the use of strong structuration theory as a lens to … · web viewthe use of strong structuration...
TRANSCRIPT
The use of Strong Structuration Theory as a lens to evaluate
management accounting change.
Dr Angela Lorenz
Aston Business School
Draft paper
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the use of strong structuration theory as a
lens for investigating management accounting change in organisations.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is informed by structuration theory
drawing on alternative theories used to evaluate management accounting change to
develop a rationale for the use of Stones (2005) quadripartite model.
Findings – The use of Stones (2005) strong structuration theory has been
overlooked as a theory in management accounting research, in particular the
quadripartite model can overcome problems levelled at both institutional and
structuration theory in terms of their inability to get to the heart of the recursive
relationship between structure and agency, to provide a richer insight into barriers
and enablers of management accounting change from the perception of the
accountant.
Originality/value –There is a lack of empirical evidence of the use of strong
structuration theory and this paper provides a rationale for its use and provides
insights as to how it can be used productively to yield new insights into management
accounting change.
Keywords Management accounting change, institutional theory, structuration theory,
strong structuration theory
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Management accounting research has been described as diverse and eclectic
(Wanderley and Cullen, 2012b). It has evolved over time first following a rational
perspective utilising the neoclassical framework based on the assumption that
decision makers are profit maximisers (Hopper et al, 2001, Ryan et al, 2002) which
became linked to Chua’s 1986 definition of mainstream management accounting
research. The research subsequently developed to consider management
accounting in a wider socio-economic context, creating the paradigms of interpretive
and critical research in management accounting. Tomkins and Groves called in
1983 for accounting researchers to use different social science approaches to “get
closer to the practitioners everyday world” (1983:373).
Over time a number of different theoretical lenses have been applied to management
accounting research, Scapens (2006a), for example, summarises his personal
journey from the use of Economic and Contingency theory to Institutional theory and
Structuration.
The study of change in management accounting practices is a key area of research
which has been evaluated using these theoretical lenses.
Interest in management accounting change (or lack of change) was brought to
mainstream attention by Johnson and Kaplan (1987) who argued that management
accounting practices had failed to keep pace with changes in the organisational
environment. In response to this new techniques of management accounting have
been developed in organisations and it is these developments that have been
termed management accounting change (Wickramasinghe & Alawattage, 2007).
Early studies of management accounting change were based on the rational
perspective, viewed practices in an economic context and surmised that change
would only occur if there were financial benefit in the activity. Subsequently studies
from a rational perspective focused on the theory of the organisation which viewed
the relationship between management accounting change and contingencies
(Lapsley & Pettigrew, 1994, Ezzamel et al, 1996; Libby & Waterhouse, 1996;
Haldma and Laats, 2002; Baines & Langfield-Smith, 2003; Akbar, 2010). These
studies looked for linkages between organisational and environmental variables and
then evaluate how management accounting can be used in different situations
Institutional theory also rose as a lens with frameworks developed which linked this
theory to management accounting change (Granlund & Lukka, 1998; Burns and
Scapens, 2000; Lukka, 2007) and further work was undertaken which sought to look
at typologies and devise models of management accounting change (Sulaiman &
Mitchell, 2005, Ax & Bjornenak, 2007).
Whilst Burns and Scapens (2000) get close to interpreting rules and routines as
structure the use of structuration theory was slow to surface as a lens for evaluating
management accounting practice change.
Whilst each of these lenses has helped to shed new insights into management
accounting change no theory can address all of the issues associated with the
research in question and it becomes vital to test the validity and insights of new
theories and models when they materialise.
Lorenz (2015) during the course of collecting primary case study research data
relating to the use of contemporary management accounting tools in service
industries discovered that it was possible to evaluate the barriers and enablers of
change from the perspective of the accountant in the organisation and therefore the
use of structuration theory and particularly the quadripartite model of strong
structuration theory could be used as a sensitising lens with which to shed new
insights into how management accounting practices become embedded and
reproduced in organisations and how new tools and techniques may be introduced
over time.
Lorenz (2015) found little evidence of strong structuration being used and particularly
not in the context of management accounting change demonstrating a gap in the
literature for planning and evaluating how this theory could be used in future
research in this area.
This paper will review the development of the research relating to management
accounting change and the rise and use of structuration theory and strong
structuration theory in management accounting. The paper will then demonstrate
how the use of Stones (2005) strong structuration theory using the quadripartite
framework can be used as an alternative method to investigate and understand
management accounting change.
2. Review of the theories used to evaluate management accounting change
Since the early work of Johnson and Kaplan (1987) management accounting change
has become a topic of much debate. Akbar (2010) suggests that the profile and
importance of management accounting systems and practices in organisations has
increased resulting in a persistent call for change.
Over time academics have used a variety of theories and developed models and
frameworks in order to aid understanding of management accounting change in
organisations, these can be grouped into six categories which are shown in table 1
below.
Table 1: Summary of the theoretical lenses used to evaluating management accounting change
Theory Key elements Key authors
Transaction Cost Theory Management accounting change can only be achieved if the cost of managerial coordination is reduced
Zimmerman, (1979)Banker et al (1996)Cooper and Slagmulder, (2004)
Agency Theory Management accounting change is brought about by principals who recognise that existing management accounting systems do not solve their agency problem
Baiman (1982, 1990)Spicer and Ballew, (1983)Wilson and Chua (1993)
Contingency Theory An examination of the changes to management accounting systems in response to environmental changes
Lapsley and Pettigrew, (1994)Ezzamel et al, (1996)Baines and Langfield-Smith (2003)Abdel-Kader and Luther (2008)
Institutional Theory New Institutional Sociology (NIS)
Dimaggio and Powell (1991)Granlund and Lukka
Management accounting changes conform to external structures
(1998)Jarvenpaa (2009)
Institutional Theory Old Institutional Economics (OIE) Exploring change and stability of management accounting practices as rules and routines linked with internal structures.
Burns and Scapens (2000)Siti-Nabiha and Scapens (2005)Lukka (2007)Van der Steen (2011)Quinn (2014)Robalo (2014)
The first three theoretical lenses can be described as following a rational perspective
(Wickramasinghe and Alawattage, 2007) using a neo-classical economic framework.
Hopper et al (2001) held the view that management accounting research was
dominated by economic theory up to the 1970’s and Scapens and Arnold (1986)
suggested that economic theory played a key role in the development of techniques
in all areas of management accounting and a review of the literature undertaken by
Sheilds in 1997 showed the majority of management accounting research was based
on economic theory.
