Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Management Accounting Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / m a r
Management Accounting Research: 25 years on
Michael Bromwich
a, Robert W. Scapens
b,c,d,∗aLondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience,UK
bManchesterBusinessSchool,UK
cBirminghamBusinessSchool,UK
dUniversityofGroningen,TheNetherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Availableonlinexxx
Keywords:
Historyofmanagementaccounting Practice-researchgap
Impactofresearch
Managementaccountingreviews 25yearson
a b s t r a c t
ThisEditorialintroducesandcommentsontheimplicationsofthepaperspresentedatthe25thAnniver- saryConferenceofManagementAccountingResearchwhichwasheldattheLondonSchoolofEconomics andPoliticalScienceinApril2015.ItfirstexaminesthecontextinwhichManagementAccountingResearch wasfoundedin1990andthenintroducesthesixinvitedreviewpapers.Thesepaperscoverawiderange ofsubjectscomprisingcriticalandsocialtheory,managerialiststudies,contingencytheory,experimental behaviouralresearchandintra-organisationalmanagementaccounting.Amongstvariousotherrecom- mendations,someoftheauthorssuggestthatthereisaneedforresearchinmanagementaccountingto moreeffectivelybuildonpriorresearchsoastoaccumulateknowledgeaboutspecificissuesandprob- lems.Inaddition,theysuggestthatresearchersinthedifferentareas(orsub-disciplines)ofmanagement accountingshouldtalktoeachothermore.Forinstance,insightsandfindingsfromqualitativeresearch couldbeusedtoinformquantitativestudiesandviceversa.ThelaterpartsofthisEditorialdiscussoppor- tunitiesandchallengesformanagementaccountingresearchinthefuture.Inparticular,itispointedout that,comparedtowhenManagementAccountingResearchwasfoundedin1990,researchersnowhave highlytheorisedunderstandingsofmanagementaccountingpractices,andonechallengeistousethese understandingstotrytoclosethe‘practice-researchgap’.Itisarguedthatmanagementaccountingtheo- rieshavehadarelativelylimitedimpactonpracticeand,asthereareincreasingpressuresonuniversities todemonstratetheimpactandvalueofuniversityresearch,somesuggestionsaremadeaboutwaysof increasingtheimpactofmanagementaccountingresearch.
©2016ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
1. Introduction
Management Accounting Research was founded in 1990 and in April 2015 we organised a conference to celebrate its 25th Anniversary.Sixmanagementaccountingresearchers,allofwhom have been members of the Editorial Board, were invited to present papers reviewingspecific areasof researchin manage- mentaccounting,andtoreflectonthecontributionofManagement AccountingResearchtotheirarea.Inaddition,weinvitedthenew editor,WimVanderStede,tochaira plenarydiscussionduring whichthreeothermanagementaccountingresearchersdiscussed directionsforthefuture.ThisSpecialIssuecontainsthesixreview papers, aswellas thethree plenarycontributions andVan der Stede’scommentarywhichintroducesthem.
∗ Correspondingauthorat:ManchesterBusinessSchool,ManchesterM156PB, UK.
E-mailaddress:[email protected](R.W.Scapens).
Before introducing the papers in this Special Issue, we will describethecontextinwhichManagementAccountingResearchwas founded.Wewillthenintroducethepapersandpointtosomeof theirconclusions,especiallytheachievementsofresearchinthe managementaccountingfield.Wewillfinishbysuggestingsome challengesandopportunitiesforthefuture.Webegin,inthenext section,by lookingbackatsomeof theearlyresearchin man- agementaccounting,andthecontextwithinwhichManagement AccountingResearchwasfounded.
2. ThepastandthefoundingofManagementAccounting Research
In the 1980s, before Management Accounting Research was founded,themanagementaccountingcommunityintheUKwas smallandscatteredamongstvariousuniversities,andtherewere fewdomesticorinternationalnetworksforresearchersandvery fewjournalsinwhichtopublishtheirresearch,especiallyresearch http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.03.002
1044-5005/©2016ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
ofanon-economicnature.1TheleadingUSjournalswereregarded asinaccessible,favouringfinancialaccountingresearch,andinter- estedonlyinmanagementaccountingpaperswhichwerebased oneconomicsandhadatheoreticalorastronglyempiricalstance.
MostestablishedUKuniversityteachersofmanagementaccount- inghad come frompracticeand werenon-researchers, orthey tended to undertake practice-based research. These and other problemswere alsobeingexperienced, todiffering degrees, by managementaccountingresearchersinothercountries.
Atthattime,UKresearchersintheareahadonlyjustbegunto obtainPhDs.However,alargenumberofrelativelynewresearch avenueswereopeningupandnewapproachesandmethodsfor researchwerebecomingavailable.Furthermore,muchoftheear- lierresearchwasbeginningtobequestionedorrejected.Inthis sense,itwasagoodtimetolaunchaspecialistjournalintheman- agementaccountingarea.
AspartofaresearchprojectfundedbythethenSocialScience ResearchCouncil,2Scapens(1984)surveyedthestateofmanage- mentaccountingresearchatthattime,byreviewingthecontentsof the(then)currenttextbooks,aswellaspapersinresearchjournals.
Hecametotheconclusionthattherewasnogenerallyaccepted definitionofmanagementaccounting.Subsequently,providinga definitionofmanagementaccountinghascontinuedtobeverydif- ficult.However,Scapens(1984)pointedoutthatthethencurrent textbooksseemedto‘know’whatmanagementaccountingwas;or atleast,thetextbookshadacommonsetofcontents,basedprimar- ilyonearlierresearchwhichstudieddecisionmakingfromlargely economic,managementscienceandoperationsresearchperspec- tives.However,when lookingindetail atthecontents ofthese textbooksandcomparingthemwithwhatwasthenknownabout practice,itseemedclearthattherewas‘agapbetweentheoryand practice’.Furthermore,itdidnotseemlikelythatthisgapcould beexplainedbyatimelagbetweendevelopingtheoreticalideas anddiffusingtheminpractice.Itisfairtosaythat,atthetime,we knewrelativelylittleaboutmanagementaccountinginpractice.
Thegeneralviewseemedtobethatorganisationsusedthetradi- tionaltoolsandtechniques,suchasoverheadallocation,budgeting andstandardcosting.
