پارادایم ها، تئوری و تمرین مدیریت حسابداری: اظهار نظر در مورد " تحقیقات حسابداری مدیریت کیفی پارکر (آینده): بررسی اقلام قابل ارائه و ارتباط"

Parker (forthcoming) provides a valuable discussion of the state of, and prospects for, qualitative research in management accounting. This comment amplifies three issues raised in Parker's (forthcoming) review: the multi-paradigmatic nature of qualitative research and the potential that this offers for the expanded use of qualitative methods in accounting research; the role of theory in qualitative management accounting research and the need for such research to contribute to the literatures from which it draws rather than simply being a consumer of theory; and the potential for qualitative management accounting research to inform management accounting policy and practice when research gains rigor through paradigmatic bracketing.

Parker (forthcoming) assesses the contribution of 40 years of qualitative management accounting research and suggests a trajectory for its development. In general, Parker is optimistic about the state of qualitative management accounting research and its prospects but calls for continuing effort to “remind us of who we are, what we do and why we do it.” While he argues that “[t]he time for defensiveness… is long gone,” he cautions that qualitative management accounting research must emphasize its “distinctive features” in order to “move beyond apologia and effectively take our place in the sun.” His paper contributes to this process by highlighting certain features of qualitative management accounting research that he believes sets it apart from “the dominant positivist quantitative accounting research literature.” He identifies qualitative management accounting research's ontology and epistemology – notably a commitment to social constructivism and an “engagement with actors and their worlds at close quarters” – “invocation of multi-theoretic explorations” and potential to “develop concepts, principles, patterns and theories that offer wider resonance and applicability” to practice as key distinctions. Overall, I would agree with Parker's (forthcoming) assessment of the qualitative management accounting literature – it has developed a rich multi-theoretic perspective on management accounting and provides insights into the details of practice that were missing from the literature. My comment is designed to unpack some of Parker's polemic to suggest further strategies for moving the qualitative management accounting research agenda forward. In particular, I will argue, first, that there is more philosophical variation in qualitative management accounting research than Parker suggests and this variation needs to be recognized as a source of strength for the literature and as limiting the likely impact of some of Parker's concerns. Second, while agreeing with Parker on the value of multi-theoretical approaches, I believe we need to contribute to the literatures from which we draw theory and not just be consumers of theory from other literatures. We also need to engage in a debate regarding what constitutes cumulative knowledge in qualitative management accounting research, or whether such a concern is valid within this literature, in order to better understand how this literature contributes to theory development. Finally, I provide a framework for locating management accounting practice within traditional academic management accounting paradigms that provides a theoretical justification and amplification of Parker's suggestion that “qualitative researchers can make a contribution to thought leadership at the more profound levels to which their tradition is best suited.”

Parker (forthcoming) highlights the contributions and potential of qualitative research in management accounting. He calls on management accountants to embrace their qualitative heritage and seek ways to ensure that further contributions to the academic literature and to practice are realized. While I am sympathetic to the overall view of the management accounting literature that Parker provides, I have suggested three areas of difference on which further debate is warranted: (1) the mapping between the use of qualitative methods and various philosophical positions needs to be elaborated to encourage greater use of qualitative methods in the “mainstream” literature and to ensure that “mixed methods” are used consistently with the philosophical commitments underlying any research project; (2) more debate is needed about the use of theory in qualitative studies, the contribution of such studies to theory, ways to avoid superficial uses of theory as simply novel descriptive vocabularies, and the role of cumulative knowledge in qualitative research and (3) the relationship between practice and academic research in the social sciences generally needs to be reconceptualized to understand the appropriate limitations on academic theorizing compared with the needs of practice and the ways in which academic theories may be/are used by policy makers and practitioners to creatively synthesize multiple paradigmatic views into pragmatic responses.