Transaction cost economics has amongst its advocates Johnson and kaplan, (1987),
and rests on the assumption that organisational economy and efficiency are
increased through manageirial coordination and that the role of management
accounting is to reduce the cost of managerial coordination. Hence new techniques
of management accounting will be introduced if they can reduce this cost. David and
Han, (2004) recognise the high use of this theory in a variety of management
disciplines since the work of Williamson in 1975 but also reflect on the criticisms
levelled at this theory in terms of weak empirical evidence to support the theory
particularly as organisational forms have changed and boundaries have blurred
(Wickramasinghe and Alawattage, 2007). Baiman (1990) in his review suggests that
transaction cost economics whilst it has made a significant contribution to the
industrial organisation literature it has not been applied to specific managerial
accounting issues. Baiman (1990) goes on to criticise the imprecise nature of the
theory in defining transaction costs as being a particular impediment.
Agency Theory based on the contractual relationship between agent and principal
allows management accounting research to view the organisational relationships
which affect management accounting tool development and use. Baiman (1990:344)
suggested that agency theory has brought a…. “new appreciation for the role of
managerial accounting procedures and a more subtle understanding of the demand
for and effect of managerial accounting policies and procedures” Baiman (1990) also
goes on to reflect on the criticisms levelled at agency theory in respect to the
computational elements required, the simplicity of the models used and the lack of
consideration of trust, these are views mirrored by later academic criticism such as
Seal and Vincent-Jones (1997), Kunz and Pfaff (2002) and Lambert (2006). Kelly
and Pratt (1996:230) suggest that whilst it “provides convincing explanations for
some behaviour……… it is only selectively convincing and denies the possibility of
economically irrational or altruistic behaviour”.
The use of contingency theory in management accounting research can be traced
back some 40 years to academics such as Waterhouse and Tiessen (1978) and
Otley (1980) who were able to identify that there is not one overriding appropriate
management accounting system and that the design of management accounting
systems are shaped by environmental and organisational factors. Chenhall (2003)
identified that the popularity of using contingency theory had not waned and that
contemporary issues were continuing to be examined using this framework.
Research conducted Baines and Langfield-Smith (2003), for example, utilised a
contingency led approach to management accounting change linking changes in
management accounting systems and organisational variables to environmental
changes. Their conclusions suggest that successful organisations are changing their
strategies in line with environmental changes but could find no direct relationship
between them and advanced management accounting practices.
Additionally, Akbar (2010) suggests that internal and external organisational changes
such as information technology advancements, more competitive and customer
driven markets, changes in organisational structures and new management
practices, have had a direct impact on management accounting practices supporting
previous studies including Lapsley and Pettigrew, 1994 and Ezzamel et al, 1996,
Haldma and Laats, 2002 and Libby and Waterhouse, 1996.
Chenhall (2003) in his critique does however suggest that there are a number
criticisms of contingency theory including reliance on using the general
contingencies mentioned above rather than exploring new contingent factors.
Covaleski et al (1996:8) in their reflection of contingency theory suggest it has “been
criticised for presenting a deterministic, ahistorical view of organisations which
produces limited insight as to the mediating processes of organisations”.
Chenhall (2003) also concurs with earlier critics such as Otley (1980) and Hopper
and Powell, (1985) suggesting the contingent variables needed greater definition and
more importantly should recognise the social and institutional contexts of the
environment and the way these specifically exert pressure on management
accounting systems.
Zimmerman (2001) put forward a case for the superiority of the mainstream
functionalist approach to management accounting research based on economic
theory, suggesting at the time that other epistemological stances in management
accounting research lacked empirically tested theories. Zimmerman’s paper
received a number of criticisms at the time Luft and Shields, (2002) for example
suggested that management accounting research needed to be rich and diverse, a
view which supports Tomkins and Groves’ (1983) call for accounting researchers to
use different social science approaches and Burns and Scapens (2000) go on to
argue that economic approaches whilst they may suggest the techniques do not
assist in our understanding of how management accounting techniques come to be
used or not. Ryan et al, (2002) suggest that as a result research using the alternative
approaches (interpretive and critical management accounting research) have
expanded rapidly and have helped to reduce the theory practice gap by bringing
research closer to practice.
Institutional theory is one such alternative approach. A number of different strands of
institutional theory exist with the aim of gaining insights into organisational change
and these have been extended to consider management accounting change. They
include new institutional economics (NIE), new institutional sociology (NIS) and old
institutional economics (ONS).
NIE is concerned with the external institutions in the organisational environment
(economic social and political) and their effect on organisational practice (DiMaggio
and Powell, 1991). DiMaggio and Powell in their analysis suggested that
organisations conform to gain legitimacy and increase their probability of survival.
Scapens (2006b) suggests that NIE has drawn attention to the economic factors that
shape organisations structures, systems and management accounting practices.
NIS attempts to explain why organisations in a particular filed appear similar. It
distinguishes between technical (efficiency in operations) and institutional (rules,
social norms and expectations) environments. In terms of contemporary
management accounting tools such as ABC, Scapens (2006b) suggests it would be
useful to consider the technical concerns driving the adoption and also the desire to
conform to external expectations.
DiMaggio and Powell, (1991) considered different types of isomorphism (the extent
to which one organisation resembles another) and categorised them into three
groups: Coersive (legal/political); Mimetic (copying others); Normative (society and
professional bodies).
Using an NIE and NIS approach Granlund and Lukka (1998) produced a framework
of drivers of management accounting practice. They suggested that there was a
growing trend towards globalisation of management accounting practices and that
future management accounting research should focus on analysing the similarities.
Javenpaa (2009) considers the institutional pillars: normative; regulative and cultural-
cognitive in creating organisational legitimacy for management accounting practices
to add further insight into change and stability.
NIE clearly focuses on the economic and together with NIS focuses on external
social institutions however it does not give any insight into what is happening
internally in individual organisations with regard the influences over management
accounting practices, Scapens (2006b).
OIE is designed to look internally at institutions within the organisation to focus on
internal pressures which may shape management accounting practice. Whilst NIE
and NIS still have links to the classical economic theory that has shaped
management accounting research, OIE was built on questioning the classical
framework of rationality and recognises that actors’ behaviour can be shaped by the
organisational institutions, Scapens (2006b).
Burns and Scapens (2000) developed a framework based on OIE considering rules
and routines linking institution to action, to form a process for management
accounting change. They focus on the ways in which rules and routines exist in
organisations and how the nature of these combined with the behaviour and
relationships within groups in the organisation shape the process of change. They
suggest that “management accounting change which is consistent with the existing
routines and institutions will be easier to achieve than change which challenges
those routines and institutions” (Burns and Scapens, 2000:12). They suggest the
framework should be used in interpretive case studies for focusing on the
fundamental characteristics of change. It is interesting to note that whilst some refer
to the work of Burns and Scapens (2000) as institutional theory Englund et al (2011)
and Englund and Gurdin (2014) refer to this work as being in the field of structuration
theory due to the link that Burns and Scapens (2000)form to accounting rules and
routines as internal structures and the agents over time.
