Implementation of inter-organisational mediums: synthesising framework as a design exemplar

Purpose This study aims to examine how gender is conceptualised and addressed within management accounting research, moving beyond its use as a mere “control variable” or “dummy variable”. It identifies dominant themes, highlights ongoing research gaps and proposes directions for developing more inclusive and critically engaged research. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review of gender-related studies in management accounting was conducted, covering articles published in ranked “accounting journals” between 1990 and 2024. Thematic analysis was applied to synthesise key findings and highlight research gaps. Findings The study identifies four dominant themes in the literature, revealing the persistent underrepresentation of gender-focused research in management accounting. While existing studies acknowledge gender, they largely focus on workplace dynamics and overlook how management accounting practices reflect, reinforce or challenge gendered structures. The study underscores the need for deeper theoretical engagement – particularly with feminist and intersectional perspectives – to critically assess gendered power dynamics in management accounting. Research limitations/implications This study provides an impetus for advancing gender research in management accounting by promoting theoretical diversification, methodological pluralism and greater attention to intersectional and contextual dimensions. Originality/value By synthesising existing research and identifying critical gaps, this study calls for a shift from viewing gender as a control or dummy variable towards a more integrated, theoretically informed and critically engaged approach to gender in management accounting.

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to characterize construction management research at the interface of explanatory science and design science.Design/methodology/approach – The dual nature of construction management research is analyzed by relating this field of research to natural science, design science and its interface. Research at the interface of explanatory science and design science is characterized by identifying studies published on this interface in high quality construction management journals.Findings – Research at this interface should focus on technological rules developed through testing in practical contexts as in design science as well as grounding in the explanatory sciences. The nature of testing technological rules is highly similar to the replication logic recommended for comparative case studies.Research limitations/implications – Developing and testing technological rules combines the design science and the explanatory science mode of knowledge production in construction manage...

Assessing the quality of evidence in empirical management accounting research: The case of survey studies

Doing Management Accounting Survey Research

Behavioral Implications of Management Accounting Practices: A Contemporary Issue in Management Accounting

As a tribute to Ray Levitt’s early computer science contributions, this paper presents the research methodology he and I in close collaboration with Barbara Hayes-Roth followed to develop the SightPlan system. This research methodology falls under the umbrella of what is known as “design science.” Design science concerns itself with designing and making artefacts to fulfil a purpose, and then testing and validating that they indeed are fit-for-purpose. Design science does not belong in the category of physical science or of fundamental science; instead, it falls in the category of the sciences of the artificial. This paper describes the methodological steps pursued in design science and in parallel illustrates how these steps were instantiated and what artefacts were produced in the course of developing the SightPlan system, a blackboard expert system that lays out temporary facilities on construction sites. The aims of this paper are to recognise Ray’s work as an advisor and researcher, reflect on and promote the use of design science in construction management and economics and thereby participate in the ongoing discussion on research methods in this journal, and illustrate to scholars in this field that research is an opportunistic endeavour.

Although empirical methods have gained momentum in the business research community lately, there has been little effort, so far, to utilize laboratory experiments for advancing the field of management accounting research. This article presents the state of the art in experimental management accounting research. First, the method’s current popularity amongst researchers in this field is established via a review of existing literature analyses covering empirical management accounting research. Second, a description of potential uses, designs and methodological limitations of laboratory experiments is given. Third, a comprehensive review of the relevant literature body, based on a specifically developed conceptual model, resulting in a map of topics and variables follows. Internationally there is evidence for the use of laboratory experiments for gaining further insights into both classical management accounting functions, decision influencing and decision facilitating. Furthermore, a wide body of research is available to further exploitation by the management accounting research community, emanating from the fields of individual decision making, decision support systems and management information systems.

Agent-Based Computational Economics in Management Accounting Research: Opportunities and Difficulties

Agent-based computational economics (ACE)—while adopted comparably widely in other domains of managerial science—is a rather novel paradigm for management accounting research (MAR). This paper provides an overview of opportunities and difficulties that ACE may have for research in management accounting and, in particular, introduces a framework that researchers in management accounting may employ when considering ACE as a paradigm for their particular research endeavor. The framework builds on the two interrelated paradigmatic elements of ACE: a set of theoretical assumptions on economic agents and the approach of agent-based modeling. Particular focus is put on contrasting opportunities and difficulties of ACE in comparison to other research methods employed in MAR. JEL Classifications: C63; D8; D91; M40.

The end of the 1980's has seen the effects of the active marketing of some “new products” which have resulted from management accounting research. This note examines issues raised by this innovation process and the implications for academics, practitioners and users of management accounting. One product of managerial accounting research will be examined in particular — activity based accounting (ABC). ABC is controversial and has been the subject of many academic, practitioner, management and newspaper publications in recent years (for example: Johnson and Kaplan (1987), Brimson (1986), Porter and Akers (1987)). To set the background to this note some of the main features of the innovation process will be outlined.

