Search results

The aim of this paper is to propose a basis upon which accounting reporting can be developed to reflect real values and the real economy. It aims to address the environmental considerations discussed in the UN debate (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020) and the concern for a “better life-world”, which is the theme of this special issue.

Addressing the task involves the application of the philosophy of pragmatic constructivism (which explains how people can relate to their reality in ways that lead to successful action) and the philosophical concept of the “good life” (which establishes the values to be pursued through action and so defines action success). Also, it outlines the necessary characteristics of measurement frameworks if they are to be effective in the development and control of human practices to achieve desired values.

This paper proposes a conceptual framework for guiding the measurement of how a sustainable good life has improved and/or deteriorated as a result of organisational activities. It outlines a system of concepts on basic and instrumental values for analysing the condition of maintaining a sustainable good life in real terms. This is related to the financial results and societal regulations to analyse and adjust controls according to the real economic goals. Also, it provides a system of value measurands to produce valid information about the development of a sustainable good life. The measurand makes accounting reporting reflect the conditions of the good life that constitute the real economy instead of merely the financial economy driven by shareholder capitalism. Providing tools to analyse whether the existing practices of business and social regulations promote or counteract the real economic goals of producing a sustainable good life means the measurement system proposed makes the invisible hand of the market visible.

The mechanism proposed to enable accounting reporting to reflect real values and the real economy is a new conceptual framework that will allow accounting to more fully realise its potential to contribute to a “better world”. In aiming to serve a sustainable good life, accounting reporting will inherently foster ethical social practices.

The purpose of this paper is to enhance the relationship between research and practice. It addresses the question: How can practitioners’ use of generalisations be understood, with a view towards producing research-based generalisations that facilitate use in practice?

Language games are used to explore generalisation in practice, and the framework of pragmatic constructivism is adopted to characterise the generation of practice generalisation.

Practice is conceptualised as a complex set of clusters of organised actions run by a set of applied generalisations and driven by human intentions. Practice also encompasses reflective activities that aim to create the generalisations and reflect them into the specific circumstances to create functioning practice. Generalisations depend on underlying concepts. The formation and structure of concepts is explored and used to create the construction and use of different types of generalisation. Generalisations function as cognitive building blocks in constructing strings of interconnected functioning activities. Managers make their own functioning generalisations that, however, do not satisfy the research criteria for acceptable generalisations. The research/practice gap is shaped by the very different language games played.

If research is to be useful to practice, the generalisations produced must methodologically articulate the types of generalisation that pervade the methods with which practitioners construct functioning activities. Further research has to give more insight into such processes.

The paper contributes insight into both the generalisation debate and the research/practice gap debate.

The study aims to assess the COVID-19 event in three European countries (Germany, Italy and the UK) by investigating the quality of their performance management of it.

Pragmatic constructivism (PC) is employed as a lens through which the performance management of each country can be examined and compared over a period encompassing the first wave of COVID-19.

Official statistics show that one of the countries has a significantly lower death rate. It developed and operated a more detailed and precise system of performance management. From the perspective of PC, this system supported efforts to build a functioning reality construction integrating facts, possibilities, values and communication.

The evaluation of different national approaches to the performance management of the COVID-19 reality is novel to the literature on management accounting. PC is used as a diagnostic tool to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses of the performance management of public sector activities in different countries.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of the paper entitled “Towards a paradigmatic foundation for accounting practice” by Nørreklit, Nørreklit and Mitchell as a way to open a debate about whether a “paradigm of accounting practice” exists and, if so, the nature of the methodological approach that would be needed to discover its nature.

The paper employs a critical, reflective discursive analysis.

The main finding is that there is a confusion in the paper by Nørreklit et al. about the nature of a “paradigm of accounting practice”, which, if it exists, should be a “skeletal theory” (Laughlin), rather than a methodology. The conclusion of the commentary is that a “paradigm of accounting practice”, using this understanding, might exist, but that Nørreklit et al.'s argument for the use of “pragmatic constructivism”, as a methodology for its discovery, is open to question.

The implication of the argument of this commentary is that the search for “paradigm of accounting practice” is important and should be pursued but the choice of an appropriate methodology for this discovery still needs further consideration.

Nørreklit et al., and this commentary, re‐energise an important debate and concern about paradigms in accounting that was present in the literature in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The search for a “paradigm of accounting practice” and how best it can be discovered is an important consideration for the future development of accounting thought.

This study aims to explore how the use of a performance measurement system (PMS) reflects the compatibility between institutional logics at different levels. It emphasises the centrality of institutional logics behind actors’ expectations.

Drawing on pragmatic constructivism, the study assumes that a PMS is used coherently when it realises the values and beliefs of the actors involved. This requires that actors communicate and understand one another (communication coherence) and accept the PMS in use (value coherence). The study argues that a coherent use of a PMS reflects the compatibility between the institutional logics at the same (field levels) or different levels (field and societal levels). The empirical evidence comes from a large public hospital located in the south of Italy.