Lukka (2007) drew on the framework of Burns and Scapens (2000) considering both
the change and stability of management accounting systems over time and the
formal and informal domains of organisational life. Lukka (2007) goes someway to
extend Burns and Scapens (2000) work to consider informal routines which move
towards the use of structuration theory. Lukka (2007) concludes that it is possible to
have both change and stability in management accounting systems at a point in
time. Van der Steen (2011) sought to provide greater clarity as to the nature and
complexity of routines and found that the routines could be dynamic rather than
static. Robalo (2014) further extended the work by seeking to add the issues of trust
and power to Burns and Scapens (2000) original framework whilst Quinn (2014)
demonstrated that rules and routines can be considered separately.
Ribeiro and Scapens (2006) and Alsharai et al (2015) further extend the work of
Burns and Scapens by combining both their Old Institutional Economics (OIE)
approach to that of NIS and adding an extra dimension of circuits of power (Clegg,
1989) in the case of Ribeiro and Scapens and power and politics following Hardys
1996 work in the case of Alsharari et a (2015)l, their intention was to create more
inclusive contextual frameworks which could be used for research into management
accounting change.
Table 1 above shows how institutional theory has been dominant in the expansion of
research into management accounting change, however institutional theory suffers
from a variety of problems, such as the focus only on external or internal structures
which Ribeiro and Scapens (2006) and Alsharari et al (2015) have attempted to
overcome by combining NIS and OIE into new frameworks. Barley and Tolbert
(1997) and Dillard et al (2004) show how institutional theory does not show the
recursive relationship between institutions and actors and in that respect suggest
that structuration theory has an advantage over institutional theory.
3. Structuration theory and management accounting
Structuration theory is based on the work developed by Giddens (1984). The main
premise of the work relates to the duality of structure between the agency of
individuals (to make their own choices) and the social structures (rules and routines).
Therefore the structures are “both a product of and constraint on human action”
(Barley and Tolbert, 1997:97). Giddens suggests that structures exist because of
the routinised nature of human behaviour and hence existing rules can prevail for
long periods of time. Giddens is also clear “that structure is always both constraining
and enabling” (1984:25). Giddens model can be seen in Figure 1 below. Giddens
conception shows how the two realms of action and institution are related through
the modalities of structure. The institutional realm represents three key structures in
terms of signification (meaning), legitimation (morality) and domination (power). The
realm of action refers to actual arrangements of people, objects and events and
shows how they can be influenced by and influence the institutional realm in terms of
communication, power and where to sanction and reward behaviour through
modalities of interpretive schemes, resources and norms.
Figure 1: Giddens Model of Structuration
Source: Barley and Tolbert (1997:97)
Signification is the cognitive dimension; structures are semantic rules which are
interpreted as shared knowledge and accumulated skills drawn on to create meaning
and for actors to communicate with each other. In terms of management accounting
practice this will relate to the existing practices which are used and day to day
reports produced and communicated by actors based on the shared knowledge of
how the practice works (Macintosh and Scapens, 1991).
The domination dimension contains structures which constrain resources and but
also foster co-operation in order to achieve goals. Two types of resources are
controlled which are allocative resources (physical goods or even knowledge) also
known as artefacts and authoritative resources through the domination over other
actors (can be witnessed through chains of command) (Macintosh and Scapens,
1991). In terms of management accounting new tools may be slow to be introduced
as the subordinate actors do not have the power to change due to a lack of physical
resources and a lack of authority.
The legitimation dimension represents the moral underpinnings or collective
consciousness. Agents interact with this dimension through codes of conduct and
behaviour is rewarded or penalties imposed for compliance or non-compliance with
codes of conduct (Macintosh and Scapens, 1991). In terms of management
accounting this can be seen through systems which seek to attract responsibility and
accountability to agents and the way the agents react to those norms.
Using Giddens interpretation of routine and change, routine is welcomed by actors
and change does not occur easily however there are circumstances or “critical”
situations where conventional structures are abandoned and new ones emerge.
These may represent instances where changes in the external environment of an
organisation may force new accounting tools to be considered and implemented
through communication and power of individual actors (Macintosh and Scapens,
1991).
Work in management accounting using structuration theory has developed over time.
Scapens together with Roberts (1985) and Macintosh (1990) examined the
relationship between accounting practices and structure drawing on the duality of
structure. Macintosh and Scapens (1990) in particular suggest that “management
accounting systems represent the modalities of structuration in the three dimensions”
(1990:462), Busco (2009) adds that this alludes to the pivotal role of management
accounting in the relationship between agency and structure.
Other work such as Barrett et al (2005), Conrad (2005), Busco (2006) and Busco
and Scapens (2011) also explore Giddens theory of structuration and the role of
accounting information. Busco and Scapens (2011) conclude from their case study
research that management accounting change is mainly evolutionary but there are
periods of revolutionary change and by utilising the position practices and the three
dimensions of Giddens model a holistic explanation of the influence of management
accounting systems can be found. A further interesting finding from this research is
the ability of management accounting systems to pervade into common language
across a variety of actors in an organisation and as such improve communication
and breakdown cultural and operational boundaries.
Wanderley and Cullen (2012a) in their case study research of management
accounting change in a Brazilian electricity distribution company draw on both the
work of Dillard et al (2004) and Giddens structuration theory in framing their analysis
and were able to identify the extent of the relationship between structure and agents
and how therefore management accounting change was possible.
Gurd (2008) utilised structuration theory and Laughlins (1991) middle range thinking
framework. Gurd concluded that the use of structuration theory provided insights
into the role of accounting during a period of organisational change and the role of
individual agency.
Ogata and Spraakman (2013) also chose to use structuration theory in their archival
case study evaluation of management accounting change again demonstrating the
usefulness of the model in highlighting how management accounting tools persist
over time.
Busco et al (2007) also reflect on the use of structuration theory as being valuable to
overcome the dichotomy of “the complex interactions between management
accounting systems and organisational, institutional and contextual factors” (Busco
et al, 2007:130).
Englund and Gerdin (2014) and Englund et al (2011) reviewed the research that had
been conducted using structuration theory focusing not on the findings of the
research but on the way in which the researchers had used structuration theory, in
total they reviewed 65 papers mainly published in research journals, including those
mentioned above, up to 2010.