Scapens’viewswerereinforcedatthe1984Deloitte,Haskins andSells seminarwhich wasdevotedtomanagement account- ing.PaperswerepresentedbyleadingUSandUKresearchers,and alsobypractitioners.Aswellasresearchers,theaudienceincluded senior auditors and accountants from industry, someof whom providedcommentariesontheacademicpapers.3 Horngrenand Kaplanbothpleadedformorestudiesofmanagementaccounting practice,andHorngrencalledforsuchstudiestobeundertaken usingabehaviourallens.
Insummarisingtheconference,Bromwichgavethreereasons whyitwas“theworstoftimes”formanagementaccounting(see BromwichandHopwood,1986;p.217).Firstly,thepapersalmost unanimouslysuggestedthatresearchhadlittleimpactonprac- ticeandthatpracticehadremainedrootedinthepast.Secondly, researchers did not know or care whether this was the case, eventhoughat leastsomemanagementaccountingteaching in
1 TheEuropeanAccountingAssociationwasfoundedin1977.IntheUKtheMan- agementAccountingResearchGroupwasestablishedin1979bythethenSocial ScienceResearchCouncilandtheInstituteofCharteredAccountantsinEngland andWales,joinedshortlyafterwardsbytheCharteredInstituteofManagement Accountants,inordertoestablishanacademicnetworkformanagementaccounting researchers.
2 TheSocialScienceResearchCouncil(SSRC)changeditsnametotheEconomic andSocialResearchCouncil(ESRC)on1January1984.Theresearchwasundertaken in1982,andsubsequentlypublishedin1984.
3 ThisDH&Sseminarwasco-sponsoredbytheEconomicandSocialResearch Councilandthepublisher,Pitman.
UKuniversitieswasresearchoriented, and therelevantprofes- sionalexaminationsalsoincorporatedresearchfindings.Thirdly, theconferencehadsuggestedthatmanagementaccountinglacked atheoreticalframework,beingacollectionofratherlooselyrelated subjects.Arguingagainstthisview,practitionerspointedoutthat theywerewellaware of theproblemswith theavailabletools andtheycompensatedfortheseproblemsintheirdecisionmak- ing. Moreover, they were themselves seeking to innovate and researchersshouldseektounderstandandlearnfromsuchpracti- calinnovations.
Ifwe lookbacktothe1970s,mostmanagement accounting researchwasgroundedinneo-classicaleconomics.Forexample, basedonneoclassicaleconomicassumptions,researchersadopted amanagementscience/operationsresearchperspectivetodevelop variousdecisionmodels,someofwhichweremathematicallyquite sophisticated.Scapens’surveypaperreviewedthesemathemati- caldecisionmodels,butpointedoutthatgenerallytheyremained untestedinpractice.Furthermore,ifinformationcostsandbene- fitsweretakenintoaccount,itcouldbeshowntheoreticallythat insomeinstancessimplerules ofthumbcouldbeoptimal.This providedapossibleexplanationforthegapbetweentheoryand practice—i.e.,thetheoreticalmodelsfailedtotakeaccountofthe costsandbenefitsoftheiruseinpractice.However,atthattime, althoughthereweresomegeneralpresumptionsaboutthenature ofmanagementaccountinginpractice,therewasrelativelylittle systematicand/orin-depthresearchintomanagementaccounting practice. Management accounting researchers were more con- cernedaboutimproving‘practice’bydevelopingnormativemodels which practitioners were then expected to use. Unfortunately, therewasnoevidencethatpractitionersdidusethem,orindeed thattheywantedsuchnormativemodels.Itisprobablyfairtosay thatmanagementaccountingresearchersatthattimewereoper- atingintheir‘ivory towers’,andadoptingasomewhatarrogant attitudeaboutwhatshouldbedoneinpractice,perhapswithout understandingthecomplexityofpracticeinanimperfectworld.
However, in the early 1980s, management accounting researchers started to study management accounting prac- tice.Initiallytherewerevarioussurveysandanincreasingnumber oflargelydescriptivecase/fieldstudies.Someofthisresearchwas simplyusedtoreinforcetheperceptionofa‘gapbetweentheory andpractice’.Otherresearchers,however,begantodrawonorgan- isationaland socialtheories,and especiallycontingency theory, tostudy management accounting. Accounting Organizationsand Society,whichwasfoundedin1976,wasparticularlyprominent in publishing this type of research. Furthermore, management accountingresearchersstartedtousea widerangeoforganisa- tionaland social theoriesin case/field studiesand surveysthat weredesignedtounderstandmanagementaccountingpractices.
Nevertheless,theeconomicsperspectivecontinuedtobeusedby most‘mainstream’managementaccountingresearchers.So,when Management Accounting Research was foundedin 1990 a wide range ofdisciplines, methodologiesand theoreticalframeworks werestartingtobeusedbymanagementaccountingresearchers.
Consequently,whenwewereinvitedbyAcademicPress4and theCharteredInstituteofManagementAccountants(CIMA)toedit Management Accounting Research, one of the first decisions we tookwastomakethescopeofmanagementaccountingresearch verybroadinordertoavoidthepaperspublishedinthejournal beingconstrainedtoaparticularviewofthenatureofmanage- mentaccounting.Furthermore,wewantedresearcherstobringto thejournalwhatevertheoreticalperspectivesandmethodologies theyconsideredappropriateforresearchinthefieldofmanage-
4ManagementAccountingResearchwasoriginallyownedbyAcademicPress,but subsequentlysoldtoElsevier.
mentaccounting(broadlydefined),providedthattheuseofthese perspectives and methodologies satisfied authoritative review- ersin thoseareas. Asthejournal hasdevelopedover theyears ithasretainedthis broadscope(see VanderStede,2015), and researchadoptingawiderangeoftheoriesandresearchmethods andmethodologieshasbeenpublishedoverthepast25years.This isillustratedintwoofthetableswhichwereincludedinourEdi- torialreviewingthepaperspublishedoverthefirst20years(see Tables4and5inScapensandBromwich,2010).
