OIE theory has been criticized because it focused primarily on the organizational-level view taken by Burns and Scapens rather than the macro level. As a result, OIE use is limited in terms of recognizing upper levels of social, political and economic criteria that influence and identify the organizational context (Dillard et al. 2004). Further, it does not consider the factors that may influence the institutional change, including MAC. Conversely, NIS theory has been criticized because it focused on the extra-organizational level. In this regard, Greenwood and Hinings (1996:1023) believe that NIS “is weak in analyzing the internal dynamics of organizational change. As a consequence, the theory is silent on why some organizations adopt radical change whereas others do not, despite experiencing the same institutional pressures”. To overcome the limitations and flaws of each theory, this study combines them so that they complement each other and give better results.
Extending these ideas, the integration process between OIE and NIS is made possible by the use of Dillard et al‟s (2004) framework, which combines OIE and NIS. It is important to note
the interaction between extra- and intra-organizational factors in the process of MAC. Thereafter, Dillard et al‟s (2004) framework can be utilized by improving the analysis of the
influence of intra-organizational processes, such as how new accounting systems emerge. To avoid this limitation, Burns and Scapens‟ (2000) framework is integrated with Dillard et al‟s
(2004) model. The rationale for this is that Burns and Scapens‟ (2000) framework introduces a more comprehensive and in-depth interpretation of the process of institutionalization of new
178
MAPs at the organizational level than Dillard et al‟s (2004) framework. Thereby, Burns and
Scapens‟ (2000) framework is more helpful than Dillard et al‟s (2004) framework in
explaining the process of institutionalization of new rules and routines at organizational level.
The combination of Dillard et al‟s (2004) framework and Burns and Scapens‟ (2000)
framework is not inconsistent in with epistemological and ontological assumptions, because both frameworks exchange the same views about the world and human beings (Wanderley et al. 2011). Dillard et al. (2004:512) affirm that “Burns and Scapens‟ ideas could be integrated”
into Dillard et al‟s (2004) framework at the organizational level. They also declare that “the
framework provided by Burns and Scapens (2000) might be applied to describe the micro process taking place” (2004:533) within an organization. As a result, the integration between them can be implemented without any ontological and epistemological dilemmas.
Another aspect to be taken into consideration is that the institutional theorists have ignored the role of power and institutional resistance logics, which may influence the institutional change. Seo and Creed (2002) stated that institutional theory has a dilemma because it is unable to explain the role of agency and power in the process of organizational change; i.e. “When and how do actors actually decide to revise behavioural scripts when their actions and thoughts are constantly constrained by the existing institutional system?” (2002:224). Hence, to overcome the institutional theory dilemma, this study also adopts Hardy‟s (1996) framework to tease out the power influences over MAC. By doing so, the contextual framework includes a multilevel analysis of the dynamics associated with the institutionalization process. The framework represents continual, dynamic change and the significant influence (Dillard et al. 2004) of institutional factors in the MA processes. It may complement the existing institutional perspectives on MA, especially Burns and Scapens‟ (2000) framework.
3.11. Conclusions
Following the explanation of different institutional perspectives (NIS, OIE, and power theory), their underlying assumptions, dynamics, key criticisms and frameworks, and their interrelationship with structuration theory, and to avoid the limitations of each framework, this chapter concludes a new contextual framework based on the integration of the works of Dillard et al. (2004), Burns and Scapens (2000), and Hardy (1996) from one side, and Pettigrew (1987) and Dawson (1994) from another, which is helpful for conceptualizing
179
management accounting and organizational change. This has been done to avoid the flaws and shortcomings of each individual framework. The contextual framework explicitly recognizes the socio-economic and political nature of institutional change, and provides a basis for a more complete understanding of the dynamics involved in such an enacting, embedding and changing of organizational aspects and processes. Expanding the focus of the MA research- based institutional theory can provide a more inclusive representation of accounting as the object of institutional practices as well as a better articulation of the role of accounting in the institutionalization process (see Dillard et al. 2004). The framework also recognizes the organizational field level as an interactive part of a larger social system that must be considered when investigating the emergence, diffusion and implementation of accounting criteria and practices.