Englund et al (2011) suggest that structuration theory has made contributions to
accounting research in three key areas; by introducing the concept of duality and the
recursive nature of structure and agency; by conceptualising how accounting has
demonstrated insights into the three dimensions of structure (signification,
legitimation and domination); by providing a framework to allow theorising of
continuity and change in accounting practice.
They (Englund et al, 2011) comment that accounting researchers have tended to
focus on the key elements of structure and not on the agency, this view has also
been articulated by Conrad (2014) who draws on Cohen’s (1989) observation that
figure 1 above should not represent the dominance of structure over agency and the
diagram could be changed give greater emphasis on agency. Englund et al (2011)
conclude this part of their analysis by suggesting that future research should have a
focus on the role of the knowledgeable agent in structuration, this view is also
supported by Roberts (2014) who calls for the analysis of strategic conduct rather
than analysis that is a form of ‘institutional analysis’.
Busco (2009) draws on calls by earlier academics (Thrift 1985; Barley 1986) to
provide a clearer link between the two realms and purports that the social concept of
‘position practice’ can act as a link between them. Coad and Glyptis (2014) utilise
the concept of praxis and as such produce a study which “brings the agent more into
focus” (Conrad,2014:130).
Conrad (2014) stresses the importance of clear explanation of whether accounting
artefacts are to be considered as structures or as systems supporting Englund and
Gerdin’s (2014) view that this conceptual distinction is important in the interpretation
of Giddens theory.
Englund et al (2011) also illustrate that whilst structuration theory can aid insight into
change and continuity very little of the research conducted really reflects the
reciprocal relationship between structure and agency and does not focus on non-
events. Conrad (2014) supports this view and suggests that “little use has been
made to date of several of the concepts the theory proposes for the analysis of
change” (2014:133) and suggests that there is room for further exploration of the use
of structuration theory in this area particularly in large scale change.
Englund et al (2011) and Conrad (2014) suggest that research should be focused on
an intra-organisational perspective. Englund et al (2011) speculate that the use of
structuration theory can be used to view change across institutional fields. Some
attempt has been made to do this in prior research such as Lawrence et al (1997) by
considering ‘contradiction’ of structures in large scale change.
Englund et al (2011) whilst demonstrating the view that accounting research has not
been critical enough in their use of structuration theory do comment on exceptions to
this in the work of Coad and Herbert (2009) and Jack and Kohleif (2008). Both of
these pieces of research extend the use of Giddens original model by focusing on
the work of Stones (2005) and his development of strong structuration theory.
A number of critics of Giddens original work (Archer (1995); Cohen (1989)) suggest
that the flat local ontology that is advocated by Englund et al (2011) is not
sustainable as structure can be external to the human mind and also have different
levels. It is this problem that Stones (2005) work seeks to address by providing the
context for external structures which can also have hierarchical arrangements.
4. Strong structuration theory and management accounting
Coad et al (2015) whilst acknowledging the shortcomings highlighted by Englund et
al (2011) and Englund and Gerdin (2014) of structuration theory suggest that strong
structuration theory as advocated by Stones (2005) helps to reconcile some of the
problems and in particular can be used to aid understanding of how management
accounting practices become established and institutionalised. They [Coad et al,
2015] suggest Stones framework recognises that both the technical view of
mainstream accounting research steeped in classical economic theory that a
practice will be adopted if it is in the economic interest of the organisation, and the
social new institutional economic view that there is a strong mimetic link across
similar organisations are valid.
Coad et al (2015) further suggest that viewing organisational fields in relation to
position-practice relations can aid in the examining of the diffusion of management
accounting practices.
Stones (2005) work extends the original ontology to give a quadripartite framework
which considers four interconnected elements of external structures, internal
structures, active agency and outcomes. Figure 2 shows Stones framework. Stones
termed this work “strong” structuration theory as its intention was to add to the work
of Giddens to provide a current theory of use in empirical work (Jack and Kholeif,
2008) hence strengthening the original theory. A second underlying feature of
Stones work was the notion of position-practices and the understanding that we are
not necessarily addressing actors as individuals but perhaps as groups and even
considering the ghosts of past actors and their influence over practice (Jack and
Kholeif, 2008).
Stones framework reflects external structure (which we might equate with the macro
world relative to the organisation) and its ability to influence the actors. These would
relate well to the institutional macro framework of Granlund and Lukka (1998).
Internal structures are separated into two elements. Conjuncturally specific internal
structures which link the actor(s) to roles and position practices, in this context, that
would be the role of the accountant within the organisations and the rules and
routines specific to that role. General dispositions are elements that an agent draws
on without thinking such as cultural norms or communication skills.
The active agency reflects when and how the agent in focus acts whilst the fourth
component – outcome reflects the result of active agency in terms of whether the
internal or external structures have changed.
Figure 2: The Quadripartite Nature of Structuration
Source: Stones (2005:85)
Reviews of stones work such as Edwards (2006) and Parker (2006) suggest that it
moves structuration theory from a philosophical level to a specific level allowing for
greater utility in empirical research. Jack and Kholeif (2008) believed at the time that
Stones (2005) framework offered “significant potential for qualitative researchers”
(2008:210). Stones himself expressed the view that the framework considers the
relationship of ontological elements to practice and empirical work (Stones 2016).
Jack and Kholeif (2007) sought to use Stones framework to show how structuration
theory can be used in substantive empirical research and use two existing case
studies to demonstrate how the Stones (2005) framework could be used to enhance
research using a case study method. In their 2008 work Jack and Kholeif applied
the strong structuration perspective to a case organisation. The contribution of
strong structuration to the case meant it was possible to explore conflicting
dispositions and conjunctually specific understandings particularly the role of the
management accountant and perceptions of actors in relation to boundaries between
external and internal structures.
Coad and Glyptis (2014) reflect on the changing dynamics of structuration theory in
management accounting over time and comment that their view places greater
emphasis on the position-practice perspective and considering the role and relations
of actors across space and time. Coad and Glyptis go on to discuss the nature of
position-practice through its four main elements of praxis (the activity of the agents),
positioning (social positions with which the agent identifies), capabilities (how actors
make use of practices and resources now and consider the future of practices and
resources), and trust (confidence in the reliability of other actors or systems). This
work built upon the work of Coad and Herbert (2009) who also explored position
practices in a case study moving from agent to agent in the organisation and
concluded that this approach facilitates attention on the strategic conduct of agents
and the importance of power. Coad and Herbert (2009) also concluded that there
are still some deficiencies in Stones quadripartite framework in that whilst it allows
for the exploration of how external structures interact with the conduct of agents it
does not offer insight as to why the elements of the model interact. Their final
conclusion is that structuration theory should be used flexibly.