Wewouldliketodrawattentiontoacoupleofinterestingpoints fromthosetables.DuringthefirsttenyearsofManagementAccount- ingResearch,34%ofthepaperswerecharacterisedas‘applied’;in otherwords,theydescribedpracticewithoutusinganyexplicitthe- ory.Suchpaperswereneededinthe1990saswewereonlythen beginningtolearnaboutpractice.However,inthesubsequent10 yearstherewerefarless‘applied’papers,andinthelastfiveyears therehavebeenveryfew.Thisillustratestheextenttowhichthe importanceoftheoryhasincreasedovertheyears.Furthermore, therehavebeenshiftsinthetypesoftheoriesusedinthepapers publishedinthejournal.Economicswasprominentinthefirstten years,butsubsequently institutionaltheory,contingencytheory andamixofothertheorieshavebecomemorewidelyused.Itis importanttorecognisethatthiswasnotaneditorialdecision,it simplyreflectedthewayinwhichresearchinthefieldofmanage- mentaccountingdeveloped.Furthermore,intermsoftheresearch methods,therewasasubstantialincreaseinthenumberofcase study/field-basedpaperspublishedinthesecondtenyears,andalso anincreaseinthenumberofsurvey-basedstudiesapplyingstatis- ticalmethods,butarelativedeclineinanalyticalpapersandonlya smallnumberofexperimentalpapers.Overall,thetablesincluded inourEditorialsafterthefirst10and20years,respectively(Scapens andBromwich,2001,2010),indicatethewiderangeofbothquan- titativeandqualitativepaperswhichhavebeenpublished.Thisis discussedinmoredetailinthepapersincludedinthisSpecialIssue.
3. ThepapersinthisSpecialissue
Asmentionedabove,forthe25thAnniversaryConferencethe plenaryspeakerswereinvitedtoreviewspecificareasofresearch inmanagementaccounting.TrevorHopperwasinvitedtoreview researchwhichhasusedsocialandcriticaltheories.However,the paperforthisSpecialIssue,whichhewrotewithBinhBui,providesa comprehensiveanalysisofall475paperspublishedinManagement AccountingResearchoverthelast25years.Amongstotherthings, thisreinforcesthepointsmadeinourEditorialsaboutthediversity oftheoriesused,andthedeclineinthenumberofpaperswithno cleartheory(seetheirFig.10—reproducedbelowasFig.1).Inpar- ticular,theyshowtheincreaseinthenumberofpaperswhichuse socialandcriticaltheories.Forthispurposetheyuseabroaddefi- nitionof‘socialandcritical’(takenfromthefirstInterdisciplinary PerspectivesonAccounting(IPA)Conference)which“spansinter- pretive,institutional,socialandenvironmental,politicaleconomy, post-structuralandconstructivistwork”.
Inthetitleoftheirpaper,HopperandBuiaskaspecificquestion:
HasManagementAccountingResearchbeencritical?Theyconclude that“MARhasmadesubstantialcontributionstosocialandcritical accounting(broadlydefined)butnotincriticalareasendeavouring togivegreatervoiceandinfluencetomarginalisedsectorsofsociety worldwide.”TheearlypartoftheirpaperdescribesTrevorHop- per’spersonaljourney,andtheaspirationsoftheearlyresearchers whosoughttostudyaccountingasasocialscience,andtogivethe subjectamore‘critical’edge.Theyrecognisethat,althoughMan- agementAccountingResearchwaswillingtopublishpaperswhich arecriticalinthismorenarrowsense,relativelyfewsuch‘criti- cal’papersweresubmittedtothejournal.However,contrasting
researchinNorthAmerica,HopperandBuipointoutthatEuropean managementaccountingresearchhasbeenmoremultidisciplinary, eclecticandmulti-paradigm.Inparticular,theyconcludethatfrom
“theperspectiveoftheearly‘behaviouralaccounting’researchers theprogresshasbeenremarkable”,andthattheensuing“greater understandingofaccountingpractice....[has]producedradically differentconceptionsofwhatpracticeconstitutes.”
Teemu Malmi reviews constructivist and managerial stud- ies. Acknowledgingthat there is nowidely accepteddefinition of constructivist and managerialist research, Malmi reviews a wide variety of studies which have theintention of producing managerially-relevantinsights,andhedefinesconstructiviststud- iesasthose“inwhicha theoreticallynovelconstructiscreated anditspracticalapplicabilityisdemonstrated”.Hecommentsthat ManagementAccountingResearchprovidesprobablytheonlyhigh leveloutletforsuchwork.Notingthattherehavebeenanumber ofinterventioniststudiesinrecentyears,Malmipointsoutthat
“thestudiedtopicstendtovaryagreatdeal”.However,ratherthan focusingonthenatureoftheconstructitself,researcherstendto bemoreconcerned“tounderstandhowchangemaybeconducted tosecuresuccess”.Thisextendsourknowledgeofmanagement accounting change, but it is difficult for management account- ingresearcherstopromotea‘new’constructandtodisseminate newpracticesmorewidely.Heconcludesthatthereareinterest- ingpaperswhich focusonspecificpracticalproblems,but “itis difficulttospeakabouttheaccumulationofknowledge”.Thisrep- resentsbothachallengeandanopportunityforconstructivistand managerialistmanagementaccountingresearchers.Todate,vari- ouspracticalissueshavebeenaddressedandsolutionsdeveloped forspecificorganisations.Inthefuture,achallengewillbetobuild abodyofaccumulatedknowledgethathasthepotentialtomakea differenceinpractice.Wewillreturntothispointlater.
As there have been different types of contingency theory research,weinvitedDavidOtleytoreviewworkattheorganisa- tionallevelandMattHalltoreviewworkattheindividuallevel.
DavidOtleyconcludesthat“[t]heworkconductedundertheban- nerofcontingencytheoryhasbeenoneofthesuccessstoriesof researchinmanagementaccountingandcontroloverthepastforty years”.Ithasprovidedconsiderableinsightsintohowdifferentcon- figurationsandusesofcontrolsystemscanresultinavarietyof differentconsequences.Hepointsoutthat,ratherthanbeingabout managementaccountingandmanagementcontrol,thisresearch isnowmoreaboutperformancemeasurementsystemsorperfor- mancemanagementsystems.Thiscouldbejustaredefinition,butit raisessomeimportantpoints.Forexample,Otleyarguesthatthere isaneedformoreresearchontheconnectionsbetweenthevar- iouselementsofperformancemanagementsystems.Howdothe elementsfittogether?Dotheyformasystemorapackage?What isthedifferencebetweenapackageandasystem?Althoughsuch researchisnowbeginningtotakeplace,Otleyiscriticalthatthere continuestobemuchresearchwhichlooksonlyatindividualele- ments.Hemadeasimilarpointaboutmanagementcontrolsystems 35yearsago(seeOtley,1980),andhefeelsitisnecessarytorepeat ittoday.
He also suggests that there is an opportunity for contin- gencyresearchtocombinequalitativeandquantitativemethods.
