دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 2617
ترجمه فارسی عنوان مقاله

ساختار ارتباطی پراکنده درون حسابداری آکادمیک : مورد انواع تحقیقات هزینه یابی مبتنی بر فعالیت

عنوان انگلیسی
The fragmented communication structure within the accounting academia: the case of activity-based costing research genres
کد مقاله سال انتشار تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی
2617 2002 26 صفحه PDF
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 27, Issues 1–2, January–March 2002, Pages 165–190

ترجمه کلمات کلیدی
هزینه یابی مبتنی بر فعالیتساختار ارتباطیحسابداری آکادمیکبی ثمر
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله  ساختار ارتباطی پراکنده درون حسابداری آکادمیک : مورد انواع تحقیقات هزینه یابی مبتنی بر فعالیت

The major purpose of this study is to examine the communication structures within the management accounting academia, with a view to illustrating and thereby possibly alleviating the difficulties of dialogue between the different discussion circles identifiable within the field. Research on activity-based costing (ABC) is used as an illustrating example case. We distinguish three genres of ABC research (Consulting research, Basic research, and Critical research) and analyse their nature as well as their internal and external communication patterns. We are particularly interested in the interests of knowledge, research methods, argumentation styles, and results of these genres. Also, we will pay attention to their effects both on the progress of science and management accounting practice. The theoretical points of support lean on the ideas of Bourdieu, Gadamer, Habermas, Latour, and Stegmüller. Overall, the field of ABC research appears to be fragmented. Our analysis suggests that the current communication pattern between various research genres is not inclined to enhance the accumulation of accounting knowledge. Applying the ideas of Stegmüller (1969), we conclude that the discussion circles within the accounting academia appear to be estranged to an extent to which the arguments of researchers representing different approaches do not frequently meet each other, resulting in the unfruitful development of knowledge.