5. The use of the quadripartite framework to strengthen studies of management accounting change
Stones (2001) was keen to demonstrate that the criticisms laid at structuration theory
by Archer (1995) whose view suggested that there was a divide between the use of
realist social theory and structuration theory was unfounded. In his 2001 paper
Stones attempted to show that it was possible to combine these approaches to
produce more robust research. In particular he alluded to the combination of
ontology and methodology.
Ashraf and Uddin in their 2015 paper assert the shortcomings of structuration theory
and the richer analysis that can be undertaken by accounting researchers if following
a critical realist perspective. It is interesting that the key elements of critical realism
advocated are consistent with that purported by Stones strong structuration theory
including a greater understanding of the agent and the ability to examine the agent
separately from their structural position, a greater emphasis on the actions of the
agent termed by Stones (2005) as active agency. Ashraf and Uddin (2015) point to
a contradiction in that the moves made by Stones and Cohen to better debate the
interplay between structure and agency in terms of dualism moves away from the
central tenant of structuration theory : duality and that work drawing on Stones
(2005) strong structuration theory needs to maintain a link between duality and
dualism. Parker (2006) in his review of Stones 2005 book reflects on duality and
dualism. He first acknowledges the role of duality as cited by Giddens in that
structure is both the medium and outcome of agency but goes on to extend Archers
(1982) premise that accepting general duality demands adopting ‘analytical dualism’
which itself represents the understanding of how the relata are related to each other,
and this therefore diminishes the need to characterise duality. Parker concludes his
reflection by expressing that strong structuration theory could advance by embracing
insights from historical sociology and Morphogenetic social theory to widen it and
make it more explicit (2006).
In Stones 2012 working paper he shows how combining critical realism and strong
structuration theory could be used to enhance research relating to international
migration. It is proposed a similar approach could be followed by researchers in
management accounting to provide further explanation of the nature of structure and
agency in management accounting change.
Stones (2012) proposes a theorised contextual framework which would develop and
deepen the ontological level of structuration with epistemology and methodology.
The frame which works well with case studies can allow surface effects which could
be linked generally to management accounting practice with detailed observations
relating to specific agents. Messner (2015) considers the link between
organisational factors and industry suggesting that future research could consider
the industrial setting of management accounting practices in order to provide better
insights. This call sits well with the framework suggested above as it would identify
industrial settings as surface events when a number of cases are presented in the
same industry context.
Stones (2012) suggests the first stage should be to establish the research question
or event to be explained with the wider structural context. In this case the event of
interest is the reproduction of management accounting practices over time or the
emergence of new practices. Ashraf and Uddin (2015) in their critical realist view of
Mactintosh and Scapens (1990) paper also reflect on the need to look at the context
within which actions are taken.
Stones (2016) likened the process to a loop as there is a need to be reflexive as one
moves from the problem to how it may be explained with empirical evidence.
Reflexivity allows the researcher to see what they don’t yet know. Figure 3 shows
this loop.
Figure 3: the conceptual cycle
The ontology reflects the nature of entities and the relations that exist in the world
(Stones, 2015), it is necessary to conceptualise what these may be in the contextual
field where the problem sits. Ontological concepts we may use may be structure,
space, time, power, values, resistance, technology, culture, actors/agency for
example. Having considered the key objective factors they can be mapped to show
the contextual field. See figure 4 below where the black dot represents the agent in
focus and the white dots other individual or collective agents and their networked
links with each other.
Problem to be explained
Ontology (abstract)
Conceptual methodology (choosing key
features
Empirical evidence
Does this answer?
Do these match?
What has caused that?
Figure 4: A contextual field with position practice relations
Adapted from Stones (2015:36)
The establishment of the position-practice relationship can be refined at this stage
and the agent in focus identified. This enables a distinction between different
ontological levels of practice with the agent in focus. It becomes clearer which
elements are related to surface events (external structures) or detailed local relations
and the social level of the structures in terms of macro micro and meso and hence
dispensing with the flat local ontology present in Giddens (1985) model. In the case
of some studies it may be beneficial to consider the position practice relationships in
respect of one agent in focus such as the Chief Financial Office/Senior management
accountant this will allow comparisons to be made across cases to identify common
external structures and industry contexts which can shed light on the further
institutionalisation of practice which has been highlighted previously as a limitation of
structuration theory by Englund et al (2011). It is also possible to identify common
internal structures in an industry context. Lorenz (2015) identified common industry
specific internal and external structures present in 5 case studies of service sector
organisations where the 5 agents in focus who were all senior management
accountants considered the nature of the industry as a barrier to management
accounting change.
Position practice relations
Large historical and socio-structural forces
Alternatively the perception of different agents within one organisation can be viewed
in one case study in order to establish whether there are the same or differing views
as to why management accounting practices are reproduced over time, this was a
central tenant in Feeney and Pierce (2014) work which considered the position of
comparable actors in different divisions in one organisation and the way they used
accounting information in decision making.
Stones (2012) suggests the next necessary step is to link the ontological perspective
with the critical realist epistemological conception of retroduction. In relation to the
actor in focus this reflects their power or the power of other or collective actors or
structures to enact the events established at the start of the analysis. Stones
(2012:7) goes on to suggest that this identifies “the most salient forces at work” and
the most relevant actors, entities and relations in relation to answering the research
question. Other studies previously mentioned such as Ribeiro and Scapens (2006)
and Alsharai et al (2015) highlight the need to include power as a dimension of
research in management accounting change.
Having set the wider contextual frame it is then necessary to focus on the individual
agent through the conceptual methodology. The conceptual methodology provides a
bridge between the ontology and the empirical evidence and allows the relationships
to be seen between the concepts and the empirical evidence. There are three
elements to consider here:
1. The agents context (strategic context)
2. The agents conduct (strategic conduct)
3. Ontological sliding scale
Stones (2005) advocates beginning with the agents’ conduct which requires looking
inwards at how the agent deals with the situation and evaluating general dispositions
and conjecturally specific internal structures and then the agents context which ought
to reveal “perceived external structures, position-practice relationships, authorities
and material resources” (Coad et al, 2015:165). The ontological scale allows the
consideration of the problem from a variety of perspectives between the ontological
abstract and the empirical, in the work of Lorenz (2015), for example the degree of
knowledgeability of the agents, the choices available to the agent and the degree to
which external structures were long term barriers were considered.