Forexample,quantitativeresearcherscoulddrawonqualitative researchtodefineproblemswhichcanbestudiedanalytically,or qualitativeresearchcouldbeusedtointerprettheresultsofquan- titativecontingencystudies.However,henotedthatcontingency studiesinmanagementaccountingtendnottobuildonpriorwork inaconsistentandcoherentway.Forexample,anewpieceofwork willoftenuseadifferentmeasurementschemeoraslightlydif- ferentframework.Thiscreatesachallengeinbuildingabodyof accumulatedknowledge.Interestingly,thisisarecurringpoint,to whichwewillreturnlater.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
# of papers
Social and crical theories
Conngency theory
Economic theories
No theory or unclear
Management control and systems
Psychological and social psychological theories Social network theory n = 475 papers
Fig.1.Theoreticalapproachesovertime.
Matt Hall focuses on the use of psychological theories in contingency-basedmanagement accounting research.Hepoints outthat“[c]ontingency-basedmanagementaccountingresearch hasa long and distinguished history of providing insights into theroleand functioningof managementaccounting practicein organisations”,andthat“psychologicaltheoryhasbeenextensively employed”insuchresearch.Nevertheless,inhispaperheidenti- fieswaysinwhichpsychologicaltheoriescouldbemorefruitfully usedincontingency-basedmanagementaccountingresearch.For instance,hesuggeststhattherecouldbestrongerlinkagesbetween individual-level contingency studies and studies which look at organisation-levelcontingencies. He also suggeststhat there is potentialforstudiestolookatcontingenciesinamoredynamicway inordertostudyhow‘fit’occurs?Morespecifically,givenexist- ingknowledgeaboutindividual-levelcontingencies,suchstudies couldexplorehoworganisationscanachieveafit.
Alsoat the individual/psychological level, Joan Luft reviews managementaccountingresearchwhichusesbehaviouralexper- iments.Shenotesthatthereareveryfewsuchpaperspublished inManagementAccountingResearch,andconsequentlyshereviews the literature more generally. She specifically reviews “exper- imental studies that investigate the influence of management control systems on competitive and cooperative interactions among employees”. Sheidentifies a number of open questions for researchonintra-organisational competition and collabora- tion.IncontrasttoDavidOtley’scommentthatcontingencytheory researchtendsnottobuildonpriorwork,JoanLuftnotesthatthere arequitealot ofreplicationsinbehaviouralresearch.However, shepointsoutthatthisisnotnecessarily‘purereplication’–i.e., simplyrepeatingthesameexperiment–butitisreplicationinthe sensethatitstartsfromthepriorworkandfirstconfirmsthatthere aresimilarfindingsbeforemovingontotestadditionalhypothe- sesand/ortodevelopnewideas.Asaresultsuchstudiesbuildon previousworkandleadtoanaccumulationofknowledge.Further- more,shearguesthatexperimentscancomplementarchivaland surveystudies,andviceversa.Thisextends,tosomeextent,the suggestionsmadebyMattHall.
Inthefinalpaper,HenriDekkerreviewsmanagementaccount- ing research at the boundaries of intra-firm and inter-firm relationships.Hepointsoutthatthegrowingliteratureonaccount- ingandcontrolofinter-organisationalrelationships(asubstantial amountofwhichhasbeenpublishedinManagementAccounting Research)isdevelopinglargelyindependentlyofthealreadyexten- siveliteraturewhichstudiesmanagementaccountingandcontrol withinorganisations. Hearguesthat thereis anopportunityfor
researchtoexploretheboundariesbetweenintra-firmandinter- firmmanagementaccounting,andheproposesthreespecificareas inwhichresearchcouldbeundertaken.Hesuggeststhatresearch
‘attheboundaries’couldprovidebetterunderstandingsofintra- firmandinter-firmmanagementaccountingthemselves.Healso seespotentialincombiningqualitativefield researchandquan- titativesurveyresearch.For example,qualitativeresearchcould providein-depthinsightsintothenatureof inter-firmcontrols, whilequantitativeresearchcouldprovidelargersampleevidence ontheuseofsuchcontrolsandtheirassociationswithcontextual factors.
Asthese reviewsdemonstrate, over thepast 25 years Man- agement Accounting Research has played an important role in publishingpaperswhichhaveconsiderablyextendedourknowl- edge of management accounting, and have given rise to new understandingsofthesubject.Inparticular,wenowknowfarmore abouthowmanagementaccountingworksinpractice,boththeo- reticallyandempirically,thanwedidin,say,the1970sand1980s, andwecannowprovidefarbettertheoreticallyinformedexplana- tionsofmanagementaccountingpractice.ManagementAccounting Research’suniquefeaturehasbeenitsopennesstodiversity.Ithas publishedpapersdrawingonawiderangeofdifferentdisciplines andparadigms,andusingawidevarietyofresearchmethodsand theories.Thisisnotsotrueofmanyotherjournals.Forexample, inaSpecialSectionofManagementAccountingResearchpublished in2010(Vol.21,No.2,pp.110–129),KariLukkabroughttogether anumberofpresentationsfroma2009EAAPlenarySessiondur- ingwhichinvitedspeakersdiscussedparadigmsinmanagement accountingresearch.Inparticular,theypointedtothedifficulties ofpublishingresearchwhichisoutsidethemainstreamparadigms.
However,astheanalysisinHopperandBui’spaperinthisSpe- cialIssuedemonstrates,thisisnottrueofManagementAccounting Research.
Compared tothe 1970s and 80s we now have much richer understandings of management accounting practice, with sub- stantial amounts of both quantitative and qualitative research and highly theorised explanations. Nevertheless, as the papers and commentaries in this Special Issue indicate, there remain many challenges and opportunities for research in the future.
Over theyears, management accountingresearchers havebeen very willing to draw on theories and research methods from otherfields—including,forinstance,economics,organisationthe- ory,psychology,sociology andsocial theory. Such theoriesand research methods have helped to shape the diversity in man- agement accounting research.However, some of thepapers in
this SpecialIssuepoint toopportunitiesfor makingconnections betweentheresearchinparticularsubfieldswithinmanagement accountingandsomealsodiscusstheneedformorereplicationof thefindings.
4. Challengesandopportunities
AstrikingfeaturethatemergesfromthepapersinthisSpecial Issueis that each seemstoreview an island ofresearch which is somewhatisolated fromtheother islands,and touristsfrom otherislands are not warmly welcomed. Moreover,theislands themselvesareoftensplitintoratherisolatedsections(i.e.sub- disciplines).Althoughmanyislandsarenotreviewedinthepapers inthisissue,weagreewiththeauthorswhosuggestthatmore integrationwouldbedesirable.Webelievethatsuchanapproach offersapromisingavenueformanagementaccountingresearch.
