بازتاب هایی درمورد کاربرد و امکان نظریه ساختاربندی در پژوهش حسابداری

This paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussion of the value of structuration theory as ‘an ontology of potentials’ for empirical research in accounting. In engaging with the two main papers in this issue, it considers issues of methodological bracketing and the extent to which the work of Coad and Glyptis (2013) offers an agency focus rather than an institutional focus for analysis. Further to Englund and Gerdin's (2013) analysis, it also considers in more depth the limited use in the literature of many of the concepts Giddens, 1976 and Giddens, 1984 identifies as central to change, suggesting there exists potential to further develop this area, rather than necessarily seeking to supplement structuration theory with insights from other theoretical frameworks in order to analyse and understand how accounting is implicated in organisational change.

In keeping with the theme of this issue of Critical Perspectives on Accounting, this paper seeks to explore the contribution and potential of structuration theory for accounting research. It reflects on the findings of the broad and insightful review of structuration theory-based research in accounting offered by Englund and Gerdin (2013), and offers comment on their analysis of the limitations engendered by the focus to date of such literature on a relatively narrow range of concepts from the theory, as well as considering their concern with the lack of conceptual clarity in some applications of the theory. Englund and Gerdin have already made a substantial contribution to date to our understanding of the value and limitations of this body of literature in a number of other papers ( Englund and Gerdin, 2008, Englund and Gerdin, 2011 and Englund et al., 2011), which will also be considered in this commentary. It also engages with the paper by Coad and Glyptis (2013) and considers how its focus of analysis on ‘agency’, as opposed to the more frequent focus by many authors in the past on ‘structure’, offers distinctive insights into situated accounting practice. Given this author's particular interest in understanding large scale organisational change in complex organisations, and the role of and implications for accounting systems and systems of accountability within such change ( Conrad, 2005, Conrad and Guven Uslu, 2011 and Conrad and Guven Uslu, 2012), this paper also considers in more depth the limited use in the literature of many of the concepts Giddens identifies as central to such change, particularly those of ‘system contradiction’, ‘resource allocation’ and ‘reflexive appropriation’. Furthermore consideration is given to the way in which several authors have combined structuration theory with other theories, particularly institutional theory, in order to try to overcome the limitations researchers may encounter in trying to employ structuration theory in isolation. It is hoped that the insights offered by these various strands in this commentary may in a small way contribute to the objective of this issue, to help researchers move forward in the effective application of structuration theory to better understand situated accounting practices.

In reflecting on the extent to which structuration theory has influenced accounting research over the years, it is clear that much has been learned about accounting practice through such analysis. The theory offers a rich source of concepts to help understand the situated practices of actors as they draw on and reproduce structures over time. As a sensitising device the theory offers a flexible approach but, echoing Englund and Gerdin's (2013) view, it is apparent that care must be taken to employ the concepts appropriately. While the majority of studies to date have taken an institutional perspective, and framed their analysis in terms of structures of signification, domination and legitimation, these studies enable researchers to clarify and consolidate their understanding of these core concepts of structuration theory, an important contribution given Englund and Gerdin's (2013) valid concern regarding the lack of conceptual clarity which has sometimes been in evidence in structuration analyses. Coad and Glyptis (2013), drawing on Cohen (1989) offer a potential way forward to broaden the perspective in future studies by more clearly specifying how the agent can be brought more into focus. It is worth sounding a note of caution, however, that the empirical data needs to fit with the perspective, if a richer understanding is to result. Much debate has taken place over the idea of ‘methodological bracketing’ in facilitating empirical analysis, and while a number of authors have explored alternative approaches to the problem, it remains a difficult issue as to how best to effectively mobilise the theoretical concepts to analyse structuration processes in complex situations. Further applications of the theory to such empirical contexts would advance the debate in this area. Finally it is clear that little use has been made to date of several of the concepts the theory proposes for the analysis of change. While some studies have sought to combine insights from other theoretical perspectives, notably institutional theory, there is also room for further studies to clarify and extend our understanding of how structuration theory concepts themselves can be operationalised to analyse major change in complex organisations, an area that remains under-explored. By theorising empirical data while at the same time endeavouring to develop the theory, researchers may help to realise the potential that exists for achieving a richer understanding of accounting in organisational contexts.