Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 79–82
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Management Accounting Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mar
Issues in the relationship between theory and practice
in management accounting
Gudrun Baldvinsdottir a , Falconer Mitchell b,1 , Hanne Nørreklit c,∗,2
a
b
c
Gothenburg University, Vasagatan 1, Gothenburg, Sweden
University of Edinburgh, William Robertson Building, 50 George Square, Edinburgh, UK
Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210 Århus V, Denmark
a r t i c l e
Keywords:
Practice
Technical core
Social science
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
In recent decades the interest of academic researchers in the practical aspects of management accounting has waned. This editorial explores some of the reasons of this
development. Over the past few decades we have witnessed the establishment of management accounting in academia as a social science. This has increased the credibility of
the accounting academics. However, it has also meant that academic researchers have
neglected the technical core of their discipline and its problems and issues which have
a direct practical relevance. It is concluded that there is a need for academic researchers
to have a stronger focus on the technical core of the subject and to harness the findings of
empirical research so that they can be used to develop and support practice.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
2. Contemporary management accounting research
The call for papers for this special issue elicited only a
very limited response. This probably reflects the academic
community’s view that the issue of how research and the
development of management accounting theory relates to
practice is not particularly important. Contemporary circumstances and pressures may well have downgraded the
significance of practical considerations for academics. In
this short editorial we suggest some of the reasons why
this might have happened and argue that if management
accounting research is to maintain its distinctiveness from
the other social sciences and disciplines to which it has
become linked, there is a need to retain a focus on the
technical core of practice.
Over the past few decades, there has been a burgeoning
growth in management accounting research and in the theory underpinning it (Luft and Shields, 2002; Zimmerman,
2001; Chapman et al., 2007; Malmi and Granlund, 2009).
This growth has not been one simply of volume. It has also
involved a significant extension of scope both in terms of
the research topic and in the theoretical bases employed
by researchers. Despite this growth, there has been scant
interest shown in research by those involved in the practice of management accounting. One salient exception to
this has been the work that has emerged from Harvard by
academics such as R. Kaplan and R. Cooper on topics such
as activity based costing and the balanced scorecard. This
work has taken the form of identifying, developing and promoting solutions to practical problems initially uncovered
in case studies of current practice. Consequently it may be
viewed as being at the development end of the R and D
process. In essence, it is based on the recycling of existing
practice. The Harvard work demonstrates that the practitioner will enthusiastically use a certain type of research.
Indeed, surveys show it has changed management accounting practice quite significantly e.g., Innes et al. (2000).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 8948 6377; fax: +45 8948 6660.
E-mail addresses: Baldvinsdottir@handels.gu.se (G. Baldvinsdottir),
mitchllf@wrb1.bae.ed.ac.uk (F. Mitchell), hann@asb.dk (H. Nørreklit).
1
Falconer Mitchell also has a visiting position at the University of
Aarhus, Denmark.
2
Hanne Nørreklit is also a Professor at NHH, Bergen, Norway.
1044-5005/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mar.2010.02.006
80
G. Baldvinsdottir et al. / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 79–82
Over recent years, management accounting has become
an innovative practice and consequently the potential
exists for the researcher to play a supportive role in the
development of the discipline at a practical level, at least,
by assessing the new practices being introduced. In this
role, the independence of an academic position can benefit the researcher. However, it is apparent that the wider
research community has little interest in influencing practice or in capturing the practitioner as an audience for their
output. This is exemplified, in a Netherlands’, public sector
context, by the van Helden et al.’s paper which follows in
this issue. Most accounting research does not have practical
accounting development as an aim. Why should this be so?
