a). Changes in the institutional environment and the institutions of governance: Extending the contributions of transaction cost economics within the management control literature. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(5), 417–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00061-2
  17. Covaleski, M. A., Evans III, J. H., Luft, J. L., & Shields, M. D. (2003b). Budgeting research: Three theoretical perspectives and criteria for selective integration. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15(1), 3–49. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2003.15.1.3
  18. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  19. Downward, P., & Mearman, A. (2007). Retroduction as mixed-methods triangulation in economic research: Reorienting economics into social science. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bel009
  20. Eldenburg, L., & Krishnan, R. (2008). The influence of ownership on accounting information expenditures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(3), 739–772. https://doi.org/10.1506/car.25.3.4
  21. Eldenburg, L. G., Gaertner, F. B., & Goodman, T. H. (2015). The influence of ownership and compensation practices on charitable activities. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(1), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12066
  22. Eldenburg, L., Krishnan, H. A., & Krishnan, R. (2017). Management accounting and control in the hospital industry: A review. Journal of Governmental & Nonprofit Accounting, 6(1), 52–91. https://doi.org/10.2308/ogna-51922
  23. Elder-Vass, D. (2010). The causal power of social structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The reality of social construction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2008). Transferring knowledge across sub-genres of the ABC implementation literature. Management Accounting Research, 19(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.01.002
  26. Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspective. Organization, 12(2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405051188
  27. Frederiksen, D. J., & Kringelum, L. B. (2021). Five potentials of critical realism in management and organization studies. Journal of Critical Realism, 20(1), 18–
  28. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structures: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311
  29. Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions: A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica, 35(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939203500101
  30. Holzhacker, M., Krishnan, R., & Mahlendorf, M. D. (2015). The impact of changes in regulation on cost behaviour. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(2), 534–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12082
  31. Hopper, T., & Major, M. (2007). Extending institutional analysis through theoretical triangulation: Regulation and activity-based costing in Portuguese telecommunications. European Accounting Review, 16(1), 59–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701265879
  32. Hopper, T., & Powell, A. (1985). Making sense of research into the organizational and social aspects of management accounting: A review of its underlying assumptions. Journal of Management Studies, 22(5), 429–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1985.tb00007.x
  33. Hoque, Z., Covaleski, M. A., & Gooneratne, T. N. (2013). Theoretical triangulation and pluralism in research methods in organizational and accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1170–1198. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2012-01024
  34. Kaidesoja, T. (2007). Exploring the concept of causal power in a critical realist tradition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(1), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2007.00324.x
  35. Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., & Kuorikoski, J. (2008). Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(2/3), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.12.003
  36. Khalifa, R., & Quattrone, P. (2008). The governance of accounting academia: Issues for a debate. European Accounting Review, 17(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180801971913
  37. Krippner, G. R., & Álvarez, A. S. (2007). Embeddedness and the intellectual projects of economic sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131647
  38. Lawani, A. (2021). Critical realism: What you should know and how to apply it. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(3), 320–333.
  39. Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. London, UK: Routledge.
  40. Lukka, K. (2010). The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.02.002
  41. Lukka, K. (2014). Exploring the possibilities for causal explanation in interpretive research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(7), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.06.002
  42. Lukka, K., & Granlund, M. (2002). The fragmented communication structure within the accounting academia: The case of activity-based costing research genres. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(1/2), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(00)00037-4
  43. Lukka, K., & Modell, S. (2010). Validation in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.10.004
  44. Malmi, T., & Granlund, M. (2009). In search of management accounting theory. European Accounting Review, 18(3), 597–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180902863779
  45. Merchant, K. A. (2010). Paradigms in accounting research: A view from North America. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 116–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.02.004
  46. Merchant, K. A., Van der Stede, W. A., & Zheng, L. (2003). Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: The case of organizational incentive systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2/3), 251–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00051-4
  47. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
  48. Modell, S. (2005). Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research: An assessment of validity implications. Management Accounting Research, 16(2), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2005.03.001
  49. Modell, S. (2009). In defense of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20(3), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.04.001
  50. Modell, S. (2010). Bridging the paradigm divide in management accounting research: The role of mixed methods approaches. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.02.005
  51. Modell, S. (2015). Theoretical triangulation and pluralism in accounting research: A critical realist critique. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(7), 1138–1150. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2014-1841
  52. Modell, S. (2020). Across the great divide: Bridging the gap between economics- and sociology-based research on management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 32(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-52567
  53. Modell, S., & Wiesel, F. (2008). Marketization and performance measurement in Swedish central government: A comparative institutionalist study. Abacus, 44(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2008.00262.x
  54. Ndemewah, S. R., & Hiebl, M. R. (2022). Management accounting research on Africa. European Accounting Review, 31(4), 1029–1057.
  55. Parker, L. D. (2012). Qualitative management accounting research: Assessing deliverables and relevance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(1), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2011.06.002
  56. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
  57. Sprenkeling, M., Geerdink, T., Slob, A., & Geurts, A. (2022). Bridging social and technical sciences: Introduction of the Societal Embeddedness Level. Energies, 15(17), 6252.
  58. Tsamenyi, M., Cullen, J., & González, J. M. G. (2006). Changes in accounting and financial information system in a Spanish electricity company: A new institutional theory analysis. Management Accounting Research, 17(4), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.002
  59. Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K. M. (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 759–780. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553252
  60. Tsoukas, H. (1989). The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308386
  61. Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1990). Positive accounting theory: A ten year perspective. The Accounting Review, 65(1), 131–156.
  62. Zimmerman, J. (2001). Conjectures regarding empirical management accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32(1/3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00023-4

 

مطالعات حسابداری و حسابرسی
دوره 14، شماره 54
تابستان 1404
صفحه 115-134