روش شناسی کیفی در تحقیقات حسابداری مدیریت با تأکید بر چالش ها و فرصت ها
محورهای موضوعی : حسابداری مدیریت
مونا عابدنظری
1
(دکتری حسابداری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران)
حامد آراد
2
(دکتری حسابداری دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران و عضو هئیت علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد لاهیجان ،لاهیجان،ایران)
کلید واژه: پژوهش های کیفی, حسابداری مدیریت, چالش ها و فرصت ها,
چکیده مقاله :
اخیراً تحقیقات حسابداری به سمت روش شناسی کیفی گام برداشته است به نحوی که توسعه مبانی و بسط اندیشه های کیفی و رفتاری در متن پژوهش ها، با توجه به ناشناخته و متغییر بودن مولفه های رفتاری، پژوهشگران این حوزه را با چالش هایی مواجه نموده است. در نوشتار حاضر با تاکید بر رویکرد آرشیوی و استفاده از منابع نظری و عملی متعدد به بررسی کلی ساختار و منطق پژوهش های کیفی در زمینه حسابداری مدیریت و همچنین نقش پژوهش های کیفی که منجر به ارائه نظریه های حسابداری مدیریت گردیده و اصول و راهنمای کلی جهت انجام پژوهش هایی از این دست پرداخته شده است. تأکید نوشتار حاضر بر شناسایی مشکلات و چالش های رایج پژوهش های کیفی و ارائه راه کارهایی برای بهبود و پر کردن آن است. نقدهایی همچون 1) انتزاعی بودن آمار از واقعیت، 2) شبیه سازی، 3) ناتوانی در آشکار سازی ابعاد واقعی یک پدیده و 4) عدم دقت در روش های کمی و مسائلی دیگر همچون سنجش مفاهیم، تعیین علیت، قابلیت تعمیم نتایج، تکرار پذیری و تمرکز بر افراد این سبک از پژوهش ها را مورد توجه محافل حرفه ای قرار داده است. قابلیت های خاص این سبک از مطالعات از طریق کیفی نگری در تحقیق و در موقعیت های مختلف می توانند ما را به سوی خلق دانش منسجم تر، معتبر، مرتبط و رهایی بخش در زمینه حسابداری مدیریت رهنمون باشند، موضوعی که در چند سال اخیر در کشور مورد توجه بیشتری قرار گرفته و رشد کمی پژوهش های کیفی در حسابداری مدیریت چنان بوده است که به عنوان یک پارادایم نوین در تحقیقات می توان از آن یاد نمود.
Recently, accounting research has moved towards qualitative methodology, and thus the researchers in the field have faced some challenges due to the development of the foundations and the extension of qualitative and behavioral ideas in the research context given the unknown and variable nature of behavioral components.Focusing on an archival approach and the use of multiple theoretical and practical resources, the present study aimed to investigate the structure and logic of qualitative research in the field of management accounting as well as the role of qualitative research that led to the presentation of management accounting theory and general guidelines and principles to carry out such research.The present study emphasizes the identification of common challenges and problems facing qualitative research in order to provide some solutions to improve the quality of such research. Criticisms such as 1) the abstract nature of statistics in contrast to the reality, 2) the use of simulation, 3) the failure to reveal the real aspects of phenomena, and 4) inaccuracy of quantitative methods and other issues such as the measurement of concepts, causation, generalizability, repeatability, and focus on people have made qualitative research gain popularity among the practical circles.The special capabilities of such research methodology such as qualitative thinking in research and in different situations can direct us towards the creation of a more coherent, valid, relevant, and emancipating body of knowledge in the field of management accounting, a theme that has received more prominent in our country over the last few years, and the quantitative growth of qualitative research in management accounting has been to the extent that it can be regarded as a new research paradigm.
* ثقفی، علی و برزگر، قدرت اله (1390)، تحقیقات حسابداری مدیریت، با تاکید بر روش تحقیق کیفی، فصلنامه مطالعات حسابداری و حسابرسی، شماره 1.
* رهنمای رودپشتی، فریدون و علی اصغر طاهرآبادی (1389)، مشکلات تعامل بین تحقیقات، آموزش و حرفه حسابداری و ارائه یک الگوی جدید، فصلنامه دانش و پژوهش حسابداری، شماره 21، صص از 12 تا 17 و 63 تا 65.
