Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 7982

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Management Accounting Research
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ mar
Issues in the relationship between theory and practice
in management accounting
Gudrun Baldvinsdottir
a
, Falconer Mitchell
b,1
, Hanne Nrreklit
c,,2
a
Gothenburg University, Vasagatan 1, Gothenburg, Sweden
b
University of Edinburgh, William Robertson Building, 50 George Square, Edinburgh, UK
c
Aarhus University, Fuglesangs All 4, 8210 rhus V, Denmark
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords:
Practice
Technical core
Social science
a b s t r a c t
In recent decades the interest of academic researchers in the practical aspects of man-
agement accounting has waned. This editorial explores some of the reasons of this
development. Over the past few decades we have witnessed the establishment of man-
agement accounting in academia as a social science. This has increased the credibility of
the accounting academics. However, it has also meant that academic researchers have
neglected the technical core of their discipline and its problems and issues which have
a direct practical relevance. It is concluded that there is a need for academic researchers
to have a stronger focus on the technical core of the subject and to harness the ndings of
empirical research so that they can be used to develop and support practice.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The call for papers for this special issue elicited only a
very limited response. This probably reects the academic
communitys view that the issue of how research and the
development of management accounting theory relates to
practice is not particularly important. Contemporary cir-
cumstances and pressures may well have downgraded the
signicance of practical considerations for academics. In
this short editorial we suggest some of the reasons why
this might have happened and argue that if management
accounting research is to maintain its distinctiveness from
the other social sciences and disciplines to which it has
become linked, there is a need to retain a focus on the
technical core of practice.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 8948 6377; fax: +45 8948 6660.
E-mail addresses: Baldvinsdottir@handels.gu.se (G. Baldvinsdottir),
mitchllf@wrb1.bae.ed.ac.uk (F. Mitchell), hann@asb.dk (H. Nrreklit).
1
Falconer Mitchell also has a visiting position at the University of
Aarhus, Denmark.
2
Hanne Nrreklit is also a Professor at NHH, Bergen, Norway.
2. Contemporary management accounting research
Over the past fewdecades, there has been a burgeoning
growthinmanagement accounting researchandinthe the-
ory underpinning it (Luft and Shields, 2002; Zimmerman,
2001; Chapman et al., 2007; Malmi and Granlund, 2009).
This growth has not been one simply of volume. It has also
involved a signicant extension of scope both in terms of
the research topic and in the theoretical bases employed
by researchers. Despite this growth, there has been scant
interest shown in research by those involved in the prac-
tice of management accounting. One salient exception to
this has been the work that has emerged from Harvard by
academics such as R. Kaplan and R. Cooper on topics such
as activity based costing and the balanced scorecard. This
workhas takenthe formof identifying, developingandpro-
moting solutions to practical problems initially uncovered
in case studies of current practice. Consequently it may be
viewed as being at the development end of the R and D
process. In essence, it is based on the recycling of existing
practice. The Harvard work demonstrates that the practi-
tioner will enthusiastically use a certain type of research.
Indeed, surveys showit has changedmanagement account-
ing practice quite signicantly e.g., Innes et al. (2000).
1044-5005/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mar.2010.02.006
80 G. Baldvinsdottir et al. / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 7982
Over recent years, management accounting has become
an innovative practice and consequently the potential
exists for the researcher to play a supportive role in the
development of the discipline at a practical level, at least,
by assessing the new practices being introduced. In this
role, the independence of an academic position can bene-
t the researcher. However, it is apparent that the wider
research community has little interest in inuencing prac-
tice or in capturing the practitioner as an audience for their
output. This is exemplied, in a Netherlands, public sector
context, by the van Helden et al.s paper which follows in
this issue. Most accountingresearchdoes not havepractical
accounting development as an aim. Why should this be so?
