Abstract
PurposeThis paper seeks to inquire into the theoretical assumptions that underpin much accounting‐strategy research and to develop an alternative way to approach such study.Design/methodology/approachTwo theoretical lenses are discussed and contrasted. These are the ostensive and performative lenses.FindingsHitherto, most accounting‐strategy research has drawn on an ostensive lens, whilst only a few approach research from a performative perspective. Whilst the ostensive approach is beneficial and reduces the complexity and messiness of research sites, it also assumes that stability, orderliness and predictability characterise social life (e.g. strategy is “ready made” and remains constant during implementation). Furthermore, in this approach, accounting assumes a subordinate role and its main aim is to ensure “correct” implementation of predefined intents. This limits accounting to being an output of strategy, as opposed to, for example, an input and transformer. Greater diversity of definitions and new investigative approaches are needed. To this end, and as a key contribution, the paper develops an alternative approach drawing on Latour's performative theory. This proposes that strategy and accounting are somewhat fragile, even unstable, objects, which change depending on the hands through which they travel and the network within which they are located. Furthermore, accounting is not merely designed to follow or implement predefined intents. It is also a catalyst of expansion, transformation, even surprise.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper does not offer primary data.Originality/valueThe paper offers to scholars the possibility of studying accounting‐strategy as “relations” rather than “objects”, illustrates how this may be done, and proposes research questions to this end. It identifies a space of inquiry that needs further attention and that can provide new insights into the accounting‐strategy relationship.
Subject
Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Accounting
Reference94 articles.
1. Abernethy, M.A. and Brownell, P. (1999), “The role of budgets in organizations facing strategic change: an exploratory study”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 189‐204.
2. Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2005), “Management control systems and the crafting of strategy: a practice‐based view”, in Chapman, C.S. (Ed.), Controlling Strategy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 106‐24.
3. Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2007), “Management accounting as practice”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 1‐2, pp. 5‐31.
4. Austin, J.L. (1961), “Performative utterances”, in Urmson, J.O. and Warnock, G.J. (Eds), Philosophical Papers, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
5. Berger, P.L. and Luckman, T. (1967), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Anchor, New York, NY.
Cited by
47 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献