The contextual framework of MAC as well as this study (as manifested in chapters 5, 6 & 7), can serve MA researchers by giving them a common frame of reference. There has been a call to develop a new theoretical framework capable of supporting the understanding of the complex mishmash of interrelated factors at both extra- and intra-organizational levels that pressure MAPs to change (see Scapens 2006). This framework complements recent recommendations for „bridge building‟ and methodological pluralism among the different debates and perspectives concerning institutional theory in MA research (Yazdifar 2004). However, this framework could be criticized on the grounds that it is over-schematized, and interrelated factors applied to the framework are unlikely to happen within a specific organization (Wanderley et al. 2011). Nevertheless, these allegations will not invalidate the contextual framework since it displays how it could be used flexibly in different aspects of organizational change. Hence it may be utilized in the dynamics of MAC in various contexts (ibid.).
It‟s worth mentioning that none of the previous frameworks alone would be able to explain all the dynamics of the process of MAC. However, by integrating these three frameworks, the „contextual‟ framework provides a useful basis for understanding the process of institutionalization, embedding and de-institutionalization of MAPs. In doing so, each framework supplements the other without any ontological and epistemological issues. Thus, the contextual framework explains the institutionalization process of MA logics in the emerging institutional field by focusing on how human actions at multiple levels interact recursively to enable multiple logics to diffuse (Purdy and Gray 2009). Hence, it reveals how
180
field structure and dynamics shape the diffusion process (isomorphism), emphasizing the interaction of organizational actions and institutional pressures. In this way, new institutional logics are transmitted by actors and enacted as new organizational practices; they then become taken-for-granted working practices.
Along the same lines as Burns and Scapens, “It should be emphasized that this framework is not intended to provide operational constructs for empirical research and hypothesis testing. Rather, its purpose is to describe and explain analytical concepts, which can be used for interpretive case studies of management accounting change” (2000:9). Consequently, with the aim of applying the contextual framework-based institutional theory, a relevant research methodology and methods have to be adopted. Considering the methodological issues, chapter four discusses these choices, incorporating the research philosophy, paradigm and approach. In addition, it provides the rationale for selecting an interpretive case-study as the research strategy. Furthermore, it discusses how the empirical evidence has been collected and analyzed using the six steps of the research process, including triangulation of data collection and multiple sources of evidence (interviews, observations and documents).
181
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND
METHODS
4.1. Introduction
The main objective of this study is to explain the processes of management accounting change within the JCO after the introduction of NPM reforms. In order to achieve this objective, the relevant literature on management accounting and organizational change was reviewed in Chapter Two, and the theoretical „contextual‟ framework underpinning this study was drawn in Chapter Three. Both Chapters Two and Three suggested the synthesis of three different institutional frameworks into one theoretical framework in order to provide a holistic view of processes of change by drawing on an interpretive case-study. Accordingly, the qualitative research in this study will take the form of an interpretive case-study to track differing paths of change and their effects over time (Brignall and Modell 2000). Accordingly, this chapter discusses the methodological issues related to the analysis carried out in this study, starting with the research philosophy and paradigm. The aim of this chapter is to elucidate the adopted research design, and to illustrate how the JCO case-study was conducted and the evidence gathered and analyzed. The findings will be discussed later, in Chapters Five to Seven. After this introduction, the chapter is structured as follows: 1) the appropriateness of the research philosophy and paradigm; 2) the discussion of the selected research approach and strategy, and why qualitative research methods and the case-study approach were adopted in the context of this research; 3) the description of the research design including the steps followed and the methods employed by the researcher; and finally (4) a discussion of the quality of the qualitative data analysis reflecting the „convincingness criteria‟.