Forexample,wecouldconsiderhowqualitativeandquantitative workcansupporteachother;howexperimentalworkcaninform surveyandfieldresearch,andviceversa;howfindingsattheindi- viduallevelcanbeusedtoprovideinsightsforthedesignofstudies attheorganisationallevel;andhowintra-organisationalresearch caninforminter-organisationalresearchandviceversa.
SomerecentpapersinManagementAccountingResearchhave soughttointegratequantitativeandqualitativeresearch,butithas notprovedeasy.Nevertheless,itwouldbeinterestingtoexplore whetherusingmultipleresearchmethodstostudyspecificprob- lemscandeepenourunderstandingofthoseproblems.Therecould alsobeopportunitiestoexploitthediversityofresearchinthefield ofmanagementaccountingbydrawingtogetherinsightsfromthe various‘subfields’,aswellaslookingtodisciplinesoutsideman- agementaccounting.
Whenwe talkabout multi-disciplinary research,we usually meandrawingondisciplinesfromoutsideaccounting,butwecould also think about multi-disciplinary research within accounting.
Thediversityofareasoftopics,methodologies,researchmethods andtheoriesseemtohave createda number ofseparate(sub-) disciplineswithinmanagementaccounting.Asthesewithinman- agementaccountingdisciplinestendtocreatetheirownseparate domains,evenseparatesilos,achallengeforthefuturecouldbe tobuildamorecomprehensiveandcoherentbodyofmanagement accountingknowledgethrough‘conversations’acrossthesewithin managementaccountingdisciplines.
However,asindicatedabove,someofthepapersinthisSpecial Issuequestionwhetherweareaccumulatingabodyofknowledge evenwithinthespecificareas(orsub-disciplines)ofmanagement accounting.Forinstance,inmanagerialistandcontingencytheory research,settingsoftenseemtobeselectedinisolationfromwhat hasgonebefore.However,thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatwe needmore‘pure’replicationstudies—i.e.simplyrepeatingwhathas alreadybeendone.Rather,weneedstudieswhichmoreexplicitly buildonandextendthepreviouswork.Thereareafew papers inManagementAccountingResearch whichhavesoughttorepli- catepreviousfindingsindifferentsettings,e.g.differentlocations, industriesorpopulations,butthishasalsoproveddifficult,espe- ciallycontrollingforthedifferentsettings.Moreworkisneededin whichresearchersusesimilarframesandmeasures,asinprevious work,ortodiscussexplicitlyhowtheirnewframesandmeasures extendtheaccumulatedknowledgedevelopedinpreviousstudies.
Inmuchofscienceingeneral,knowledgeusuallygrowsthrough researchwhichbuildsincrementally,ofteninaverysmallway,on asubstantialamountofalreadyaccumulatedknowledge.However, in many areas of management accounting we still lack a sub- stantialbodyofaccumulatedknowledge.Furthermore,researchers understandablytendtoberatherambitiousintheirresearch;for example,byproposingthatanewvariablewillhelpinexplaining,
say, how management accounting reports can affect organisa- tionalperformance.Suchmanagementaccountingresearch,which exploresnewvariablesornewareas,isclearlyexploratory.Never- theless,itneedstobegroundedinpriorresearch/knowledgeand the‘incremental’effectsneedtobetheorisedrelativetowhatis alreadyknown.Furthermore,theinitialfindingswillberegarded astentativeuntilfurther,andpossiblymorerefined,studiesare undertaken tosupportthem. Thistype of researchis therefore unlikelytoaffectpracticeuntilitmaturesthroughtheaccumulation ofknowledge.
Asweindicatedabove,thepapersinthisSpecialIssuedemon- stratethattherehavebeensubstantialachievementsinresearch inthefieldofmanagementaccountingoverthepast25years(and longer),andthatManagementAccountingResearchhasplayedan importantrole.AstheJointEditorsuntilquiterecently,wewere verypleasedwiththesteadyincreasesinthejournal’simpactfac- torsinceitwasincludedintheSocialScienceCitationIndexin2009.
However,impactmeasuredintermsofcitationsindicesisnotthe onlywayinwhichthe‘impact’ofresearchcanbeassessed.For example,intherecentresearchassessmentintheUK(heldunder thetitleoftheResearchExcellenceFramework),universitieshad toincludeanumberofimpactcasestudiesoutlining“thechanges andbenefits[oftheirresearch]totheUKeconomy,society,culture, publicpolicyandservices,health,theenvironmentandqualityof lifeandimpactsinthesesectorsbeyondtheUK.”5Furthermore,in theNetherlands,andalsoinanumberofothercountries,theSci- enceinTransitionMovementisarguingthat“Sciencehasbecomea self-referentialsystemwherequalityismeasuredmostlyinbibli- ographicparametersandwheresocialrelevanceisundervalued.”6 In anumber ofcountriesquestionsarenow beingraisedabout thevalueofacademicresearch,andsuchquestionsmaybecome increasingly importantinthefuture asgovernments seekingto reducepublicexpendituremaybegintoaskquestionsaboutthe valuereceivedfrompublicmoniesspentonuniversityresearch.
Soachallengeforthefuturemaybetodemonstratetheimpact whichresearchinmanagementaccountinghashadoutsidetheaca- demicjournals.Wecouldstartbyasking:whatimpactarethericher andhighlytheorisedunderstandingsofmanagementaccounting, whichwenowhave,havingonpractice?Shouldweexpectthemto haveanimpactonpractice?Ifnot,whereistheimpactlikelytobe?
Ifweweretoaskpractitionersaboutthetypesofresearchwhich havehadamajorimpactonmanagementaccountingoverthelast 25 years,theywouldprobablyrefer tothingslikethebalanced scorecardandactivitybasedcosting,ratherthanthetheorieswhich have been developed in theacademic literature.This raisesan interestingquestionabouttherelevanceofmanagementaccount- ingresearch.Who,beyondmanagementaccountingresearchers, arelikelytofindourricherunderstandingsuseful?Similarques- tionsarebeingaskedaboutfinancialaccountingresearchandabout management research more generally. For instance, in a paper titled“Makingmanagementaccountingresearchmoreuseful”,Ken Merchant cites Gary Latham,a senior organisational behaviour researcher,whoclaimsthatthereis“aperceptionamongsenior [organisationalbehaviour]scholarsthatthepresentgenerationis doingresearchwhichislessusefulthanours”(Latham,2011,p.
