مقایسه نظریه دامنه و نظریه روش در پژوهشهای حسابداری مدیریت: با تاکید بر نظریه کنشگر- شبکه
محورهای موضوعی : حسابداری مدیریتشکراله خواجوی 1 , محمد حلاج 2 , کیانوش گنجی 3
1 - استاد حسابداری، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.
2 - دکتری حسابداری، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
3 - کارشناسی ارشد حسابداری، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: پژوهشهای حسابداری مدیریت, نظریه دامنه, نظریه روش, نظریه کنشگر- شبکه,
چکیده مقاله :
نظریه ها با توجه به کارکرد آنها در پژوهش به دو گروه نظریه های دامنه و نظریه های روش، قابل تفکیک هستند. نظریه دامنه به مجموعه مشخصی از دانش، درباره موضوعات بااهمیت در یک دامنه یا محدوده مشخص، مثل حسابداری مدیریت، اشاره دارد. در حالی که نظریه روش به عنوان یک سیستم مفهومی فراسطحی و ابزاری برای مطالعه موضوع یا موضوعات با اهمیت مورد اشاره در نظریه دامنه، معرفی می شود. هدف این پژوهش نیز تمایز قائل شدن بین نقش‌های این دو نظریه و بررسی ارتباط آنها در پژوهش حسابداری مدیریت است. یک چارچوب نظری مفروض برای روابط ممکن بین این دو نظریه با تاکید بر نظریه کنشگر- شبکه به عنوان یک نظریه روش برخواسته از علم جامعه‌شناسی، تدوین شد. همچنین، خاستگاه نظری بیشتر مطالعات بر نظریه روش تاکید دارد. هم نظریه های دامنه و هم نظریه های روش به دنبال پیشرفت بوده و روابط بین آنها نیز موجب بهبود این خواسته می شود.
The theories can be divided into two groups of the domain theories and the method theories based their roles on research. A domain theory refers to a particular set of knowledge on a substantive topic area situated in a field or domain such as management accounting, while a method theory can be defined as a meta-level conceptual system for studying the substantive issue(s) of the domain theory at hand. The purpose of this paper is to distinguish two roles of theories, domain theory and method theory, and examine their relationships in management accounting research. A conceptual framework for analyzing possible relationships between domain theories and method theories are developed based on the use of the actor-network theory that is originated from sociological science. The theoretical ambition of the most studies typically focused on domain theories. Both domain theories and method theories tend to be moving fields, and their interaction can add to this feature.
* بنی طالبی دهکردی، بهاره؛ رهنمای رودپشتی، فریدون؛ نیکومرام، هاشم؛ طالب نیا، قدرت الله (1394). تبیین نظریه کنشگر شبکه (ANT) در حسابداری از منظر دانش. فصلنامه دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت. سال چهارم. شماره شانزده. صص 119-130.
* ثقفی، علی؛ امیراصلانی، حامی (1379). مقدمهای بر مبانی نظری حسابداری مدیریت. مجله حسابرس، شماره 90، صص 34-43.
* خدامیپور، احمد؛ حسینی، سید رسول (1391). بررسی عوامل ناکامی تحقیقات تجربی در حسابداری مدیریت. مطالعات حسابداری و حسابرسی، شماره 5، صص 58-69.
* خواجوی، شکرالله؛ ناظمی، امین (1386). در جستجوی تئوری حسابداری مدیریت. مجله حسابرس، شماره 37، صص 64-71.
* رهنمای رودپشتی، فریدون؛ گودرزی، احمد. (1392). "حسابداری مدیریت انتقادی". فصلنامه دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت. سال دوم. شماره پنجم. صص 1-14.
* رهنمای رودپشتی، فریدون؛ یزدانی، شهره. (1388). "کاربرد تئوریهای روانشناسی در حسابداری". فصلنامه پژوهشهای حسابداری مالی و حسابرسی. سال اول. شماره چهارم. صص 1-19.
* نمازی، محمد. (1384). "بررسی کاربردهای تئوری نمایندگی در حسابداری مدیریت". مجله علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز. شماره 43. صص 147-164.
* Abrahamson, E. And Fairchild, G. (1999), “Management fashion: lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 708-740.
* 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. 6, pp. 819-841.