Is this communication gap between research-based theoretical development and practice important? To answer
these questions we must consider the manner in which
management accounting research and theory has developed
3. Social science
From the 1960s onwards accounting has become firmly
established as a social science (Ryan et al., 2002). In
the main, this has been achieved by the emphasis its
researchers have placed on empiricism. The dominance
of positivism in the USA (Zimmerman, 1979; Watts and
Zimmerman, 1979, 1986) and the growth in interpretive
case study based and survey based research in management accounting throughout Europe (Panozzo, 1997; Drury
and Tayles, 1994, 2005) evidence the academic progression
of accounting. During this process management accounting’s initial links to economics have been steadily expanded
to include such social sciences as sociology, psychology
and organisational studies. Further development has been
apparent using the disciplines of mathematical analysis
and perhaps, most notably philosophy. Seal’s paper in
this issue is a case in point utilising both economic theory and discourse analysis to explain the acceptance and
use of ideas in practice. These interdisciplinary developments have underpinned the attainment of accounting’s
academic credibility. These trends in accounting research
are unsurprising given the accounting researcher’s position in an academic environment. They are, however, also
likely to create gaps between accounting researchers and
practitioners. From a social science perspective the primary
aim of accounting research is to explain and understand
the behaviour of accountants. Changing (improving) their
behaviour, within given institutional settings, is not (certainly in the immediacy) a priority within the research
schema of most accounting academics.
Embracing the status of social scientists by management
accounting researchers has been accompanied by a decline
in the logical and normative analyses of practice, e.g., Baxter
and Oxenfeldt (1961), Thomas (1974), Solomons (1965)
and Anthony (1975), which dominated the research agenda
before the late 1970s. In depth analysis of new methods for
practice has become relatively rare today, although prominent exceptions do exist e.g., De Haas and Kleingeld, 1999,
Norreklit, 2000. It is somewhat paradoxical that intensifying the research focus, through empiricism, on what is
happening in practice has apparently resulted in research
outputs which practitioners do not find relevant. The theories and practices employed in this push to empiricism
do not seem to have explained or illuminated practice in
practical ways which possess value for the objects of the
research. It seems that the issues for empirical research are
derived primarily from the existing research literature as
opposed to having an origin in problems of practical relevance.
4. Socio-technical discipline
What can the accounting researcher contribute to
accounting research that cannot be achieved by the sociologist, economist or philosopher? The answer to this
question lies in the socio-technical nature of management
accounting. Accounting behaviour involves the interaction
of people and accounting techniques. If these accounting
techniques are not understood and adequately described
by the researcher then the explanations of behaviour generated by research activity are likely to be deficient and
potentially misleading. It is the technical aspects of the
discipline which give accounting researchers a comparative advantage over social science researchers and enables
them to produce explanations of behaviour which they are
more specifically capable of producing. Without sufficient
attention to the technical core research will lose the stamp
of “accounting”. It may be more accurately classified as
research in one of the social sciences or other disciplines
and its nature will make the possibility of technical prescriptions very problematic. In the “rush” to obtain social
science credibility, academic accounting researchers may,
in many instances, have somewhat neglected the technical
core of their subject. This makes it difficult for the reader to
fully interpret the significance of the results and the ways
in which research on accounting and practice interrelate.
If it is accepted that accounting research should be
founded on the discipline’s technical core then one might
expect accounting research journals to be replete with
extensive and rich descriptions of the practices which constitute the technical aspects of the study. All too often this
is not the case. For instance, where budgeting or costing
or performance measurement is the focus of study only
limited acknowledgement of the technical nature of these
practices are included in the research outputs. It may well
be true that the social or behavioural nature of accounting
has been neglected in the normative analyses of practical
techniques which used to dominate the academic literature. However, the converse is now true of much social
science or philosophical based investigations of accounting practice. Management accounting research has moved
from a predominant focus on the technical to a predominant focus on the social. There has been a neglect of
research which seeks to balance both aspects and which
therefore reflects the real world nature of the accounting
discipline.
5. Empirical research
Exhibit 1 outlines the key stages in empirical management accounting research. First, an area or topic of research
is selected with suitable empirical evidence identified. Sec-
G. Baldvinsdottir et al. / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 79–82
Exhibit 1. Stages in empirical research in management accounting.
ond, the situation and the behaviour of actors have to be
captured through description. Theories can either be developed from the descriptive evidence (e.g., inductions such
as grounded theory) or imported theories may be applied
to the data that has been gathered. The role of theory is
to aid explanation of what has been found empirically.