316;citedinMerchant,2012;p.334).
In academicjournalswe writeforotherresearchersand we useformsoflanguageandargumentationthatareunlikelytobe easilyunderstood bynon-academics.This modeofdiscourse is not unreasonable as it facilitates communication betweenaca- demics.However,ifourresearchhasimplicationsformanagement accountingpractitioners,andalsoforothers,howdowecommuni-
5Seeimpact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies/About.aspx.
6Seewww.scienceintransition.nl/English.
cateittothem?Wecanwritearticlesforpractitionerjournalsand wecanworkwithprofessionalbodiesand/orindividualorganisa- tions.Inrecentyears,asindicatedinthepaperbyMalmi,there havebeensomeinterventioniststudiesinwhichresearchershave workedclosely withpractitionersin specificorganisations.Fur- thermore,someresearcherscontributetotheworkofprofessional bodies.WeshouldnotforgetthatCIMAwasinstrumentalinset- tingup Management Accounting Research 25 years ago and has sponsored a number of books seekingto disseminate manage- mentaccountingresearchfindingstopractitioners(e.g.Bromwich andBhimani,1994).TheUKprofessionalaccountingbodieshave devoted substantial resources tothe dissemination of research findingsviabothcoursesandpublishedreports.Inaddition,some researchers advise government departments and bodies, while othersengageinbothpublicandpracticaldebates.Theseareall activitiesthroughwhichmanagementaccountingresearcherscan have, and at least to a limited extent have had, an impacton practice.Wewouldstronglyencouragemanagementaccounting researchers,aswellaswritingtheirresearchpapers,toseekother waysofincreasingtheimpactoftheirresearch.
5. Whatcanwedotoincreaseimpactonpractice?
Alongtimeago,whenwewerebothyoungresearchers,there wasan expectation that we (asaccounting researchers) would writearticlesforpractitionermagazinesandwellaspapersinthe researchjournals.However,thiswouldseemtobeveryunusual thesedays,probablyduetotheincreasingemphasisinmanycoun- triesonformsof researchassessment which onlyvaluepapers inhighlyrankedacademicjournals.Nevertheless,wewouldurge managementaccountingresearcherstolookforwaysofcommu- nicatingtheresultsoftheirresearchtoawideraudience.
Theabovecommentscouldbetakentoimplyasomewhatnar- rowviewofrelevance−i.e.developingnewideasandtoolswhich couldbeusedbymanagementaccountingpractitioners.However, the‘critical’ research which Trevor Hopper wasseeking would notbe intendedto develop newpractices;insteadit would be designedtoprovidecriticalanalysesoftheconsequencesofexist- ingpractices.Moregenerally,suchresearchchallenges,andseeks toupset,conventionalwaysofthinkingaboutandpracticingman- agementaccounting.Consequently,thistypeofresearchisunlikely tobepublishedinpractitionerjournals,norisitlikelytoberead- ilyacceptedbypractitioners.Nevertheless,thereareothermedia throughwhichcriticalresearcherscancontributetowiderpublic debates.
Whileothersocialsciencesalsohaveproblemsindisseminat- ingtheirresearchtopractitionersandtothepublicmoregenerally, theremaybeparticularproblemsforaccounting,and especially management accounting. CEOsrarely say that theiraccounting givestheirorganisationsproprietaryadvantages,orthataccount- ingisamongthemajorcurrentproblemstheyface.7
Financial, and especially management, accounting research generates little interest in the general media, unless it con- cernssomethinglikeafinancialaccountingscandal.Consequently, accountingpractitioners, managersand otherinterested groups will not be informed about the research unless theyread the specialistresearchliterature.Incontrast,social scienceresearch whichproducesnewfacts,ornewapplicationsofexistingfacts,can becomewidelypublicised.Asmanagementaccountingresearchers tendnottogeneratenewfacts,orwheretheydotheyreferonlyto veryspecificsettings,researchersoftentrytoover-selltheirfind-
7 See,forexample,pwcAnnualGlobalCEOSurvey:http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/
ceo-agenda/ceosurvey/2015.html.
ingsbymakingexaggeratedclaimsaboutthegeneralityoftheir findings.
Ifwelookbacksay50yearsorso,managementaccountingwas generallyseenasapracticalcraftwhichwaslargelyoutsideuniver- sitiesandwaslearntinpractice.However,accountingingeneral, includingmanagementaccounting,hasbecomeauniversity-based subjectovertheinterveningyears.Initially,itwaslinkedtoeco- nomics, and subsequently alsotodisciplines suchas sociology, psychologyandorganisationaltheory.Usingthesedisciplineshas helpedto establishthelegitimacyof (management)accounting asanacademicsubject,asaccountingresearchershavedemon- stratedthattheycancontributeto(oratleastdrawupon)these moreestablisheddisciplines.Thequestionnowiswhether(man- agement)accountinghasmaturedasanacademicsubject,suchthat itnolongerneedstodrawonotherdisciplinessimplytoachieve academiclegitimacy.Ifso,wecouldthinkmoreabouthowmanage- mentaccountingresearchcanbecomethebridgebetweentheory andpractice.
Asweindicatedabove,managementaccountingresearchtends tofollow(ratherthan lead)practice.AsFigs. 2and3 illustrate, a number of importantmanagement accounting innovationsin thepastweregeneratedinpractice.Takingasexamplesanum- berofmajormanagementaccountinginnovationsovertheperiod indicatedonthehorizontalaxis,Fig.2indicatesthetimeperiods neededbefore theybecamegenerally accepted bylargeorgan- isationsin theUKand theUS. Twoparticularpointsshouldbe noted.Firstly,acceptancetooksomeconsiderabletime,oftenwell overtenyears.Secondly,themajorityoftheseinnovationsevolved inpracticeandweremostlydevelopedbyengineersratherthan accountants. However, DCF was developed by researchers, but mainlyeconomists,althoughaccountingresearcherswereinvolved initsdissemination.Althoughdivisionalisationevolvedinpractice, accountingresearchersdevelopedanumberaccountingtoolsfor divisionalisedorganisations,butitwasconsultantswhorefinedand popularisednewtechniquesbasedonresidualincomeandvalue addedmanagement.
Fig.3showsasomewhatsubjectiveviewoftheextenttowhicha numberofmanagementaccountinginnovations(broadlydefined) havebeenadoptedbylargeUKorganisationssincethelate1980s.
