RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING 249
ability and are influenced by organizational structures and systems (including,
but not limited to, accounting systems) and by organizational power and
culture. The interpretive and critical view has been evident in the theories and
case studies presented in the book.This second – interpretive and critical – view is descriptive or qualitative rather
than statistical or quantitative. This is a necessary approach to explain the practice
of accounting in both its organizational setting and the wider social context
in which it exists. This second view has tended to be developed through case
study research.
For example, Kaplan (1986) argued for empirical studies of management
accounting systems in their organizational contexts, by ‘observing skilled prac-
titioners in actual organizations’ (p. 441). Kaplan described empirical research
methods, especially case or field studies that communicate the ‘deep, rich slices of
organizational life’ (p. 445) and are ‘the only mechanism by which management
accounting can become a scientific field of inquiry’ (p. 448).
Spicer (1992) argued that case study research is appropriate when ‘why?’ or
‘how?’ questions are asked about contemporary events. He classified two types
of case study research: descriptive and/or exploratory, and informing and/or
explanatory, arguing that:
the case method, when used for explanatory purposes, relies on analytical
not statistical generalization. The objective of explanatory case research is
not to draw inferences to some larger population based on sample evidence,
but rather to generalize back to theory. (p. 12)Hopper et al. (2001) emphasized the rise of behavioural and organizational
accounting research from 1975. In the UK, a paradigm shift occurred that did not
happen in the US (where agency theory remains the dominant research approach),
as contingency theory and neo-human relations approaches were abandoned for
more sociological and political approaches that drew from European social theory
and were influenced by Scandinavian case-based research. Under Thatcherism:
accounting data and the consulting arms of accounting firms had been central
to economic and policy debates, involving privatization, industrial restruc-
turing, reform of the public sector, and worries about de-industrialization...
it appeared apparent that accounting had to be studied in its broader social,
political and institutional context. (Hopperet al., 2001, p. 276)Humphrey and Scapens (1996) argued for the capacity of explanatory case studies
‘to move away from managerialist notions of accounting and to provide more
challenging reflections on the nature of accounting knowledge and practice’
(p. 87) and to its ‘intricacies, complexities and inconsistencies’ (p. 90).
One problem that has arisen in academic research is the variety of theories
used to explain practice, which Humphrey and Scapens (1996) believe excessively
dominate the analysis of case study evidence. Similarly, Hopperet al.(2001) argued
that ‘the research thrust may lie in attempting to integrate and consolidate the