Purpose – This paper aims to examine the potential of strong structuration theory in management accounting research. Design/methodology/approach – The paper explains how the ontological perspective of strong structuration theory extends the work of Giddens and explores how the perspective overcomes a number of the limitations of existing management accounting research based on structuration theory. Findings – Strong structuration theory develops and extends the work of Giddens, providing greater insights into the role of agents, improves our understanding of the diffusion of accounting practices through organisational fields, adds to our knowledge of how artefacts are used in the production and reproduction of organisational life and improves research design. Research limitations/implications – Strong structuration theory provides clear guidance about management accounting case study research design, and suggests the potential for the accounting research community to engage more actively in debates about the development of structuration theory beyond the work of Giddens. Originality/value – This paper provides a clear explanation of the ontology of strong structuration theory, its implications for research design and how it holds the potential to overcome many of the limitations of earlier management accounting studies deploying structuration theory.

Mixed methods research (MMR) has grown over past decade, indicating acceptance of mixed and multiple methods and methodological innovation within business and management research. This chapter presents MMR prevalence study findings from four quality accounting journals: Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS), British Accounting Review (BAR), Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA), Management Accounting Research (MAR). Content analysis was applied to the methodologies employed in articles published in these journals during 2015-2020, finding a low rate of MMR studies ranging from 2.5 per cent to 4.9 per cent of non-conceptual articles. Among MMR publications (n=19, 2.9 per cent of non-conceptual studies), very few referred to substantive MMR foundational literature. Quantitative methods dominated BAR, AOS and MAR whereas qualitative methods dominated CPA. This study makes a significant contribution to scant MMR literature in the accounting field, first examined by Grafton et al. over a decade ago (2011), having implications for accounting researchers, reviewers, editorial boards, and those involved in research training.

The relevance problem of academic management research in organization and management is an old and thorny one. Recent discussions on this issue have resulted in proposals to use more Mode 2 knowledge production in our field. These discussions focused mainly on the process of research itself and less on the products produced by this process. Here the focus is on the so‐called field‐tested and grounded technological rule as a possible product of Mode 2 research with the potential to improve the relevance of academic research in management. Technological rules can be seen as solution‐oriented knowledge. Such knowledge may be called Management Theory, while more description‐oriented knowledge may be called Organization Theory. In this article the nature of technological rules in management is discussed, as well as their development, their use in actual management practice and the potential for cross‐fertilization between Management Theory and Organization Theory.

My task is to provide a perspective regarding the general topic of choosing optimal cost drivers, as that topic is reflected in the selected articles of this Forum. This perspective can be developed more easily if I first digress back to the 1960s when managerial accounting research was beginning to evolve to its present stages. In the 1960s, teaching and research in managerial accounting were heavily influenced by the growing popularity of operations research and management science approaches to business problems. These approaches were largely normative in nature, consisting basically of optimization techniques that, if implemented, promised to improve managerial decision making. Their normative character was carried over into managerial accounting as well, with the basic theme of many managerial accounting articles in that era being, "Here is how optimization techniques may be used to guide the design of improved managerial accounting systems." Rarely, if ever, did the researcher provide empirical evidence or other forms of proof that the new systems would in fact lead to improvements in managerial decisions. Rather, the main result provided was that the new systems could generate new accounting numbers under certain assumed conditions. If these new numbers appeared to be materially different from the old, implementation of the new systems could lead to changes in managers' decisions. The changes in managers' decisions were assumed to be desirable ones to induce. However, desirability was based primarily on subjective criteria adopted by the researcher. Generally, a necessary condition for potential improvements in managerial decisions from new accounting systems is that the new system generate accounting numbers that are materially different from those obtained from the existing system. For this reason, I label such studies as materiality studies, since they basically follow the traditional materiality rule in accounting. But different accounting numbers might not lead to changes in decisions that result in payoffs sufficient to justify the costs of implementing the new systems. Indeed, recognition of this basic limitation of materiality studies was a strong motivation for managerial accounting researchers to investigate the advantages of using the information economics paradigm to estimate the net payoffs from implementing new accounting systems. Recall that information economics is a conceptual framework that can be used to assess how new information will affect managerial decisions and, assuming decisions will change, the expected payoffs from implementing a new accounting information system. Included in the framework Is an assumed decision-maker with a particular utility function who processes information through a specific decision model. The model, in turn, yields an ex ante optimal decision. The value of new information is then measured as the change in the net payoffs induced by moving from a previous optimal decision to a revised optimal decision under the assumption that the new information does in fact induce a revision in the optimal decision. Note that the original optimal decision might still remain optimal even though the new information received by the decision maker differs from the old. Obviously, the conclusion in the latter case is that the new information system would have either a zero or negative expected net value.

We provide a discussion of three of Zimmerman's (2001) conjectures about, and prescriptions for improving, the current unsatisfactory state of empirical management accounting research: its focus on describing practice instead of testing theories; its focus on decision-making instead of control; and reliance on social sciences other than economics. We suggest that these conjectures are based on inaccurate descriptions of current empirical management accounting research and the prescriptions offer potentially misleading guidance for future research. In contrast to Zimmerman (2001), we believe that the current research is guided by theory from a variety of social sciences (primarily economics, psychology and sociology) and that this diversity is appropriate for the applied field of management accounting. We argue that while economics provides a good basis for much empirical research in management accounting, other social sciences offer more potential to explain important features of management accounting such as understanding people's preferences, how they think, how they interact with other people and the process of change. Our conclusion is that empirical management accounting research will be better off if it appeals less to disciplinary identity and instead uses a variety of theoretical frameworks from the social sciences to provide more complete explanations of management accounting practice.