Otherinnovationscouldbeincluded,butthose showncouldbe regardedasthe‘leadingedge’.Someotherinnovations,e.g.lin- earprogramming,whileimportantforresearchandteachinghave failed totake off in practice, except for some highly specialist uses.Others,whichseemedforatimetooffergreatpromise,have becomeacceptedas useful,butfor limited purposes,e.g. activ- itybasedcostingandvarious‘Japanesemanagementaccounting’
tools.LookingatFigs.2and3itseemsthatwidelyacceptedmajor innovationsarerelativelyrare.Furthermore,Fig.3reinforcesthe pointmadeaboveaboutFig.2,i.e.thatthedisseminationofeven successfulinnovationscanbeveryslow.
MostoftheinnovationsshowninFig.3haveoriginatedinprac- tice.However,somehavebeentheorisedandrefinedbyresearchers orpopularisedbyconsultants.Examplesoftheformerareactivity basedcostingandthebalancedscorecard,andexamplesofthelat- terarebeyondbudgetingandvalueaddedmanagement.Ofthe successfulinnovationsonlyvalueaddedmanagementandtrans- ferpricingarefoundedonresearch.Itcanreasonablybesaidthat accountingresearcherscomelatetothestudyofmostsuccessful managementaccountinginnovationsandtheytendonlytotest theclaimsoftheiradvocates,ratherthantryingtodevelopthe innovations.Acurrent‘hottopic’inpracticeisbusinessmodels.
Whilemuchofthecontentofthesemodelsisbasedonmanage- mentaccountinginformation,accountingresearchersdonotseem tobeparticularlyinterestedinthearea.Ifresearchersaretocon- tributetonewpracticalinnovationstheyneedtobecomeinvolved earlierinthelifeofthoseinnovations.
Cost book keeping
1840- 1910 Improved costing
1914-20 Standard Costing
1920-30 Budgetary control
1931- early 1960s DCF
1960- today Divisionalisation
Fig.2.EvolutionofmanagementaccountinginUKandUSA.
Fig.3.PenetrationofnewmethodsintheUK.
ThebottomrowofFig.3labelled,‘agency,contingencytheory andmanagement control’,contains someofthemajorresearch areasinmanagement accounting,butthis researchis shownas havingonlya lowimpact.Theseareasofresearcharegenerally agreedtohavegreatlyincreasedourunderstandingofmanagement accounting.However,theirresultsseemtohavehadlittleimpact onpractice.Someofthelanguageofthisresearchandsomeofthe generalfindingshavebeenincorporatedintopracticaldiscourse.
Conceptssuchasmoralhazard,adverseselection,contingencies, andincentivesbasedontournamentsoronindividualperformance arewellunderstoodfromexperiencebymanyinpractice.However, thereseemstobelittleevidenceofthefindingsofmanagement accountingresearchdrawingtheseconceptsbeingincorporated intopractice.
Onereasonmaybethatthemodelsusedbyresearchersseem tobefarremovedfromthecontextsinwhichorganisationsoper- ate,especiallywhenresearchersfocustheirattentiononaspecific narrow sub-discipline.Practitioners maybe expectedto takea moreholisticviewoforganisations.Anotherreasonmaybethat researcherstendtoadoptveryrestrictedassumptions andtheir studiesareoften‘one-off’investigationsofacomplexsetofvari- ables.Consequently,theresultsareverysensitivetochangesinthe assumptionsorinthesetofvariables.Moreover,seeminglyimpor- tantvariablesareoftenomitted.Generally,therearefew,ifany, otherstudiesofthesamephenomenausingalternativeapproaches andexaminingareasonablylongtimeframe.Thisiswhywecall fortheuseofavarietyofapproachestostudyspecificissuesand problems—preferablylongitudinally.Practiceislikelytobeinter- estedinresearchstudiesonlyifthere isagoodfitbetweenthe
organisations’andthestudies’settings,thefindingsarerobustand stableovertime,andtheirpresentationisuserfriendly.
MostofthesubjectsonthebottomrowofFig.3,andalsoin manyotherareasofmanagementaccountingresearch,makevery intensiveinformationdemandsonpractitionersinorganisations.
Forexample,somerequireknowledgeof variousaspectsofthe psychologicalmake-upofindividualsortheirviewsondifferent typesofjustice.However,suchinformationmaybeeithersubject togamingbyindividualsorresultfromtheformationofcoalitions.
Theseandotherdemandsarelikelytomeanthattheapplicationof research-basedmodelswillbeexpensiveand,therefore,onlyviable forquitelargeorganisations.Onereasonoftenquotedfornotusing activitybasedcostingisthatitisexpensive.
Thissuggeststhatresearcherswhowanttohaveanimpacton practiceneedtobeawareofwhatishappeninginpracticeandbe willingtoworkonproblemswhichareofinteresttopractitioners.
Forexample,experimentalistsandanalyticalmodellerscouldfocus oncurrentproblemswhichinterestpractitioners.Surveyscouldbe designed,notjustonthebasisofpilotstudies,butonathorough understandingofcurrentpracticeswithinorganisations.Similarly, thetheorisingwhichunderpinssurveyresearch,whichcurrently tendstobegroundedinthetheoreticalliterature,couldalsoreflect availableknowledgeofcurrentpractices.Casestudiesandfield- basedresearch,includinginterventionistresearch,couldhelpto providethispracticalknowledge.Thisreinforcesthepointwemade earlierabouttheneedfor‘conversations’betweenmanagement accountingresearchersadoptingdifferentresearchmethodsand theories.However,foranyofthistoworkwellorganisationshave tobewillingtoallowresearchersaccessandthiscanbedifficultin manycountries.
Thesesuggestionsdonotimplyachangeineitherwhatisper- ceivedashighqualitymanagementaccountingresearchorinthe searchfornewmanagementaccountinginnovations.Researchers willneedtocontinuetomeettheexpectationsofreviewersand journaleditorsbyproducingwelldesignedandrigorouslyexecuted studieswhichcontributetoexistingknowledge.Somejournaledi- torsmayhaveproblemswithpaperswhichreflectcurrentpractical concerns,butknowledgeofpracticeproperlyusedinhighquality researchmaychangesuchattitudes.However,ithastoberecog- nisedthatacquiringknowledgeofpracticetakestimeandcanbe ariskyinvestmentforyoungresearchers.Nevertheless,itwillhelp managementaccountingresearcherstohaveagreaterimpactin thefuture.
