STRONG STRUCTURATION THEORY AND MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING RESEARCH
Keywords:
strong structuration theory, management accounting, empirical researchAbstract
Strong structuration theory is a recent development in social theory that, among other attributes, makes the gap between ontological concepts and empirical research easier to negotiate. Giddens’ structuration theory is a developed ontology-in-general explaining at an abstract level how structure and agency are interrelated, being a duality in which neither can exist without the other. Strong structuration is a development of structuration theory that retains duality of structure but has a greater sense of ontology-in-situ (that is, a concern with social processes and events at particular times and places) to counteract the overly abstract and philosophical nature of Giddens’ work. In this essay, I set out three reasons why I believe that strong structuration theory is particularly suited to qualitative empirical research in management accounting. These are that it encourages and reminds researchers to use up to date scholarship from other disciplines in their research; that it refocuses research on agency and the intended and unintended effects that individual people have on structures; and that it encourages research design that have the intention of building new theoretical insights. A review of the small body of accounting research that has so far used strong structuration theory shows that researchers are using innovative approaches, based on Stones’ (2005) and later work, to investigate the relationships between different actors and their knowledge of the contexts which they inhabit to understand why accounting is done in the way it is, and the extent to which change is possible. The next step in this area of research is to consider the concept of active agency within the theory more closely, and in particular, to examine communication in management accounting as active agency.Downloads
References
Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 819-841.
Baert, P. (2010). Social theory in the twentieth century. Maiden, MA: Polity Press.
Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2003). Alternative management accounting research—whence and whither. Accounting, organizations and society, 28(2), 97-126.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin.
Broadbent, J. (2012). Commentary on Parker: Groundhog day and optimism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(1), 71-77.
Bryant, C.G.A., & Jary, D. (2011). Anthony Giddens, in Ritzer, G. & Stepnisky, J. (Eds.) The Wiley-Blackwell companion to major social theorists. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Coad, A., Jack, L., & Kholeif, A. (2016). Strong structuration theory in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1138 – 1144.
Coad, A.F., & Glyptis, L.G. (2014). Structuration: a position-practice perspective and an illustrative study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25, 142-161.
Coad, A.F., & Herbert, I.P. (2009). Back to the future: new potential for structuration theory in management accounting research? Management Accounting Research, 20, 177–192.
Cohen, I.J. (1989). Structuration Theory: Anthony Giddens and the Constitution of Social Life. London: Macmillan.
Conrad, L. (2014). Reflections on the application of and potential for structuration theory in accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25 (2), 128-134
Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2016). What can (not) a flat and local structuration ontology do for management accounting research? A comment on Coad, Jack and Kholeif. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 13(2), 252-263.
Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2014). Structuration Theory in Accounting Research: Applications and accountability. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(2,), 162-180.
Englund, H., Gerdin, J. and Burns, J. (2011). 25 years of Giddens in accounting research: achievements, limitations and the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, 494–513.
Feeney, O. and Peirce, B. (2016). Strong structuration theory and accounting information: an empirical study. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1152-76.
Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hopwood, A.G. (2007). Whither Accounting Research? The Accounting Review, 82, 1365–1374.
Hopwood, A. G., & Miller, P. (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jack, L. (2017), Accounting and social theory: an introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jack, L. (2013), Accounting communications inside organisations, in Jack, L., Davidson, J. and Craig, R., Editors, The Routledge Companion to Accounting Communication, Abingdon: Routledge.
Jack, L., & Kholeif, A. (2008). Enterprise resource planning and a contest to limit the role of management accountants: a strong structuration perspective. Accounting Forum 32(1), 30-45.
Lukka, K., & Modell, S. (2010). Validation in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 462-477.
Makrygiannikis, G. and Jack, L. (2016), Understanding management accounting change using strong structuration frameworks, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1234-1256.
Malmi, T., & Granlund, M. (2009). In search of management accounting theory. European Accounting Review, 18(3), 597-620.
Manochin, M. M., Jack, L., & Howell, C. (2008). The boundaries of reporting sustainable development in social housing. Public money and management, 28(6), 345-352.
Mattessich, R. (2007). Two hundred years of accounting research. Abingdon: Routledge.
Moore, D.R.J., & McPhail, K. (2016). Strong structuration and carbon accounting: A position-practice perspective of policy development at the macro, industry and organizational levels. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1204 – 1233.
Mouzelis, N. P. (2008). Modern and postmodern social theorizing: Bridging the divide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mouzelis, N.P. (1995). Sociological theory: what went wrong?: diagnosis and remedies. London: Routledge.
Parker, J. (2006), “Structuration’s future? From ‘all and everywhere’ to ‘who did what, where, when, how and why?’”, Journal of Critical Realism, Vol. 5, 122–138.
Parker, J. (2000). Structuration. London: Open University Press.
Ritzer, G. (2007). Contemporary sociological theory and its classical roots: the basics, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roberts, J. (2014). Testing the limits of structuration theory in accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(2), 135-141.
Roberts, J., and Scapens, R.W. (1985). Accounting systems and systems of accounting: understanding accounting practices in their organizational contexts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10, 443–456
Stones, R. (2015), Why current affairs needs social theory, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Stones, R. (2005), Structuration theory, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Stones, R. (2001). Refusing the realism—structuration divide. European journal of social theory, 4(2), 177-197.
Stones, R. (1996) Sociological Reasoning: towards a past-modern sociology, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Stones, R. and Jack, L.(2016). The bridge between ontological concepts and empirical evidence: an interview with Rob Stones, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 Iss: 7, pp.1145 – 1151
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-structured methods, London: Sage Publications.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright for articles published in the ASAA Journal is held by the author, with first publication rights to the journal. By virtue of appearing in this publicly accessible journal, the articles are free to use, with their own attributions, in educational and non-commercial applications. The ASAA Journal will allow the use of published works for non-commercial purposes, including the right to submit the work to publicly accessible databases. Published articles are the authors' full and exclusive responsibility. There are no submission/publishing charges or fees for processing articles (APC).