* صالحی، اله کرم، احمدی، محمد علی، هاشمی بلمیری، سمیرا (1396)، تحقیقات کیفی در حسابداری مدیریت با تاکید بر مبانی فلسفی، فصلنامه پژوهش حسابداری، شماره 25، صص 35-55.
* نمازی محمد ( 1385-1386)، چالشها و فرصتهای حسابداری مدیریت، ماهنامه حسابدار شمارههای 180 و 181.
* نیکو مرام، هاشم و فریدون رهنمای رودپشتی و علی بیات (1388)، بررسی دلایل کمبود پژوهشهای تجربی انجام شده در حوزه حسابداری مدیریت در ایران، مجله حسابداری مدیریت، شماره 2.
* Ahrens, T. (2007), “Overcoming the subjective-objective divide in interpretive management accounting research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33, pp. 292-7.
* Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C. (2006), “Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 819-41.
* Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C. (2002), “The structuration of legitimate performance measures and management: day-to-day contests of accountability in a UK restaurant chain”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 151-71.
* Ahrens, T. and Dent, J. (1998), “Accounting and organizations: realizing the richness of field research”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 1-39.
* Armstrong, P. (2007), “Calling out for more: comment on the future of interpretive accounting research”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting (in press).
* Baxter, J. and Chua, W. F. (2003). "Alternative management accounting research – whence and whither", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28, pp. .97-126
* Baxter, J. and Chua, W.F. (2008), “The field researcher as author-writer”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 101-121.
* Birnberg, J., Shields, M. and Young, S. (1990), “The case for multiple methods in empirical management accounting research (with an illustration from budget setting)”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Fall, pp. 33-66.
* Briers, M. and Chua, W.F. (2001), “The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change: a field study of an implementation of activity-based costing”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 26, pp. 237-9.
* Burns, J. and Vaivio, J. (2001), “Management accounting change”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12, pp. 389-402.
* Chua, W.F. (1986), “Radical developments in accounting thought”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 61. No. 4, pp. 601-632.
* Clegg, S. and Palmer, G. (Eds) (1996), The Politics of Management Knowledge, Sage, London.
* Cooper, R. and Kaplan, R. (1988), “Measure cost right: make the right decision”, Harvard Business Review, September/October, pp. 96-103.
* DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1991), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, in Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 63-82.
* Delattre Miguel, Ocler Rodolphe, Moulette Pascal and Rymeyko Karine (2009). "Singularity of Qualitative Research: From Collecting Information to Producing Results" ,Tamara Journal, Vol 7 Issue 7. 3 (March)
* Dyer, W.G. and Wilkins, A.L. (1991), “Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: a rejoinder to Eishenhart”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 613-9.
* Eisenhart, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 532-50.
* Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2008), Qualitative Methods in Business Research, Sage, London.
* Ezzamel, M. (1994), “Organizational change and accounting: understanding the budgeting system in its organizational context”, Organization Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 213-40.
* Ferreira, L. and Merchant, K. (1992), “Field research in management accounting and control: a review and evaluation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 3-34.
* Garrett, D. and Hodkinson, P. (1998), “Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? Hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 515-539.
* Hope, J. and Fraser, R. (2003), “Who needs budgets?”, Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 108-15.
* Hopwood, A. (1983), “On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8, pp. 287-305.
* Hopwood, A. (1986), “Management accounting and organizational action: an introduction”, in Bromwich, M. and Hopwood, A. (Eds), Research and Current Issues in Management Accounting, Pitman, London, pp. 9-30.
* Hopwood, A. (2008), “Management Accounting Research in a Changing World”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20, pp. 3-13.
* Humphrey, C. and Scapens, R. (1996), “Methodological themes – theories and case studies of organizational accounting practices: limitation or liberation?”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 86-106.
* Institute of Management Accountant, (2008), Definition of Management Accounting Retrieved December 2012.
* Jackson, B. (2001), Management Gurus and Management Fashions, Routledge, London.
* Jazayeri, M. and Hopper, T. (1999), “Management accounting within world class manufacturing: a case study”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 263-301.
* Johnson, H. and Kaplan, R. (1987), Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
* Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M-L., Lukka, K. and Kuorikoski, J. (2008a), “Straddling between paradigms: a naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 267-91.
* Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M-L., Lukka, K. and Kuorikoski, J. (2008b), “No premature closures of debates, please: a response to Ahrens”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 298-301.
* Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996), “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system”, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 75-85.
* Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2001), The Strategy Focused Organization. How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
* Kasurinen, T. (2002), “Exploring management accounting change: the case of a balanced scorecard implementation”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13, pp. 323-43.
* Keating, P.J. (1995), “A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 66-86.
* Kihn, Lili-Anne and Ihantola Eeva-Mari , (2015),"Approaches to validation and evaluation in qualitative studies of management accounting", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 230 - 255.
* Lambert, R. (2001), “Contracting theory and accounting”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 32, pp. 3-87.
* Laughlin, R. (1995), “Methodological themes – empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for ‘middle-range’ thinking”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 63-87.
* Lillis, A. (2006), “Reliability and validity in field study research”, in Hoque, Z. (Ed.), Methodological Issues in Accounting Research: Theories and Methods, Spiramus, London, pp. 461-475.
* Llewellyn, S. and Northcott, D. (2005), “The average hospital”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 555-83.
* Lukka, K. and Modell, S. (2010), “Validation in interpretive management accounting research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 462-477.
* McKinnon, J. (1988), “Reliability and validity in field research: some strategies and tactics”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 34-54.
* Macher, M. (1987), “The use of relative performance evaluation in organizations”, in Burns, W. Jr and Kaplan, R. (Eds), Accounting and Management: Field Study Perspectives, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 295-315.
* Machlup, F. (1967), “Theories of the firm: marginalist, behavioral, managerial”, American Economic Review, reprinted in Microeconomics – Selected Readings, Mansfield, E. (Eds), 4th ed., 1982. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, pp. 93-108.
* Macintosh, N. and Scapens, R. (1990), “Structuration theory in management accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 455-77.
* Major, M. and Hopper, T. (2005), “Managers divided: implementing ABC in a Portuguese telecommunications company”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 16, pp. 205-29.
* Malmi, T. (1997), “Towards explaining activity-based costing failure: accounting and control in a decentralized organization”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 459-80.
* Malmi, T. and Granlund, M. (2006), “In search of management accounting theory”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the European Accounting Association, Dublin, March.
* Merchant, K.A. and Van der Stede, W.A. (2006), “Field-based research in accounting: accomplishments and prospects”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 117-134.
* Merchant, K. (1987), “How and why firms disregard the controllability principle?”, in Bruns, W. Jr and Kaplan, R. (Eds), Accounting and Management: Field Study Perspectives, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 316-38.
* Modell, S. (2005), “Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research: an assessment of validity implications”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 16, pp. 231-54.
* Parker, L.D. (2012), “Qualitative management accounting research: assessing deliverables and relevance”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
* Polit D. F. and C. T. Back (2007). "Nursing Research: Principles and Methods",New Yourk , Edward Elgar.
* Ryan, B., Scapens, R.W. and Theobald, M. (2002), Research Method and Methodology in Finance and Accounting, 2nd ed., Thomson, London.
* Scapens, R. (1990), “Researching management accounting practice: the role of case study methods”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 22, pp. 259-81.
* Simons, R. (1987), “Planning, control and uncertainty: a process view”, in Burns, W. Jr and Kaplan, R. (Eds), Accounting and Management: Field Study Perspectives, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 339-62.
* Simons, R. (1991), “Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 49-62.
* Smith, J.K. and Hodkinson, P. (2005), “Relativism, criteria and politics”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks.
* Schwandt, T.A. (1996), “Farewell to criteriology”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 58-72.
* Vaivio, J. (2005), “‘Strategic’ non-financial measurement in an organizational context: a critique”, Accounting in Scandinavia – The Northern Lights, Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press, Kristianstad.
* Vaivio, J. (2006), “The accounting of ‘the meeting’: examining calculability within a ‘fluid’ local space”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31, pp. 735-62.
* Vaivio, J. (2008). “Qualitive Management Accounting Research: Rationale, Pitfalls and Potential”, Qualitive Research in Accounting and Management, vol.5 pp. 64-86.
* Young, S. and Selto, F. (1993), “Explaining cross-sectional workgroup performance differences in a JIT facility: a critical appraisal of a field-based study”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Fall, pp. 300-26
_||_