Scribd
Upload
48 views

Lukka, K. and J. Mouritsen. 2002. Homogeneity or Heterogeneity of Research in Management Accounting? The European

The authors argue against adopting a single economics-based paradigm for management accounting research. They believe this would stifle various insights generated from different research approaches and silence important issues. While rigor and theory are needed, accepting a mono-paradigmatic view could threaten progress. Different research methods produce different types of generalizations and stories about cases. Heterogeneity in approaches is preferable to maintain openness to change.

Uploaded by

Ummy Nadhiroh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
48 views

Lukka, K. and J. Mouritsen. 2002. Homogeneity or Heterogeneity of Research in Management Accounting? The European

The authors argue against adopting a single economics-based paradigm for management accounting research. They believe this would stifle various insights generated from different research approaches and silence important issues. While rigor and theory are needed, accepting a mono-paradigmatic view could threaten progress. Different research methods produce different types of generalizations and stories about cases. Heterogeneity in approaches is preferable to maintain openness to change.

Uploaded by

Ummy Nadhiroh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Lukka, K. and J. Mouritsen. 2002.

Homogeneity or heterogeneity of research


in management accounting? The European
Accounting Review 11(4): 805-811.

The purpose of this short paper is to comment on Zimmerman's (2001) view that
the way to develop a cumulative body of theoretical knowledge in management
accounting is to use one paradigm for management accounting research based on
economics. The authors argue that this "normal science" approach would be
dangerous and threaten the management accounting research community's ability
for progress.

Lukka and Mouritsen go on to say that Zimmerman's concerns are important. We


do need more rigor, more testing and more theory, but to accept his "mono-
paradigmatic position" would silence various insights about management
accounting that come from using a variety of research approaches. They argue that
Zimmerman is making a value judgment with a political tone. They discuss several
research papers to support their argument that various issues would be silenced if a
single economics-based paradigm were adopted. For example, one study deals with
the instability of management accounting, while another study hinges on
competition between accountants and other professions within organizations.

In addition, generalizations are derived in different ways using different


approaches. In economics-based approaches random samples produce statistical
support for generalizations about a population. In other approaches, such as field
research, outcomes of individual studies are generalized by examining how the
results of various studies are related and "can be made to talk to each other".
Generalizations from field studies can add to generalizations made from statistical
analysis.

Another point the authors make is that different research agendas provide different
stories about the same case evidence and issues. For example, they mention a study
of Caterpillar by Miller and O'Leary (1994) that could be viewed as a causal model
- competition leads to the adoption of a management accounting system that is
process-based. But the story could be told in a much different, more involved way
in that competition, the failure of the U.S. factory system and the success of the
Japanese system lead Caterpillar to restructure with all the associated problems and
changes related to people, systems, organization routines and strategies.

Homogeneity in the marketplace for research would be be costly since the


inducement for change would be lost. In their view heterogeneity is preferable. The
door for change should be kept open.

Tujuan dari makalah singkat ini adalah untuk mengomentari pandangan


Zimmerman (2001) bahwa cara untuk mengembangkan badan kumulatif
pengetahuan teoritis dalam akuntansi manajemen adalah dengan menggunakan
satu paradigma untuk penelitian akuntansi manajemen berdasarkan ekonomi.
Penulis berpendapat bahwa pendekatan "ilmu pengetahuan normal" ini akan
berbahaya dan mengancam kemampuan riset akuntansi manajemen untuk
kemajuan.

Lukka dan Mouritsen terus mengatakan bahwa kekhawatiran Zimmerman


penting. Kita membutuhkan lebih banyak ketelitian, lebih banyak pengujian dan
teori yang lebih banyak, namun untuk menerima "posisi mono-paradigmatiknya"
akan membungkam berbagai wawasan tentang akuntansi manajemen yang
datang dari penggunaan berbagai pendekatan penelitian. Mereka berpendapat
bahwa Zimmerman membuat penilaian nilai dengan nada politik. Mereka
membahas beberapa makalah penelitian untuk mendukung argumen mereka
bahwa berbagai isu akan dibungkam jika paradigma berbasis ekonomi tunggal
diadopsi. Misalnya, satu studi berkaitan dengan ketidakstabilan akuntansi
manajemen, sementara penelitian lain bergantung pada persaingan antara
akuntan dan profesi lainnya di dalam organisasi.

Selain itu, generalisasi diturunkan dengan cara yang berbeda dengan


menggunakan pendekatan yang berbeda. Dalam pendekatan berbasis ekonomi
sampel acak menghasilkan dukungan statistik untuk generalisasi tentang
populasi. Dalam pendekatan lain, seperti penelitian lapangan, hasil studi
individual digeneralisasi dengan memeriksa bagaimana hasil berbagai penelitian
terkait dan "dapat dilakukan untuk berbicara satu sama lain". Generalisasi dari
studi lapangan dapat menambah generalisasi yang dibuat dari analisis statistik.

Hal lain yang penulis buat adalah bahwa berbagai agenda penelitian
memberikan cerita yang berbeda tentang bukti dan masalah kasus yang sama.
Misalnya, mereka menyebutkan sebuah penelitian Caterpillar oleh Miller dan
O'Leary (1994) yang dapat dipandang sebagai model kausal - persaingan
menyebabkan penerapan sistem akuntansi manajemen yang berbasis proses.
Tapi ceritanya bisa diceritakan dengan cara yang jauh berbeda dan lebih terlibat
dalam kompetisi tersebut, kegagalan sistem pabrik AS dan keberhasilan sistem
Jepang membuat Caterpillar merestrukturisasi semua masalah dan perubahan
terkait dengan orang, sistem, organisasi. Rutinitas dan strategi.
Homogenitas di pasar untuk penelitian akan menjadi mahal karena dorongan
untuk perubahan akan hilang. Dalam pandangan mereka heterogenitas lebih
baik. Pintu ganti harus tetap terbuka.

You might also like