e-journal
Methodological themes Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for “middle-range” thinking
There would be few today that would dispute that empirical research in accounting is of central importance. Yet it is interesting to note that, as Mattessich (1980) points out, this centrality is of recent origin. It is only in the 1970s that this shift in accounting research gained centre stage. Prior to this time “normative” thinking and theorizing was paramount. The reason for this shift in the 1970s is clearly complex yet it is not unconnected with, first, the disillusionment with normative thinking and second, with the interest in the shift to more descriptive studies from multiple branches of the research community. On the first point what became clear in the 1970s was that the normative ideas which had been generated over previous decades did not appear to be readily taken up and used in practice. It was as though a “tissue rejection” problem was occurring – the suggested design for accounting systems seemed to have an irrelevance to current practices. This led to calls for a greater descriptive understanding of the functioning of current accounting practices in the hope that such an appreciation would lead to the design of more meaningful and appropriate normative systems. Cooper (1981,
p. 198) makes this plain when he suggests that “…only through a wellgrounded understanding of how systems operate can we prescribe how accounting systems should be changed”. The second factor leading to the 1970s’ demands for greater empirical understanding of accounting was because of the calls for this move from both the “economics” and “behavioural” wings of the accounting academic research community (see also Hopwood, 1989 who makes similar connections).
Tidak ada salinan data
Tidak tersedia versi lain