Is this communication gap between research-based the-
oretical development and practice important? To answer
these questions we must consider the manner in which
management accounting research and theory has devel-
oped
3. Social science
Fromthe 1960s onwards accounting has become rmly
established as a social science (Ryan et al., 2002). In
the main, this has been achieved by the emphasis its
researchers have placed on empiricism. The dominance
of positivism in the USA (Zimmerman, 1979; Watts and
Zimmerman, 1979, 1986) and the growth in interpretive
case study based and survey based research in manage-
ment accountingthroughout Europe(Panozzo, 1997; Drury
andTayles, 1994, 2005) evidence the academic progression
of accounting. During this process management account-
ings initial links toeconomics havebeensteadilyexpanded
to include such social sciences as sociology, psychology
and organisational studies. Further development has been
apparent using the disciplines of mathematical analysis
and perhaps, most notably philosophy. Seals paper in
this issue is a case in point utilising both economic the-
ory and discourse analysis to explain the acceptance and
use of ideas in practice. These interdisciplinary develop-
ments have underpinned the attainment of accountings
academic credibility. These trends in accounting research
are unsurprising given the accounting researchers posi-
tion in an academic environment. They are, however, also
likely to create gaps between accounting researchers and
practitioners. Froma social scienceperspectivetheprimary
aim of accounting research is to explain and understand
the behaviour of accountants. Changing (improving) their
behaviour, within given institutional settings, is not (cer-
tainly in the immediacy) a priority within the research
schema of most accounting academics.
Embracingthestatus of social scientists bymanagement
accounting researchers has been accompanied by a decline
inthelogical andnormativeanalyses of practice, e.g., Baxter
and Oxenfeldt (1961), Thomas (1974), Solomons (1965)
andAnthony(1975), whichdominatedthe researchagenda
before the late 1970s. In depth analysis of newmethods for
practice has become relatively rare today, although promi-
nent exceptions do exist e.g., De Haas and Kleingeld, 1999,
Norreklit, 2000. It is somewhat paradoxical that intensi-
fying the research focus, through empiricism, on what is
happening in practice has apparently resulted in research
outputs which practitioners do not nd relevant. The the-
ories and practices employed in this push to empiricism
do not seem to have explained or illuminated practice in
practical ways which possess value for the objects of the
research. It seems that the issues for empirical research are
derived primarily from the existing research literature as
opposed to having an origin in problems of practical rele-
vance.
4. Socio-technical discipline
What can the accounting researcher contribute to
accounting research that cannot be achieved by the soci-
ologist, economist or philosopher? The answer to this
question lies in the socio-technical nature of management
accounting. Accounting behaviour involves the interaction
of people and accounting techniques. If these accounting
techniques are not understood and adequately described
by the researcher then the explanations of behaviour gen-
erated by research activity are likely to be decient and
potentially misleading. It is the technical aspects of the
discipline which give accounting researchers a compara-
tive advantage over social science researchers and enables
themto produce explanations of behaviour which they are
more specically capable of producing. Without sufcient
attention to the technical core research will lose the stamp
of accounting. It may be more accurately classied as
research in one of the social sciences or other disciplines
and its nature will make the possibility of technical pre-
scriptions very problematic. In the rush to obtain social
science credibility, academic accounting researchers may,
in many instances, have somewhat neglected the technical
core of their subject. This makes it difcult for the reader to
fully interpret the signicance of the results and the ways
in which research on accounting and practice interrelate.
If it is accepted that accounting research should be
founded on the disciplines technical core then one might
expect accounting research journals to be replete with
extensive and rich descriptions of the practices which con-
stitute the technical aspects of the study. All too often this
is not the case. For instance, where budgeting or costing
or performance measurement is the focus of study only
limited acknowledgement of the technical nature of these
practices are included in the research outputs. It may well
be true that the social or behavioural nature of accounting
has been neglected in the normative analyses of practical
techniques which used to dominate the academic litera-
ture. However, the converse is now true of much social
science or philosophical based investigations of account-
ing practice. Management accounting research has moved
from a predominant focus on the technical to a predom-
inant focus on the social. There has been a neglect of
research which seeks to balance both aspects and which
therefore reects the real world nature of the accounting
discipline.
5. Empirical research
Exhibit 1 outlines the key stages in empirical manage-
ment accounting research. First, anarea or topic of research
is selected with suitable empirical evidence identied. Sec-
G. Baldvinsdottir et al. / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 7982 81
Exhibit 1. Stages in empirical research in management accounting.
ond, the situation and the behaviour of actors have to be
capturedthroughdescription. Theories caneither be devel-
oped from the descriptive evidence (e.g., inductions such
as grounded theory) or imported theories may be applied
to the data that has been gathered. The role of theory is
to aid explanation of what has been found empirically.