Where the explanation is convincing then it can lead to
an understanding of what has been found. It is rare in
management accounting for description to provide sufficient substance for research publications (though there
are exceptions – e.g., Patell, 1987). Explanation and understanding are what is needed for academic publications, and
they have come to be recognised as the primary purpose of
academic research. There is no need, nor are there expectations on the part of journal editors or reviewers, that
accounting research should generate prescriptions. This
does not imply there is no research which encompasses
this last stage. However, it remains rare; but, see Kasanen
et al. (1993) for the promotion of constructive research
(an action research approach) in management accounting and Tuomela (2005) for an example of its application.
The production of research which is seen as “applied”,
in the sense of providing prescriptions for practitioners,
may even have a negative impact on the researcher. The
stigma of consultancy-type research is, perhaps too close,
for this type of research to have mass appeal in academia.
Thus, a prescriptive dimension in management accounting
research remains rare, and it is generally unnecessary for
the publication of research output.
6. Aims of empirical research
Empirical research in management accounting may be
viewed as a continuum. At one extreme research may be
designed to explain and understand practice as it is found in
the real world. In such research there would be no intention
of influencing practice through research. The practitioner
would be treated solely as a research object and researcher
would not be influenced by the pressures of justifying the
findings in terms of immediate practical relevance. This
does not imply that this type of research will have no
influence on practice. It is to be hoped that prescriptions
for practice will be based on sound understanding of the
behaviours and circumstances to which they relate. Ultimately, therefore, it might be hoped that research of this
81
type will possess some relevance for the guidance of practice. However, there is a need to harness the findings of
research of this type so that they can be used by those who
make prescriptions for practice. For example, what guidance might contingency theory studies contribute for the
practitioner who compares his/her management accounting system to those of other organisations? Can it assist in
identifying potential practical strengths and weaknesses?
How can research in management accounting change help
practitioners who face the challenge of changing their systems? Can it lead to good predictions of how staff will
react to changes? Can it suggest actions that can be taken
to improve the likelihood of change being successful? The
translation of research into practical guidance remains a
challenge (see van Helden et al.’s paper in this issue) as
the practitioner lacks the time and skills for this task,
especially when he/she is confronted by all the challenges
of the mathematical, statistical and theoretical aspects of
accounting research. These aspects may enhance the scientific nature of the work, but they can also compromise
its accessibility outside of academia. Academic careers can
also mean that the academic researcher has no motive to
prescribe (unless, for example, research funding becomes
linked to demonstrating research impact). Unless some
mechanism is found to address this issue, research and
practice in management accounting are likely to exist
independently, i.e., without any provider-user linkage. Furthermore, if research is produced by academic researchers
for other academic researchers then the research loop
becomes closed within the academic community. If explanation and understanding are taken as ends in themselves,
it may be difficult to justify accounting research outside
of the academic community and, as a consequence, to
properly assess its significance. The result is likely to be
a knowledge application gap; i.e., a gap between theories
of knowing and knowing what action needs to be taken
(Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999). Academic research will be the
poorer for the exclusion of practitioner judgements as practitioners are an intelligent audience with the capacity to
provide correction and guidance.
At the opposite extreme of the research continuum lies
interventionist research which is intended to contribute
directly to changing and developing practice. While this
offers potential for prescription it does not have a prestigious position in the academic research community and
is pursued by only a minority of accounting researchers.
This is because, as van Helden et al acknowledge, it lies in
the grey area where research and consultancy meet. Essentially, it can take two forms. First, it may be constructive in
nature (Kasanen et al., 1993) and designed to solve practical problems with much the same ethos as action research.
van Helden et al.’s paper suggests that work of this nature
(deemed knowledge creation rather than research) falls
within the remit of the consultant/researcher who fulfils an
important role in the public sector context. Alternatively, it
may involve the researcher playing a role similar to that of
“theatre” critic; identifying where management accounting practice has deficiencies. Seal, in his paper in this issue,
concludes that it is in the twinning of these roles that the
management accounting researcher may find a niche to
enhance practice in the discipline.