Stones (2012) in reflecting on Morawska’s (2012:4) use of Emirbayer and Mische
(1998) three agentic orientations highlights how using these as a guide can help to
embellish the empirical research conducted with agents in focus. They are:
The iterational element – refers to the past and habitual behaviour. The actor will
repeat past patterns of thought and action.
The projective element – refers to the future. The actor will reconfigure thought and
action based on hopes fears and desires for the future.
The practical evaluative element – The actor will make practical and normative
judgements when presented with evolving situations. (Adapted from Emirbayer and
Mische, 1998:971).
Following Stones (2005:123) recurrent steps the information provided by the agent in
focus can be analysed using the quadripartite framework and whether the first two
elements of the framework result in possibilities or constraints in relation to the action
of the agent in focus and the final outcome.
An interview structure designed to be compatible with Stones (2005) quadripartite
framework will need to ensure data is collected which evaluates the agents conduct
and context and investigates the agents perception of internal and external
structures which affect their conduct in relation to the event under investigation.
Lorenz (2015) having conducted interviews in such a manner to answer the research
questions: “How do Management accounting tools become embedded in service
sector organisations and What are the reasons for change/lack of change in
management accounting tools used in service sector organisations” (2015:9) used a
thematic review of interviews with five agents in focus based on the four elements of
the quadripartite framework and highlighting for external and internal structures
whether these were perceived by the agent in focus as barriers or enablers to their
ability to change management accounting practices. The findings demonstrated a
wide range of external and internal structures influencing the embeddedness of tools
and the ability to diffuse and change practices over time. The evaluation of external
structures provided additional evidence of commonality of barriers and enablers
within service organisations and also provided further proof that in a service sector
context a theory practice gap was evident in terms of education.
In his 2012 working paper Stones additionally introduces the need to focus on the
empirical evidence “to help sharpen a sense of the value of the theoretical tools
presented for the critical appreciation of the status and quality of particular research
accounts” (2012:17), whilst this was in the context of migration issues there is no
reason that accounting researchers cannot also consider the hermeneutics of their
case studies in the same way. Stones (2012) created a framing mechanism which he
later refined and developed in 2015.
Stones (2015) suggests that the studies can be contextualising or floating and can
be based on Subjective analysis, objective analysis or a combination of both, see
figure 5 below. Stones (2012) differentiates between contextualising and floating in
relation to the detail, Stones likens floating to an air balloon ride where one surveys
the wider picture from afar but does not document the detailed interactions even if
they have that information, whereas a contextualising study focuses on the context in
detail of both the actors and structures that shape the future action. Subjective
analysis is based on the agents’ subjective perceptions and objective analysis on the
knowledge of the networks. Stones (2015) suggests that box 2a provides the best
combination as it provides research which provides detailed deep knowledge of the
relations but also shows how this interweaves with the agents own perceptions of
and orientation to the networks, this bringing together the content and the context of
the agent.
The use of this framing mechanism will allow accounting researchers to decide on
methodology and also make that methodological approach clear in regards to their
studies.
Figure 5: Types and degrees of knowledge regarding the contextual frame
Subjective Analysis Combined
Subjective and
Objective Analysis
Objective Analysis
High Levels of
Contextual
Detail
1a) Detailed
subjectivity
2a) Detailed
subjectivity situated
within dense
networks of
relations
3a) Detailed dense
networks of
relations
Low Levels of 1b) Thin, partial 2b) Thin, partial 3b) Thin, partial
Contextual
Detail
subjectivity subjectivity situated
within thin, partial
networks of
relations
networks of
relations
(Stones, 2015:108)
The research conducted by Lorenz (2015) using the quadripartite framework was
able to interweave both the objective analysis and subjective analysis which a high
level of contextual detail. By examining the external structures it was possible to
view those macro level structures which could have been identified with Institutional
theory but it was possible with strong structuration theory to add to those the
subjective views of the agents in terms of what they felt constrained them with
differing views of agents as to whether the nature of the industry was a barrier to
change or an enabler. A further interesting level was obtained by considering the
agent’s conduct and demonstrating how their relations with other agents and their
specific understanding regarding their jobs and roles shaped their actions and also
became either enablers or barriers to changing actions and therefore outcomes.
Without this combined approach to focusing on structure and people key insights
would have been missed.
The research conducted by Feeney and Pierce (2014) also used the same research
approach and was again able to establish the link between the subjective and
objective analysis to show the different way that accounting information is used in
two divisions of one company.
6. Conclusions
There has been a growing amount of management accounting research both in
terms of topics and theoretical basis. Much of the work conducted could be seen to
be based on economic theory (Coad et al, 2015) and can be seen from the
categorisation of mainstream management accounting research (Chua, 1986). There
has been a growing move to the use of social theory particularly the use of
institutional theory in management accounting resulting in the development of the
interpretive and critical management accounting research.
Over time that research has expanded to include studies linked to structuration
theory though review of the work provided by England et al, 2011 and Englund and
Gerdin, 2014) suggests that more use could have been made of structuration theory
in order to gain better insights into accounting practice. This is resonant with
Baldvinsdottir et al (2010) who reflect more generally that that there has still been a
lack of research related to what might benefit practice, and Scapens (2006b) also
reflected the need to make “theoretically informed management accounting research
more relevant to management accounting practitioners” (2006b:9).
Stones (2005) strong structuration theory which attempts to overcome problems
associated with structuration theory and also attempts to combine a framework for
ontology, epistemology and method provides accounting researchers with the tools
to provide deeper and more meaningful insights into practices and an understanding
of both agents and structures and their recursive relationship.
Studies are now coming to the fore which attempt to interpret Stones research
design and apply the methodology suggested (Lorenz, 2015, Feeney and Pierce,
2014). Coad et al (2015) highlight several unpublished theses which have made use
of the quadripartite framework and have revealed new insights in management
accounting.
This paper has reviewed management accounting research from the perspective of
management accounting change and has highlighted how the different theories have
added to our understanding of the reasons for lack of change or slow change in
management accounting tools used. The paper has also reviewed Stones work in
terms of providing a research design which could be followed by future researchers
in order to attempt to use theory flexibly and produce research using theory which is
of value to practice.
References
Abdel-Kader, M., & Luther, R. (2008). The impact of firm characteristics on management accounting practices: A UK-based empirical analysis. The British Accounting Review, 40(1), 2-27.
Akbar, S. (2010). Management accouting change: a comparative study of Indian and UK organsiations. Journal of Global Business Advancement, 3(1), 1-27.
Alsharari, N., Dixon, R., & Youssef, M. (2015). Management accounting change: critical review and a new contextual framework. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 11(4),, 476-502.