Where the explanation is convincing then it can lead to
an understanding of what has been found. It is rare in
management accounting for description to provide suf-
cient substance for research publications (though there
are exceptions e.g., Patell, 1987). Explanation and under-
standing are what is needed for academic publications, and
they have come to be recognised as the primary purpose of
academic research. There is no need, nor are there expec-
tations on the part of journal editors or reviewers, that
accounting research should generate prescriptions. This
does not imply there is no research which encompasses
this last stage. However, it remains rare; but, see Kasanen
et al. (1993) for the promotion of constructive research
(an action research approach) in management account-
ing and Tuomela (2005) for an example of its application.
The production of research which is seen as applied,
in the sense of providing prescriptions for practitioners,
may even have a negative impact on the researcher. The
stigma of consultancy-type research is, perhaps too close,
for this type of research to have mass appeal in academia.
Thus, a prescriptive dimension in management accounting
research remains rare, and it is generally unnecessary for
the publication of research output.
6. Aims of empirical research
Empirical research in management accounting may be
viewed as a continuum. At one extreme research may be
designedtoexplainandunderstandpracticeas it is foundin
the real world. Insuchresearchthere wouldbe nointention
of inuencing practice through research. The practitioner
would be treated solely as a research object and researcher
would not be inuenced by the pressures of justifying the
ndings in terms of immediate practical relevance. This
does not imply that this type of research will have no
inuence on practice. It is to be hoped that prescriptions
for practice will be based on sound understanding of the
behaviours and circumstances to which they relate. Ulti-
mately, therefore, it might be hoped that research of this
type will possess some relevance for the guidance of prac-
tice. However, there is a need to harness the ndings of
research of this type so that they can be used by those who
make prescriptions for practice. For example, what guid-
ance might contingency theory studies contribute for the
practitioner who compares his/her management account-
ing system to those of other organisations? Can it assist in
identifying potential practical strengths and weaknesses?
How can research in management accounting change help
practitioners who face the challenge of changing their sys-
tems? Can it lead to good predictions of how staff will
react to changes? Can it suggest actions that can be taken
to improve the likelihood of change being successful? The
translation of research into practical guidance remains a
challenge (see van Helden et al.s paper in this issue) as
the practitioner lacks the time and skills for this task,
especially when he/she is confronted by all the challenges
of the mathematical, statistical and theoretical aspects of
accounting research. These aspects may enhance the sci-
entic nature of the work, but they can also compromise
its accessibility outside of academia. Academic careers can
also mean that the academic researcher has no motive to
prescribe (unless, for example, research funding becomes
linked to demonstrating research impact). Unless some
mechanism is found to address this issue, research and
practice in management accounting are likely to exist
independently, i.e., without any provider-user linkage. Fur-
thermore, if research is produced by academic researchers
for other academic researchers then the research loop
becomes closed within the academic community. If expla-
nation and understanding are taken as ends in themselves,
it may be difcult to justify accounting research outside
of the academic community and, as a consequence, to
properly assess its signicance. The result is likely to be
a knowledge application gap; i.e., a gap between theories
of knowing and knowing what action needs to be taken
(Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999). Academic research will be the
poorer for theexclusionof practitioner judgements as prac-
titioners are an intelligent audience with the capacity to
provide correction and guidance.
At the opposite extreme of the research continuum lies
interventionist research which is intended to contribute
directly to changing and developing practice. While this
offers potential for prescription it does not have a pres-
tigious position in the academic research community and
is pursued by only a minority of accounting researchers.
This is because, as van Helden et al acknowledge, it lies in
the grey area where research and consultancy meet. Essen-
tially, it can take two forms. First, it may be constructive in
nature (Kasanen et al., 1993) and designed to solve practi-
cal problems with much the same ethos as action research.
van Helden et al.s paper suggests that work of this nature
(deemed knowledge creation rather than research) falls
withinthe remit of the consultant/researcher whofulls an
important role in the public sector context. Alternatively, it
may involve the researcher playing a role similar to that of
theatre critic; identifying where management account-
ing practice has deciencies. Seal, in his paper in this issue,
concludes that it is in the twinning of these roles that the
management accounting researcher may nd a niche to
enhance practice in the discipline.
