تبیین مدل درک ذهنی بودجه توسط مسئولان بودجه مستقر در دانشگاه ها و مؤسسات پژوهشی در ایران

محورهای موضوعی : حسابداری مدیریت

فرزانه جلالی علی آبادی ¹ , بیتا مشایخی ² , علی اصغر پورعزت ³ , عزت‌اله عباسیان ⁴

1 - دکتری حسابداری - دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران
2 - دانشیار گروه حسابداری- دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
3 - استاد گروه مدیریت اسلامی – دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
4 - دانشیار دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان، همدان، ایران

تاریخ دریافت : 1395/10/20 تاریخ پذیرش : 1396/01/15 تاریخ انتشار : 1396/10/01

کلید واژه: بودجه دانشگاه ها, درک ذهنی, نظریه داده بنیان, مذاکره, سوگیری در بودجه,

چکیده مقاله :

نظر به اهمیت تدوین بودجه بخش عمومی در ایران در تحقیق حاضر قصد داریم به تبیین مدل ذهنی درک بودجه‌ریزی توسط مسئولان بودجه مستقر در دانشگاه ها و مؤسسات پژوهشی در ایران بپردازیم. این تحقیق با بکارگیری روش نظریه داده بنیان، و با استفاده از مصاحبه های ساختارنیافته و عمیق با مسئولان بودجه دانشگاه ها و موسسات پژوهشی و کدگذاری های باز، محوری و گزینشی انجام شده است. جهت کدگذاری داده ها در تحقیق حاضر از نرم افزار MAXQDA نسخه 10 استفاده شده است و سپس کدهای استخراج شده از متون در نرم افزار اکسل نسخه 2013 مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفته است. نتایج تحقیق حاکی از این است که پدیده محوری در درک ذهنی از بودجه در میان مسئولان بخش بودجه دانشگاه ها و مؤسسات پژوهشی، "مذاکره ای بودن بودجه" است که تحت شرایط علی و راهبردهای آن قابل تبیین است و پیامد این درک ذهنی "سوگیری" در تدوین بودجه از جانب تدوین کنندگان بودجه می باشد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Due to the importance of public budget in Iran, the aim of this research is to develop a model for intellectual perception of those who are involved in budget preparation at Iranian universities. For this purpose, using Grounded Theory Method and deep and unstructured interviews with the people who are directly involved in the budget preparation process at the sample Iranian universities, we established a paradigm model containing causal conditions, axial phenomenon, context, intervening conditions, action/interaction strategies, and the consequences. The research is done using MAXQDA software version 10 for open coding and Excel 2013 for axial and selective coding.After open, axial, and selective coding, it is extracted that the axial phenomenon in this research is "budgeting as a negotiation process". This axial phenomenon along with context and intervening conditions lead to some action or interaction strategies. Finally, the phenomenon of "slack in budget preparation" is appeared as the main consequence of this paradigm model.

منابع و مأخذ:

*      qualitative field research in management accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 819-841.

*      Al-Sughayer, S., & Essex Univ., C. (2002). Budgets and the Processes of Budgeting in Saudi Arabia: Dialectical Influences, Transformation and Consequences: University of Essex.

*      Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis [by]: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

*      Azkia, M., & Imani Jajarmi, H. (2011). Fundamental Research Methods Keyhan (In Persian).

*      Bleiki, N. (2012). Social Research Strategies (H. Agha Beig Pouri, Trans.  Vol. 2). Tehran: Jamee Shenasan (In Persian).

*      Bradshaw-Camball, P. (1989). The illusionists: reality construction during budget setting in a Canadian hospital.

*      Bruns, W. J., Jr., & Waterhouse, J. H. (1975). Budgetary Control and Organization Structure. Journal of Accounting Research, 13(2), 177-203.

*      Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1983). Budgeting as a means for control and loose coupling. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(4), 323-340.

*      Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1986). The budgetary process of power and politics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(3), 193-214.

*      Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1988). The use of budgetary symbols in the political arena: An historically informed field study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(1), 1-24.

*      Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., & Weiss, J. M. (2013). The social construction, challenge and transformation of a budgetary regime: The endogenization of welfare regulation by institutional entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(5), 333-364.

*      Danai far, H., Alvani, S. M., & Azar, A. (2009). Qualitative Methologies in Management: Comperhensive Approach (Vol. 3). Tehran: Saffar (In Persian).

*      Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

*      Gonçalves, S. (2014). The effects of participatory budgeting on municipal expenditures and infant mortality in Brazil. World Development, 53, 94-110.

*      Grønhaug, K., & Ims, K. O. J. (1991). Rhetoric and performance on the budgetary stage. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 3-15.

*      Ijiri, Y., J.C.Kinard, & F.B.Putney. (1968). An Integrated Evaluation System for Budget Forecasting and Operating Performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 1-11.

*      Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-360.

*      Kelly, J. M., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2003). Performance budgeting for state and local government: Me sharpe.

*      Markey, J. F. (1926). A Redefinition of social phenomena: giving a basis for comparative sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 733-743.

*      Mkasiwa, T. A. (2011). Accounting Changes and Budgeting Practices in the Tanzanian Central Government: A Theory of Struggling for Conformance: University of Southampton.

 

*      Mohammad Pour, A. (2010). Beyond Method- "Philosophical fundamentals of mix research method in social and behaviral science. Tehran: Jame Shenasan (In Persian).

*      Neuby, B. L. (1997). On the lack of a budget theory. Public Administration Quarterly, 131-142.

*      Panahi, A. (2007). Performance Budgeting: Theory and Practice. Tehran: Islamic Parlimant research office (In Persian).

*      Peffer, S. A. (1996). Budgeting as a Negotiation Process: The Effect of Information and Power on Performance, Planning and Budget Costs. Indiana University.  

*      Rhee, D.-Y. (2009). Performance-based budgeting: Reality or rhetoric? (3359454 Ph.D.), Rutgers The State University of New Jersey - Newark, Ann Arbor.  ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection database.

*      Rouillard, L. (1995). The budgetary process as an interpretation system: A study of budget practices in agencies of the government of Quebec. The George Washington University.  

*      Saketi, P., & Saidi, A. (2009). Chalanges and alternative of performance index utilization in Performance Based Budgeting application in Irainan higher education Paper presented at the 3rd conference on Performance Based Budgeting (In Persian).

*      Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15): Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

*      Swieringa, R. J., & Moncur, R. H. (1972). The Relationship between Managers' Budget-Oriented Behavior and Selected Attitude, Position, Size, and Performance Measures. Journal of Accounting Research, 10, 194-209. doi: 10.2307/2489874

*      Trimble, T. E. (2010). Determining Source-Based and Party-Based Perspectives in the Federal Budget Process: A Content Analysis of United States Executive, Congressional, and Agential Budget Communication from 1998-2000. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.  

*      Weber, M. (1949). Objectivity in social science and social policy. The methodology of the social sciences, 78, 50-112.

*      Wildavsky, A. (1964). The politics ofthe budgetary process. Boston: Little, Brown.

*      Wildavsky, A. (1986). Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of the Budgeting Process: Transaction Books.