Summary
of the Academic Paper
In
the article on Accounting Change:
Explaining the Outcomes, Interpreting the Process, Liguori and Steccolini (2011) addresses the evolution
of accounting within the internal organizational environment. The paper
highlights the reasons for observation of different outcomes for organizations
experiencing similar challenges. To compare the accounting changes, the researcher
analyzed two Italian local governments and the changes exhibited for a period
of 15 years.
Research
Questions
There
are numerous research questions addressed in this study such as:
i.
What is accounting change?
ii.
Why has accounting evolved over time?
iii.
How accounting evolves in time within a particular organizational environment?
iv.
How do institutional theories (such as
new-institutionalism) explain the organizational change?
v.
How does archetype theory define
accounting change?
Research
Methods
To
collect data on the case studies, the researcher observed the developments in
the organizations for a period of three years (between 2001 and 2004). In
addition, they conducted face-to-face interviews with the sampled participants who were directly involved in the
accounting change process. The interview process was necessary for gathering qualitative data on the history of accounting as witnessed by the study
participants. Secondary sources of information regarding the organization were
analyzed as well. They included official accounting documents, notes on
meetings, financial reports, and
budgets. Snowball sampling approach was
employed in identifying the most relevant interviewees for the research. In this way, it was possible to track long
serving employees that have taken part in the changes in Clio Town and Calliope
Province accounting departments.
The
Main Findings
From
both cases, it is clear that accounting change can be triggered by external
factors, though each of the studied cases
exhibited different organizational changes. Most importantly, the dynamics of
different organizational departments explain the change outcomes. For instance, the finance department introduced
structures and tools that accelerate the attainment of revolutionary and radical
change.
Critical
Evaluation of Research Methods Used
The
research methods used were appropriate in gathering appropriate data.
Face-to-face interviews with the organizational leaders provided a chance for
the researchers to interact with the respondents and to assure them of
confidentiality. In addition, as researchers focused on interviews wasting time
taking notes, many questions were asked to validate the research outcome. Observing
the organizational performance provides first-hand information for the
research. Lastly, gathering data from secondary sources (though not a reliable
means of data collection) complements interviews and observations, while
limiting the cost of the study. Application
of different methods in the study strengthened the conclusion because the
researchers compared data to confirm the accuracy of research outcome.
Research
Extension
Future
researchers can build on this study to analyze the frameworks employed in the
study in detail. In addition, other approaches other than archetype theory
should be used to explain the environmental pressures that trigger accounting
change in business entities. The research outcome clarifies that the
environmental pressures cannot fully explain the distinct stages of accounting
change. Thus, an additional research is necessary to uncover these additional
contributing factors (Burns and Scapens, 2012).
Bibliography
Burns, J. and Scapens, R.W., 2012.
Conceptualizing Management Accounting Change: An Institutional Framework. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), pp.3-25.
Liguori, M. and Steccolini, I., 2011.
Accounting Change: Explaining the Outcomes, Interpreting the Process. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 25(1),
pp.27-70.
No comments:
Post a Comment