6. Finalcomments
Towardstheend oftheConferencethere wasa plenaryses- sion,chairedbyWimVanderStede,duringwhichMartinMessner, AlfredWagenhoferand Paolo Quattrone commentedonoppor- tunities for future research in management accounting. Their commentaries,whicharepublishedinthis SpecialIssue,discuss issuesrelatingto(1)industry,(2)regulationand(3)digitisation.
MartinMessnerbegan bypointing outthat ithaslongbeen recognisedthat context matters andthat various theorieshave beenusedtoprovideacontext-sensitiveunderstandingofmanage- mentaccounting.However,apartfromsomespecificareasofthe publicsector,notablyhealthcare,littleattentionhasbeengivento industry-relatedissues.Hepointstoanumberofopportunitiesfor studyingdifferentkindsofindustryspecificsandtheireffectson managementaccounting.Hearguesthatexplicitconsiderationof industryspecificswillnotonlyprovideanunderstandingofhow differentindustrieswork,butcouldalso“offerbetterexplanations forwhyaccountingispractisedinthewaythatitis”.
Drawingonexamplesofregulatorychanges intheEuropean Union(EU), Alfred Wagenhoferargues that the increasingreg- ulation which has followed the recent financial and economic
crises provides various opportunities for research in manage- mentaccounting.Hepointsoutthat,asorganisationsdetermine theirownmanagementaccountingsystems,itmightseemoddto suggestthatregulationopensupopportunitiesforresearchinman- agementaccounting.However,hedemonstratesthatEUregulation ofcorporategovernance,togetherwiththerequirementforgreater transparencyanddisclosure,providesopportunitiesformanage- mentaccountingresearch.Morespecifically,therecentchangesin theregulationofcorporategovernanceofferopportunitiesforboth analyticaland empiricalresearchinanumber ofareas,andthe increasingdisclosureand transparencyrequirementsmeanthat newdatawillbecomeavailableforempiricalstudies.
Anotherpotentialareaforresearchinmanagementaccounting, andalsoforthedevelopmentofpractice,is thecontinuingdig- italrevolutionwhichcurrentlyoftenattractsthetitle‘bigdata’.
However,inthethirdcommentary,PaoloQuattronesoundsacau- tionarynote.Hepointsoutthatwhereastheincreasingavailability ofdatamayleadtothebeliefthatbetterandmorerationaldeci- sionmakingispossible,itismorelikelytoincreaseuncertainty andcomplexity,whichwillrequiretheexerciseoftheconsiderable judgementwhichthelikesofautomatedsearchescannotprovide.
Consequently,hearguesthat,ratherthanseeingbigdataasaway ofproviding,forinstance,abettersetofperformancemeasures,it shouldbeseenasthebasisforestablishingacontinuingdialogue amongorganisationalactors.Assuch,thedigitisationofaccounting willrequiremanagementaccountantstobeabletoexercisejudge- ment(ratherthantopossessdata-processingcapabilities),andhow managementaccountantsseektodothisinaneraofbigdataisa potentialareaforfutureresearch.
Thesecommentariessuggestthreeareaswherethereareoppor- tunitiesforfutureresearchinmanagementaccounting:industry, regulationanddigitisation.Undoubtedly,therearemanyothers, butwe willnotattempt tosetthemouthere.Aswe indicated earlier,over theyears wehave notsought tolimitor todirect thescopeofmanagementaccountingresearch.Instead,wehave intentionallykeptthescopeofthejournalverybroadtoallowthe subjecttodevelopthroughtheresearchpublishedinthejournal.
Nevertheless,inthisEditorialwehavesuggestedsomechallenges andopportunitiesformanagementaccountingresearchersinthe future.Specifically,wecommentedontheopportunitiesforcon- versationsacrossthedifferenttypesofmanagementaccounting researchandtheneedtoaccumulateamorecoherentbodyofman- agementaccountingknowledge.Wealsopointedtothechallenges whichmanagementaccountingresearchersmayfaceinthefuture indemonstratingtheimpactoftheirresearchbeyondtheacademic journals.
Webelieveresearchinthefieldofmanagementaccountinghas achievedaconsiderableamountoverthepast25years,andwehave beendelightedthatManagementAccountingResearchhasplayed a significantrole in thisachievement.Therearecurrentlychal- lenges,therealwayswillbe.Probablymoreimportantly,thereare alsoopportunitieswithconsiderablepotentialforthedevelopment ofmanagementaccountinginthefuture.Whatwillmanagement accountingresearchhaveachievedinanother25years?Wecannot tell.However,webelievethattherecontinuestobeavibrantcom- munityofmanagementaccountingresearcherstotakethesubject forward.
Acknowledgements
WeareverygratefultothesponsorsoftheManagementAccount- ingResearch25thAnniversaryConference:CIMA,Elsevier,London SchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScienceandManchesterBusiness SchoolandtotheauthorsandreviewersofthepapersinthisSpecial Issue.
References
Bromwich,M.,Bhimani,A.,1994.ManagementAccounting:PathwaystoProgress.
CIMAPublishing,London,UK.
Bromwich,M.,Hopwood,A.G.(Eds.),1986.Research&CurrentIssuesin ManagementAccounting.PitmanPublishing,London,UK.
Latham,G.P.,2011.Commentary:observationsconcerningpathwaysfordoing usefulresearch.In:Mohrman,S.A.,Lawler,E.E.(Eds.),UsefulResearch:
AdvancingTheoryandPractice.Berrett-Koehler,SanFrancisco,CA,pp.
309–318.
Merchant,K.A.,2012.Makingmanagementaccountingusefulmoreuseful.Pac.
Account.Rev.24(3),334–356.
Otley,D.T.,1980.Thecontingencytheoryofmanagementaccounting:
achievementandprognosis.Account.Organ.Soc.5(4),413–428.
Scapens,R.W.,1984.Managementaccounting—asurveypaper.In:Management Accounting,OrganizationalTheoryandCapitalBudgeting—ThreeSurveys.
ESRC/Macmillan,UK,pp.15–95.
Scapens,R.W.,Bromwich,M.,2001.Editorialreport:Managementaccounting research:thefirstdecade.Manag.Account.Res.12(2),245–254.
Scapens,R.W.,Bromwich,M.,2010.Editorialreport:Managementaccounting research:20yearson.Manag.Account.Res.21(4),278–284.
VanderStede,W.A.,2015.Editorial.Manag.Account.Res.26,1–2.
