英语论文网

Methodological themes Empirical research in accounting:alternative approaches and a case for“middle-range” thinking Introduction There would be few today that would dispute that empirical research in accounting is of central importance. Yet it is interesting to note that, as Mattessich (1980) points out, this centrality is of recent origin. It is only in the 1970s that this shift in accounting research gained centre stage. Prior to this time “normative” thinking and theorizing was paramount. The reason for this shift in the 1970s is clearly complex yet it is not unconnected with, first, the disillusionment with normative thinking and second, with the interest in the shift to more descriptive studies from multiple branches of the research community. On the first point what became clear in the 1970s was that the normative ideas which had been generated over previous decades did not appear to be readily taken up and used in practice. It was as though a “tissue rejection” problem was occurring – the suggested design for accounting systems seemed to have an irrelevance to current practices. This led to calls for a greater descriptive understanding of the functioning of current accounting practices in the hope that such an appreciation would lead to the design of more meaningful and appropriate normative systems. Cooper (1981, p. 198) makes this plain when he suggests that “…only through a well- grounded understanding of how systems operate can we prescribe how accounting systems should be changed”. The second factor leading to the 1970s’ demands for greater empirical understanding of accounting was because of the calls for this move from boththe “economics” and “behavioural” wings of the accounting academic research community (see also Hopwood, 1989 who makes similar connections). The developments in financial economics andparticularly the generation of the efficient market hypothesis and the opening up of agency theory created demands as well as openings for accounting academics sympathetic to this thinking for empirical research. This led a range of accounting academics, primarily in Rochester and Chicago, to call for the development of “…a positive accounting theory which will explain why accounting is what it is, why accountants do what they do, and what effects these phenomena have on people and resource utilization” (Jensen, 1976, p. 13). Those purposefully distancing themselves from this strongly quantitative emphasis in accounting were making similar pleas. Thus, for instance, Hopwood writing in 1979 made plain that “…recently I have become ever more aware of how little we know about the actual functioning of accounting systems in organisations” (Hopwood, 1979, p. 145). This concern was one that became shared by a range of more “behavioural” accounting researchers the world over. As a result of these and other factors, the 1980s generated a wide range of empirical studies in accounting from various theoretical and methodological approaches. Those borrowing from financial economics laboured long over alternative theories and the design of ever more sophisticated methods while leaving the wider methodological questions alone. Those of a more “behavioural” persuasion, on the other hand, have absorbed massive energy, conducted much debate, and generated immense diversity of approach on theoretical and methodological questions. As a result the last decade or so has led these “behavioural” accounting academics to borrow and adapt theoretic