82
G. Baldvinsdottir et al. / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 79–82
7. Research agenda
The research agenda in management accounting has, in
recent times, emphasised a social science and interdisciplinary based empiricism. This has fostered the attainment
of academic credibility for the discipline. There has been a
focus on finding out about behaviour in the practical world
as opposed to deriving guidance for practice. The conclusions drawn from such studies are for further research,
rather than for practice. As a result, practical learning from
research, from its theories and from its interdisciplinary
links, has been missing from much of the management
accounting research agenda. This absence is an important one if the ultimate purpose of social science research
is to improve life (rather than simply to describe and/or
understand it). If the former objective (of improving life) is
accepted, at a minimum the research findings and theoretical understandings should to be applied to the benefit of
management accounting practice.
References
Anthony, R.N., 1975. Accounting for the Cost of Interest. Lexington, Mass.,
USA.
Baxter, W., Oxenfeldt, A.R., 1961. Costing and Pricing: The Cost Accountant
versus the Economist, Business Horizons, 4, 4, 77–90, (reprinted in
Studies in Cost Analysis, In: D. Solomons (Ed.), Sweet and Maxwell,
London, 1968).
Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G., Shields, M.D., 2007. Handbook of Management Accounting Research. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
De Haas, M., Kleingeld, A., 1999. Multilevel design of performance measurement systems: enhancing strategic dialogue throughout the
organization. Management Accounting Research 10, 233–261.
Drury, C., Tayles, M., 1994. Product costing in UK manufacturing organisations. The European Accounting Review 3 (3), 443–469.
Drury, C., Tayles, M., 2005. Explicating the design of overhead absorption
procedures in UK organisations. British Accounting Review 37, 47–84.
Innes, J., Mitchell, F., Sinclair, D., 2000. Activity-based costing in the UK’s
largest companies: a comparison of 1994 and 1999 survey results.
Management Accounting Research 11, 349–362.
Kasanen, E., Lukka, K., Siitonen, A., 1993. The constructive approach in
management accounting research. Journal of Management Accounting Research 5, 243–264.
Luft, J.L., Shields, M.D., 2002. Zimmerman’s contentious conjectures:
describing the present and prescribing the future of empirical management accounting research. European Accounting Review 11. (4).
Malmi, T., Granlund, M., 2009. In search of management accounting theory. The European Accounting Review 18 (3), 597–620.
Norreklit, H., 2000. The balance on the balanced scorecard—a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research 11,
65–88.
Panozzo, F., 1997. The making of the good academic accountant. Accounting Organisations and Society 22 (5), 447–480.
Patell, J.M., 1987. Cost accounting, process control and product design: a
case study of the Hewlett-Packard personal office computer division.
The Accounting Review 62 (4), 808–839.
Pfeffer, J., Sutton, R.I., 1999. Knowing what to do is not enough: turning
knowledge into action. California Management Review (Fall), 83–108.
Ryan, R., Scapens, R.W., Theobald, M., 2002. Research Method & Methodology in Finance & Accounting. Thomson, London, UK.
Solomons, D., 1965. Divisional Performance: Measurement and Control.
Richard D Irwin, Illinois, USA.
Thomas, A.L., 1974. The Allocation Problem: Part Two. American Accounting Association.
Tuomela, T., 2005. The interplay of different levers of control: a case study
of introducing a new performance system. Management Accounting
Research 16 (3), 293–320.
Watts, R., Zimmerman, J., 1979. The demand for and supply of accounting
theories. The market for excuses. The Accounting Review 59, 273–305.
Watts, R., Zimmerman, J., 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zimmerman, J., 1979. The costs and benefits of cost allocations. The
Accounting Review 54, 504–521.
Zimmerman, J., 2001. Conjectures regarding empirical management
accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 32 (1–3),
411–427.