What can(not) a flat and local structuration ontology do for management accounting research? A comment on Coad, Jack and Kholeif

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on “Structuration theory: reflections on its further potential for management accounting research”, a paper by Coad et al.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper presents, discusses and challenges the critique that Coad et al. direct towards the notion of a flat and local structuration ontology in management accounting research.

Findings

This paper offers a number of reflections upon Coad et al.’s key arguments against a flat and local structuration ontology in extant accounting research. Based on the authors’ understanding of such an ontology, they also elaborate on what they believe a flat and local structuration ontology “can do” and “cannot do” for accounting research. Overall, the authors agree with Coad et al. that there is indeed an ontological divide between their different views on a flat and local ontology; a divide largely related to whether researchers have an essentialist view on social phenomena. However, the authors believe that Coad et al. exaggerate how this ontological divide has affected, and may affect, future empirical management accounting research.

Originality/value

This paper expands the current understanding of a flat and local structuration ontology in management accounting research.

Citation

Englund, H. and Gerdin, J. (2016), "What can(not) a flat and local structuration ontology do for management accounting research? A comment on Coad, Jack and Kholeif", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 252-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-02-2016-0012