* Alcouffe, S., Berland, N., And Levant, Y. (2008). Actor-networks and the diffusion of management accounting innovations: A comparative study. Management Accounting Research, 19(1), 1-17.
* Andon, P., Baxter, J. and Chua, W.F. (2007), “Accounting change as relational drifting: a field study of experiments with performance measurement”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 273-308.
* Arnaboldi, M. and Azzone, G. (2010), “Constructing performance measurement in the public sector”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 266-282.
* Baxter, J. And Chua, W.F. (2008), “Be (com) ing the chief financial officer of an organisation: experimenting with Bourdieu’s practice theory”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 212-230.
* 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 No. 3, pp. 237-269.
* Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Guildford and King’s Lynn, Gower.
* Callon, M. (1986), “The scallops of St. Brieuc Bay. Some elements of a sociology of translation”, in Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 196-233.
* Christensen, M. and Skærbæk, P. (2007), “Framing and overflowing of public sector accountability innovations – a comparative study of reporting practices”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 101-132.
* Chua, W.F. (1995), “Experts, networks and inscriptions in the fabrication of accounting images: a story of the representation of three public hospitals”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2/3, pp. 111-145.
* Conrad, L. (2005), “A structuration analysis of accounting systems and systems of accountability in the privatised gas industry”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
* Cooper, D. and Hopper, T. (Eds) (1989), Critical Accounts: Reorientating Accounting Research, Palgrave MacMillan, London.
* Cowton, C.J. and Dopson, S. (2002), “Foucault’s prison? Management control in an automotive distributor”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 191-213.
* Cuganesan, S. and Lee, R. (2006), “Intra-organisational influences in procurement networks controls: the impacts of information technology”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 141-170.
* Dent, J.F. (1991), “Accounting and organizational cultures: a field study of the emergence of a new organizational reality”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 705-732.
* DiMaggio, P.J. (1995), “Comments on ‘What theory is not’”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 391-397.
* DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W. (1983), “‘The iron cage revisited’: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-160.
* Emsley, D. (2008), “Different interpretations of a ‘fixed’ concept: examining Juran’s cost of quality from an actor-network perspective”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 375-397.
* Flyvbjerg, B. (2001), Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can
* Succeed Again, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
* Granlund, M. (2001), “Towards explaining stability in and around management accounting systems”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 141-166.
* Gurd, B. (2008), “Structuration and middle-range theory – a case study of accounting during organizational change from different theoretical perspectives”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 523-543.
* Harman, G. (2009), the Prince of Networks. Bruno Latour and Metaphysics, re.press, Melbourne.
* Hopwood, A. (1978), “Towards an organizational perspective for the study of accounting and information systems”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
* Hopwood, A. (1983), “On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3, pp. 287-305.
* Hopwood, A. (1985), “The tale of a committee that never reported: disagreements on intertwining accounting with the social”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 361-377.
* Hopwood, A. (2002), “‘If only there were simple solutions, but there aren’t’: some reflections on Zimmerman’s critique of empirical management accounting research”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 777-785.
* Humphrey, C. and Scapens, R. (1996), “Theories and case studies of organizational accounting practices: limitation or liberation?” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 86-106.
* Hyvo¨ nen, T., Ja¨ rvinen, J. and Pellinen, J. (2008), “A virtual integration – the management control system in a multinational enterprise”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
* Ittner, C. And Larcker, D. (2001), “Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 349-410.
* Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (2002), “Empirical managerial accounting research: are we just describing management consulting practice”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 787-794.
* Johnson, H.T. And Kaplan, R.S. (1987), Relevance Lost: The Rise and fall of Management Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
* Joannides, V., And Berland, N. (2013). Constructing a research network: accounting knowledge in production. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(4), 512-538.
* Jones, T.C. and Dugdale, D. (2002), “The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of modernity”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 121-163.
* Justesen, L. and Mouritsen, J. (2011), “Effects of actor-network theory in accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 161-193.
* 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.
* Krishnan, R. (2010), “A multi-theoretical approach to management accounting research”, Plenary speech at the 7th EIASM conference on New Directions in Management Accounting, Brussels, 15-17 December.
* Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
* Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor – Network Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
* Lawrence, S., Alam, M. and Lowe, T. (1994), “The great experiment: financial management reform in the NZ health sector”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 68-95.
