MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 311
practices in society. These critical perspectives in accounting research are marked
by a great deal of intellectual ferment evident in the different theoretical approaches
and methodologies deployed and the wide range of topics and issues addressed.
Accordingly, in the light of such heterogeneity and the constraints of space, our
intent is to provide a flavor of these alternative accounting research agendas
without claiming to be exhaustive.^4
Classifying these heterogeneous theoretical stances as ‘‘critical perspectives,’’
in contrast to the functionalist and interpretative traditions explored above, can
be justified by their singular attention to the interrelation between accounting
and issues of conflict, domination and power. Despite the theoretical differences
within the different strands of the critical perspectives regarding the manner and
form in which to conceptualize power, they all avoid a consensus view of society
that is the hallmark of both the functional and interpretive perspectives.
It may be argued that power, in both the functional and interpretive perspec-
tives, is formulated as if it were a possession belonging to someone which he
or she exercises for individual gain and further, that this power is diffused over
society in a manner as to preclude the sustained and systematic negation of any
individuals’ preferences (Alford and Friedland 1985). In sharp contrast, this indi-
vidualist basis of power and ultimately consensus view of society is eschewed by
the critical perspectives which attempt to deal explicitly with conflict, domination
and power (Cooper and Sherer 1984). For example, rather than treating various
managerial accounting practices as a response to transaction costs considerations
as in Johnson and Kaplan (1987) or agency cost considerations as in Christensen
(1983), they are treated as modes by which the extraction of labor from laborers
is made possible (Hopper and Armstrong 1991) and as methods by which the
actions of individuals are made visible and susceptible to greater discipline and
control (Hoskins and Macve 1988, Miller and O’Leary 1987). Accordingly, class
conflict, the hegemony of elites, and the power of experts and professionals are
some of the elements that the critical perspectives systematically foreground (not
all such analyses incorporate all of these emphases) in their attempt to understand
accounting practices.
Despite the theoretical richness within the critical perspectives, we will confine
our attention to two major research strands that have illuminated our understand-
ing of managerial accounting. First, we will consider the labor process perspective
which draws from the Marxist tradition and then we will examine the Foucaultian
perspective which, as the name suggests, draws from the work of Michel Foucault.
While both of these alternatives are critical in orientation, there are significant dif-
ferences in the kinds of insights they offer and consequently, we will first describe
their relevant theoretical infrastructure and then, tease out from extant accounting
studies their implications for our understanding of managerial accounting.
(^4) For a more in-depth treatment of alternative research agendas in accounting, consult for
example, Critical Accounts by David Cooper and Trevor Hopper (1990),Sociological Perspectives
on Modern Accountingby Robin Rosenlender (1992),The Social and Organizational Context of
Management Accountingby Anthony Puxty (1993), andAccounting as a Social and Institutional
Practiceby Anthony Hopwood and Peter Miller (1994).