Management accounting research development: the restrictions of Zimmerman's monoparadigm approach
This study aims to analyze the conceptual development of management accounting, in view of its peculiarities and possible influences. This is an essay based on a bibliographic research. The goal is to identify demands, conflicts and methodological needs for management accounting research, against th...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2009 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
| Repositorio: | Revista Contabilidade & Finanças (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:revistas.usp.br:article/34279 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.revistas.usp.br/rcf/article/view/34279 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Teoria da Contabilidade Gerencial Contabilidade Gerencial Monoparadigma Econômico Management control Management accounting Economic monoparadigm |
| Sumario: | This study aims to analyze the conceptual development of management accounting, in view of its peculiarities and possible influences. This is an essay based on a bibliographic research. The goal is to identify demands, conflicts and methodological needs for management accounting research, against the background of a debate between Ittner and Larcker (2001; 2002), Zimmerman (2001), Hopwood (2002), Lukka and Mouritsen (2002) and Luft and Shields (2002), who are considered extremely relevant in analyzing the course of management accounting research. The innovation consists in discussing research particularities, the monoparadigm as a limiting factor of research, organizational theories as research opportunities, the political power of mainstream and the lack of methodological rigor in the studies. It is concluded that the growth of management accounting derives from countless elements, fundamental for the qualitative improvement of research. Among them, the need for a clear personality for research, the non-acceptance of the monoparadigm and the researchers' greater responsibility in terms of methodological depth are highlighted. |
|---|