Archer, M. (1982). Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. The British journal of sociology, 33(4), 455-483.
Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ashraf, J., & Uddin, S. (2015). Management Accounting Research and Structuration Theory: A Critical Realist Critique. Journal of critical realism, 14(5),, 485-507.
Baiman, S. (1982). Agency theory in managerial accounting: a survey. Jounrnal of Accountng Literature, 1(1), 154-213.
Baiman, S. (1990). Agency research in managerial accounting: A second look. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(4), 341-371.
Baines, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Antecedents to management accounting change: a structural equation approach. Accounting, organizations and society, 28(7), 675-698.
Baldvinsdottir, G., Mitchell, F., & Nørreklit, H. (2010). Issues in the relationship between theory and practice in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 79-82.
Banker, R., Field, J., Schroeder, R., & Sintia, K. (1996). Impact of work teams on manufacturing performance: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 867-890.
Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative science quarterly, 78-108.
Barley, S., & Tolbert, P. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization studies, 18(1), 93-117.
Barrett, M., Cooper, D., & Jamal, K. (2006). Globalization and the coordinating of work in multinational audits. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1),, 1-24.
Bjørnenak, T. (1997). Diffusion and accounting: the case of ABC in Norway. Management Accounting Research, 8(1), 3-17.
Burns, J., & Scapens, R. (2000). Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework. Management Accounting Research, 11, 3-25.
Burns, J., & Vaivio, J. (2001). Management accounting change. Management accounting research, 12(4), 389-402.
Burns, J., Ezzamel, M., & Scapens, R. (1999). Management accounting change in the UK. Management Accounting, 28-30.
Busco, C. (2006). Interpreting management accounting systems within processes of organisational change. Methodological Issues in Accounting: Theories and Methods, 2263-246.
Busco, C. (2009). Giddens’ structuration theory and its implications for management accounting research. Journal of Management & Governance, 13(3),, 249-206.
Busco, C., & Scapens, R. (2011). Management accounting systems and organisational culture: Interpreting their linkages and processes of change. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(4),, 320-357.
Busco, C., Quattrone, P., & Riccaboni, A. (2007). Management accounting: issues in interpreting its nature and change. Management Accounting Research, 18(2), 125-149.
Chanegrih, T. (2008). Applying a typology of management accounting change: A research note. Management Accounting Research, 19(3), 278-285.
Chenhall, R. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, organizations and society, 28(2), 127-168.
Chua, W. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought. Accounting review, 601-632.
Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of power. London: Sage.
Coad, A., & Glyptis, L. (2014). Structuration: A position–practice perspective and an illustrative study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(2), 142-161.
Coad, A., & Herbert, I. (2009). Back to the future: New potential for structuration theory in management accounting research? Management Accounting Research, 20(3), 177-192.
Coad, A., Jack, L., & Kholeif, A. (2015). Structuration theory: reflections on its further potential for management accounting research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 12(2), 153-171.
Cohen, I. (1989). Structuration theory: Anthony Giddens and the constitution of social life. London: Macmillan.
Conrad, L. (2005). A structuration analysis of accounting systems and systems of accountability in the privatised gas industry. Critical perspectives on accounting, 16(1), , 1-26.
Conrad, L. (2014). Reflections on the application of and potential for structuration theory in accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(2), 128-134.
Cooper, R., & Slagmulder, R. (2004). Interorganizational cost management and relational context. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(1), , 1-26.
Covaleski, M., Dirsmith, M., & Samuel, S. (1996). Managerial accounting research: the contributions of organizational and sociological theories. Journal of
Management Accounting Research, 8, 1-36.
David, R., & Han, S. (2004). A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic management journal, 25(1),, 39-58.
Dillard, J., Rigsby, J., & Goodman, C. (2004). The making and remaking of organization context: duality and the institutionalization process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(4),, 506-542.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. In P. DiMaggio, & W. Powell (Eds), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Drury, C., Braund, S., Osbourne, P., & Tayles, M. (1993). A Survey of Management Accounting Practices in UK Manufacturing Companies. London: The Chartered Association of Certified Accountants.
Edwards, T. (2006). Book Review: Developments Toward the Operationalization of Structuration Theory. Organization, 13(6), , 911-913.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American journal of sociology, 103(4),, 962-1023.
Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2011). Agency and structure in management accounting research: reflections and extensions of Kilfoyle and Richardson. . Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(6), 581-592.
Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2014). Structuration theory in accounting research: Applications and applicability. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(2), 162-180.
Englund, H., Gerdin, J., & Burns, J. (2011). 25 Years of Giddens in accounting research: Achievements, limitations and the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(8), 494-513.
Ezzamel, M., Lilley, S., & Willmott, H. (1996). The View from the Top: Senior Executives' Perceptions of Changing Management Practices in UK Companies. British Journal of Management, 7(2), 155-168.
Feeney, O., & Pierce, B. (2016). Strong Structuration Theory and Accounting Information: An Empirical Study. Paper presented at SST workshop, Paris.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Granlund, M., & Lukka, K. (1998). It's a small world of management accounting practices. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 153-179.
Gurd, B. (2008). Structuration and middle-range theory—A case study of accounting during organizational change from different theoretical perspectives. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(4),, 523-543.
Haldma, T., & Lääts, K. (2002). Contingencies influencing the management accounting practices of Estonian manufacturing companies. Management
Accounting Research, 13(4), 379-400.
Hardy, C. (1996). Understanding power: bringing about strategic change. British Journal of Management, 7(s1),, S3-S16.
Hopper, T., & Powell, A. (1985). Making sense of research into the organizational and social aspects of management accounting: A review of its underlying assumptions. Journal of management Studies, 22(5), 429-465.
Hopper, T., Otley, D., & Scapens, R. (2001). British Management Accounting Research: Whence and Whither: Opinions and Recollections. British Accounting Review, 33, 263-291.
Jack, L., & Kholeif, A. (2007). Introducing Strong Stucturation Theory for case studies in Organisation, Management and Accounting Research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 208-225.
Jack, L., & Kholeif, A. (2008). Enterprise resource planning and a contest to limit the role of management accountants: a strong structuration perspective. Accounting Forum Vol. 32, No. 1, 30-45.
Jarvenpaa, M. (1998). Management Accounting and strategy. Functional and Institutional perspectives; A case study. Proceedings, Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, Osaka, Japan.
Johnson, H., & Kaplan, R. (1987). Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kelly, M., & Pratt, M. (1992). Purposes and paradigms of management accounting: beyond economic reduction. Accounting Education, 1(3), 225-246.