* Libby, T., Salterio, S. and Webb, A. (2004), “The Balanced Scorecard: the role of assurance and process accountability on managerial judgment”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 1075-1094.
* Llewellyn, S. (2003), “What counts as ‘theory’ in qualitative management and accounting research? Introducing five levels of theorizing”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 662-708.
* Lowe, A. (2000), “The construction of a network at Health Waikato. The ‘towards clinical budgeting’ Project”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 84-114.
* Luft, J. and Shields, M.D. (2002), “Zimmerman’s contentious conjectures: describing the present and prescribing the future of empirical management accounting research”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 795-803.
* Lukka, K. (2005), “Approaches to case research in management accounting: the nature of empirical intervention and theory linkage”, in Jo¨nsson, S. and Mouritsen, J. (Eds), Accounting in Scandinavia – The Northern Lights, Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, pp. 375-399.
* Lukka, K. (2010), “The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 110-115.
* Lukka, K. and Modell, S. (2010), “Validation in interpretive management accounting research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 462-477.
* Lukka, K. and Mouritsen, J. (2002), “Homogenity or heterogeneity of research in management accounting”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 805-811.
* Lukka, K. and Vinnari, J. (2014) "Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research." Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal Vol. 27 No.8, pp.1308-1338.
* Macintosh, N.B. and Scapens, R.W. (1990), “Structuration theory in management accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 455-477.
* Malmi, T. and Granlund, M. (2009a), “In search of management accounting theory”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 597-620.
* Malmi, T. and Granlund, M. (2009b), “Agreeing on problems, where are the solutions? A reply to Quattrone”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 631-639.
* Miller, P. (1991), “Accounting innovation beyond the enterprise: problematizing investment decisions and programming economic growth in the UK in the 1960s”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 733-762.
* Miller, P. and O’Leary, T. (1994), “Governing the calculable person”, in Hopwood, A.G. and Miller, P. (Eds), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 98-115.
* Miller, P., Kurunma¨ki, L. and O’Leary, T. (2008), “Accounting, hybrids and the management of risk”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 7/8, pp. 942-967.
* Modell, S. (2005), “Students as consumers? An institutional field-level analysis of the construction of performance measurement practices”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 537-563.
* Mouritsen, J., Hansen, A. and Hansen, C. (2001a), “Inter-organizational controls and organizational competencies: episodes around target cost management/functional analysis and open book accounting”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 221-244.
* Mouritsen, J., Hansen, A. and Hansen, C. (2009), “Short and long translations: management accounting calculations and innovation management”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 Nos 6/7, pp. 738-754.
* Pipan, T. and Czarniawska, B. (2010), “How to construct an actor-network: management accounting from idea to practice”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 243-251.
* Preston, A.M. (1992), “The birth of clinical accounting: a study of the emergence and transformations of discourses on costs and practices of accounting in US hospitals”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 63-100.
* Preston, A.M., Cooper, D.J. and Coombs, R.W. (1992), “Fabricating budgets: a study of the production of management budgeting in the National Health Service”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 561-593.
* Quattrone, P. (2009), “‘We have never been Post-modern’: on the search of management accounting theory”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 621-630.
* Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2004). Accounting theory. Cengage Learning EMEA.
* Richardson, A.J. (2012), “Paradigms, theory and management accounting practice: a comment on Parker ‘Qualitative management accounting research: assessing deliverables and relevance’ ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 83-88.
* Roberts, J. And Scapens, R.W. (1985), “Accounting systems and systems of accounting: understanding accounting practices in their organizational contexts”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 443-456.
* Robson, K. (1992), “Accounting numbers as ‘inscriptions’: action at a distance and the development of accounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 685-708.
* Rowe, C., Shields, M. and Birnberg, J. (2012), “Hardening soft accounting information: games for planning organizational change”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 260-279.
* Star, S. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989), “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 387-420.
* Vaivio, J. (2008), “Qualitative management accounting research: rationale, pitfalls and potential”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 64-86.
* Weick, K.I. (1995), “What theory is not, theorizing is”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 385-390.
* Wildavsky, A. (2002), Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes, Rev Ed., Transaction Publishers, and New Brunswick, NJ.
* Zimmerman, I.L. (2001), “Conjectures regarding empirical managerial accounting research”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 32 Nos 1/3, pp. 411-427