Journal of Management Accounting Research

Journal of Management Accounting Research

Article Type: Commentary From: Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Volume 9, Issue 3

I am pleased to provide my perspective on the role for practice-relevant research in management accounting and how differing research methodologies, particularly qualitative research, might contribute to this endeavor. I begin with two caveats. First, I am not trained in what some (Vaivio, 2008) characterize as qualitative research. Thus, my comments on this front are necessarily that of an outsider looking in. Second, the views expressed in this commentary are my own and do not necessarily reflect the position of the American Accounting Association or its officers.

I have a broad view of what can be labelled as management accounting research – any work that advances our understanding how organizations collect, manage, and use information qualifies. Moreover, I strongly believe that we must utilize a mosaic of methods to make headway into understanding the many roles of management accounting; no one method is privileged in this regard. Descriptive studies (either of single organizations or a systematic survey) can help document the what. Theoretical work (which applies core findings in the “mother disciplines” of economics, psychology, and/or sociology in organizational contexts) can help us put these observations together into a coherent framework. Empirical research (survey based, archival, experimental, and simulations) can help us validate theories as well uncover patterns that provide the impetus for new theory. Case studies and other field-based research contribute by helping us understand the how and the why of management accounting practice. Thus, I view virtually all of management accounting research as relevant to practice even if the effects of the research on practice might not be immediate.

In a similar vein, I am enthused by theoretical work that points out a subtle interplay of economic forces in a stylized and abstract setting. I am equally enthused by a detailed description of, for example, how a firm transitioned from activity-based costing to an approach based on the theory of constraints. Thus, I think it is a mistake to rank research based on its relevance to practice. I also believe that no method is uniquely qualified to give us insights into practice. Qualitative research, because of its emphasis on the detailed workings of business processes and organizational forces might seem to be more relevant to practice, particularly when the research utilizes data gathered on-site. However, we should not mistake detail for insight. Ultimately, the value of research has to stem from its contribution to advancement of theory; as academics, our comparative advantage is to step back to generalize so that we might characterize the core forces at play. Thus, analytic work that speaks to the properties of performance measures is just as relevant to “practice” as is a detailed case study; in a like fashion, examining the reactions to a change in accounting system informs “theory” because it helps identify the underlying drivers of the choices and reactions of the various actors. I concur with Lillis (2008, p. 241) who states:

[…] the use of theories from organizational sociology, psychology and economics, in combination with patterns in organizational practice can constantly build upon and enrich the theoretical basis from which, ultimately, textbook and consultancy prescriptions materialize.

We do more harm than good when we elevate some research approaches or paradigms above others. By encouraging specialization (either in terms of method, topic, or practice orientation) such compartmentalization does not spur efforts to read widely. A narrow focus also reduces opportunities to exploit the relative strengths of alternative methods and leverage the insights to advance our collective understanding.

Ramji Balakrishnan