82 G. Baldvinsdottir et al. / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 7982
7. Research agenda
The research agenda in management accounting has, in
recent times, emphasised a social science and interdisci-
plinary based empiricism. This has fostered the attainment
of academic credibility for the discipline. There has been a
focus on nding out about behaviour in the practical world
as opposed to deriving guidance for practice. The conclu-
sions drawn from such studies are for further research,
rather than for practice. As a result, practical learning from
research, from its theories and from its interdisciplinary
links, has been missing from much of the management
accounting research agenda. This absence is an impor-
tant one if the ultimate purpose of social science research
is to improve life (rather than simply to describe and/or
understand it). If the former objective (of improving life) is
accepted, at a minimumthe research ndings and theoret-
ical understandings should to be applied to the benet of
management accounting practice.
References
Anthony, R.N., 1975. Accounting for the Cost of Interest. Lexington, Mass.,
USA.
Baxter, W., Oxenfeldt, A.R., 1961. Costing andPricing: The Cost Accountant
versus the Economist, Business Horizons, 4, 4, 7790, (reprinted in
Studies in Cost Analysis, In: D. Solomons (Ed.), Sweet and Maxwell,
London, 1968).
Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G., Shields, M.D., 2007. Handbook of Manage-
ment Accounting Research. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
De Haas, M., Kleingeld, A., 1999. Multilevel design of performance mea-
surement systems: enhancing strategic dialogue throughout the
organization. Management Accounting Research 10, 233261.
Drury, C., Tayles, M., 1994. Product costing in UK manufacturing organi-
sations. The European Accounting Review 3 (3), 443469.
Drury, C., Tayles, M., 2005. Explicating the design of overhead absorption
procedures in UKorganisations. British Accounting Review37, 4784.
Innes, J., Mitchell, F., Sinclair, D., 2000. Activity-based costing in the UKs
largest companies: a comparison of 1994 and 1999 survey results.
Management Accounting Research 11, 349362.
Kasanen, E., Lukka, K., Siitonen, A., 1993. The constructive approach in
management accounting research. Journal of Management Account-
ing Research 5, 243264.
Luft, J.L., Shields, M.D., 2002. Zimmermans contentious conjectures:
describing the present and prescribing the future of empirical man-
agement accounting research. European Accounting Review 11. (4).
Malmi, T., Granlund, M., 2009. In search of management accounting the-
ory. The European Accounting Review 18 (3), 597620.
Norreklit, H., 2000. The balance on the balanced scorecarda critical anal-
ysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research11,
6588.
Panozzo, F., 1997. The making of the good academic accountant. Account-
ing Organisations and Society 22 (5), 447480.
Patell, J.M., 1987. Cost accounting, process control and product design: a
case study of the Hewlett-Packard personal ofce computer division.
The Accounting Review 62 (4), 808839.
Pfeffer, J., Sutton, R.I., 1999. Knowing what to do is not enough: turning
knowledge into action. California Management Review(Fall), 83108.
Ryan, R., Scapens, R.W., Theobald, M., 2002. Research Method & Method-
ology in Finance & Accounting. Thomson, London, UK.
Solomons, D., 1965. Divisional Performance: Measurement and Control.
Richard D Irwin, Illinois, USA.
Thomas, A.L., 1974. The Allocation Problem: Part Two. American Account-
ing Association.
Tuomela, T., 2005. The interplay of different levers of control: a case study
of introducing a new performance system. Management Accounting
Research 16 (3), 293320.
Watts, R., Zimmerman, J., 1979. The demand for and supply of accounting
theories. The market for excuses. The Accounting Review59, 273305.
Watts, R., Zimmerman, J., 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zimmerman, J., 1979. The costs and benets of cost allocations. The
Accounting Review 54, 504521.
Zimmerman, J., 2001. Conjectures regarding empirical management
accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 32 (13),
411427.