The empirical results describe episodes that highlight how the coherence in the use of PMS reflects the compatibility of institutional logics at different levels and episodes where the compatibility can be hindered by problems in the coherent use of the PMS related to value and communication coherence. A lack of communication and value coherence is highlighted in the use of PMS as “compromising accounts”.

The study sheds light on how coherence in the use of PMS reflects the compatibility between the institutional logics involved at different levels, suggesting that a focus on one prevailing logic must be avoided. The study extends logics compatibility beyond the field level to the societal level.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the contribution made by the balanced scorecard (BSC) in regaining the practice relevance of management accounting research.

Using discourse analysis, the paper investigates the speech genre in use in main BSC texts.

The authors' analysis reveals that the BSC is defined in a way that can provide management with a type of general overarching model. However, the model lacks realistic scholarly characteristics and instead it exhibits characteristics of a myth speech genre. This is especially so in the presentation of the central concern with cause‐effect statements in the BSC.

The authors' analysis, therefore, suggests that methodological issues relating to the usage of cause and effect statements must be solved if research, such as that carried out in the BSC development, is to become more relevant to practice. To overcome this problem and regain research relevance, the paper recommends a more scholarly speech genre, giving more attention to various usages of inferential statements and specifically a pragmatic constructivist perspective for analyzing construct causalities.

The paper advocates a scholarly methodological basis as a requirement for accounting innovation to enable it to solve practice problems in a way that improves practice and hence increases relevance of research.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a response to a comment written by Richard Laughlin on a previous paper by the authors, which appeared in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume 23 Number 6.

The paper addresses three issues central to the analysis of the comment on their past paper.

In addressing each of the issues in turn the authors clarify their analysis.

The paper provides an argument for the development of a paradigm for accounting practice derived from the use of pragmatic constructivism.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework (pragmatic constructivism) for a new paradigm for accounting practice. The paradigmatic base of practice is an important element in explaining, understanding, justifying and defending practice.

The paper is designed to argue the case for the use of pragmatic constructivism as a basis for the development of a paradigmatic foundation of accounting practice. To achieve this, pragmatic constructivism is explained and its application to accounting is illustrated and contrasted with the traditional paradigm of realism.

The analysis shows how the use of a less reductionist paradigm than realism can assist accountants both in the creation of a rationale and a defence for practice.

The analysis is exploratory in the sense that a new paradigmatic framework is outlined and used to illustrate its potential to develop a paradigm for practice. The creation of a full practice paradigm for accounting is beyond the scope of one paper. Hence this analysis should be viewed as only a first step towards developing a paradigm of accounting practice.

The proposal of pragmatic constructivism for this purpose is novel to the accounting literature. The value of its application lies in its potential to explain and defend accounting practice.

The purpose of this paper is to show how management control researchers can improve their practical impact through research designs that recognise the many dimensions of organizational reality.

Managerial knowledge in the academy and managerial practice may become detached from one another as practitioners and academic discourses are influenced by different sources of texts and modes of legitimisation. Although this can be a problem in accounting research, management accounting researchers have developed the necessary elements for critical engagement with practice. Identifying a common ontological basis for researchers and practitioners, it is argued that pragmatic constructivism explains how managers construct their reality through integrating logic, facts, values and communication. It is also argued that management consultants have implicitly understood this view of reality in the way that they package their solutions. Academic researchers can replicate the pragmatic constructivist ontology whilst adopting more explicitly theoretical and critical approaches.

The paper proposes the academy can productively imitate some of the knowledge creation of the consultant yet still retain both theoretical rigour and academic values.

The paper presents a research design that can improve the impact of business school research whilst maintaining academic integrity.

This paper introduces the second part of a AAAJ special issue on accounting, accountability and management during the COVID-19 emergency. The authors analyse the themes that emerge from the second part of the special issue, which allows us to identify the diverse accounting and accountability practices across different geographical and organisational contexts. The authors also provide an overall picture of the contributions of the special issue, with insights into avenues of future research.

Building on the first part of the AAAJ special issue, the paper draws together and identifies additional emerging themes related to research into the COVID-19 pandemic and how it impacts accounting, accountability and management practices. The authors reflect on the contributions of the special issue to the interdisciplinary accounting research project.

The authors identify two macro-themes and outline their contributions to the accounting literature. The first deals with the changes and dangers of accounting and accountability practices during the pandemic. The second considers accountability practices in a broader sense, including reporting, disclosure and rhetorical practices in the management of COVID-19.

The paper shows the pervasive role of accounting and accountability in the unprecedented and indiscriminate health crisis of COVID-19. It highlights the important role of special issues in producing timely research that responds to unfolding events.

This paper contributes to current debates on the roles of accounting and accountability during COVID-19 by drawing together the themes of the special issue and identifying future interdisciplinary accounting research on the pandemic's aftermath.