Kunz, A., & Pfaff, D. (2002). Agency theory, performance evaluation, and the hypothetical construct of intrinsic motivation. Accounting, organizations and society, 27(3), 275-295.
Lambert, R. (2006). Agency theory and management accounting. In C. Chapman, A. Hopwood, & M. Shields, Handbooks of management accounting research, 1, (pp. 247-268). London: Elsevier.
Lapsley, I., & Pettigrew, A. (1994). Meeting the challenge: accounting for change. Financial Accountability & Management, 10(2), 79-92.
Laughlin, R. (1995). Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for 'middle-range thinking'. Accountng, Auditing and Accountability, 8(1), 63-87.
Lawrence, S., Alam, M., Northcott, D., & Lowe, T. (1997). Accounting systems and systems of accountability in the New Zealand health sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(5), 665-683.
Libby, T., & Waterhouse, J. (1996). Predicting change in management accounting systems. Journal of management accounting research, 8, 137.
Lorenz, A. (2015). Contemporary management accounting in the UK service sector, unpublished thesis, University of Gloucestershire.
Luft, J., & Shields, M. (2002). Zimmerman's contentious conjectures: describing the present and prescribing the future of empirical management accounting research. European Accounting Review, 11(4), 795-803.
Lukka, K. (2007). Management accounting change and stability: loosely coupled rules and routines in action. Management Accounting Research, 18(1), 76-101.
Macintosh, N., & Scapens, R. (1990). Structuration theory in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(5), 455-477.
Macintosh, N., & Scapens, R. (1991). Management accounting and control systems: a structuration theory analysis. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 3(3), 131-158.
Malmi, T. (1999). Activity-based costing diffusion across organizations: an exploratory empirical analysis of Finnish firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(8), 649-672.
Messner, M. (2015). Does industry matter? How industry context shapes management accounting practice. Management Accounting Research.
Mia, L., & Patiar, A. (2001). The use of management accounting systems in hotels: an exploratory study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(2), 111-128.
Morawska, E. (2012). Studying International Migration in the Long (er) and Short (er) Durée: Contesting Some and Reconciling Other Disagreements Between the Structuration and Morphogenetic Approaches.
Ogata, K., & Spraakman, G. (2013). The persistence of delegitimated structures: Insights from changes to management accounting at the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670-2005. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 9(3),, 280-303.
Otley, D. (1980). The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis. Accounting, organizations and society, 5(4), 413-428.
Parker, J. (2006). Structuration's Future? From ‘All and Every’to ‘Who Did What, Where, When, How and Why? Journal of Critical Realism, 5(1), 122-138.
Quinn, M. (2014). Stability and change in management accounting over time—A century or so of evidence from Guinness. Management Accounting Research, 25(1), 76-92.
Ribeiro, J., & Scapens, R. (2006). Management accounting and power: a contested relationship. Faculdade de Economia, Universidade de Porto.
Robalo, R. (2014). Explanations for the gap between management accounting rules and routines: An institutional approach. Revista de Contabilidad, 17(1), 88-97.
Roberts, J. (2014). Testing the limits of structuration theory in accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(2), 135-141.
Roberts, J., & Scapens, R. (1985). Accounting systems and systems of accountability—understanding accounting practices in their organisational contexts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(4), 443-456.
Ryan, R., Scapens, R., & Theobald, M. (2002). Research Method and Methodology in Finance and Accounting 2nd Ed. Padstow: Thomson Learning.
Scapens, R. (2006a). Changing times: management accounting research and practice from a UK perspective. In A. Bhimani, Contemporary Issues in Management Accounting (pp. 329-354). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scapens, R. (2006b). Understanding Management Accounting Practices: A personal Journey. The British Accounting review, 38, 1-30.
Scapens, R. W., & Arnold, J. (1986). Economics and management accounting research. In M. Bromwich, & A. Hopwood, Research and Current Issues in Mangement Accounting. London: Pitman.
Scapens, R., & Arnold, J. (1986). Economics and management accounting research. In M. Bromwich, & A. Hopper, (Eds) Research and Current Issues in Management Accounting (pp. 78-102). London: Pitman.
Seal, W., & Vincent-Jones, P. (1997). Accounting and trust in the enabling of long-term relations. Accounting, auditing & accountability Journal, 10(3), 406-431.
Shields, M. (1997). Research in management accounting by North Americans in the 1990s. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 3-61.
Siti-Nabiha, A., & Scapens, R. (2005). Stability and change: an institutionalist study of management accounting change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(1), 44-73.
Spicer, B. H., & Ballew, V. (1983). Management accounting systems and the economics of internal organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(1),, 73-96.
Stones, R. (2001). Refusing the Realism—Structuration Divide. European journal of social theory, 4(2), 177-197.
Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stones, R. (2012). Causality, contextual frames and international migration: combining strong structuration theory, critical realism and textual analysis. Working papers, International Migration Institute,, November, 1-18.
Stones, R. (2015). Why Current Affairs Needs Social Theory. London: Bloomsbury.
Stones, R. (2016). Putting the Key features of Strong Structuration Theory to use. SST workshop. Paris.
Sulaiman, S., & Mitchell, F. (2005). Utilising a typology of management accounting change: An empirical analysis. Management Accounting Research, 16(4),
422-437.
Thrift, N. (1985). Bear and mouse or bear and tree? Anthony Giddens's reconstitution of social theory. Sociology 19(4), 609-623.
Tomkins, C., & Groves, R. (1983). The everyday accountant and researching his reality. Accounting, Orgasnization and Society, 8(4), 361-374.
van der Steen, M. (2011). The emergence and change of management accounting routines. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(4),, 502-547.
Wanderley, C., & Cullen, J. (2012a). A Case of Management Accounting Change: the Political and Social Dynamics. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças-USP, 23(60)., 161-172.
Wanderley, C., & Cullen, J. (2012b). Management Accounting Research: Mainstream versus Alternative Approaches. Contabilidade Vista & Revista, 22(4), 15-44.
Waterhouse, J., & Tiessen, P. (1978). A contingency framework for management accounting systems research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 3(1), 65-76.
Wickramasinghe, D., & Alawattage, C. (2007). Management accounting change: approaches and perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wijewardena, H., & De Zoysa, A. (1999). A comparative analysis of management accounting practices in Australia and Japan: an empirical investigation. The International Journal of Accounting, 34(1), 49-70.
Wilson, R., & Chua, W. (1983). Managerial accounting: method and meaning (Vol. 2). London: Chapman & Hall.
Zimmerman, J. (1979). The Costs and Benefits of Cost Allocations. Accounting Review, 54(3), 504-521.