No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is first, to discuss the theoretical assumptions, qualities, problems and myopia of the dominating quantitative and qualitative approaches; second, to describe the methodological lessons that the authors learned while conducting a series of longitudinal studies on the use and usefulness of a specialized balanced scorecard; and third, to encourage researchers to actually use multiple methods and sources of data to address the very many accounting phenomena that are not fully understood.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is an opinion piece based on the authors' experience conducting a series of longitudinal mixed method studies.FindingsThe authors suggest that in many studies, using a mixed method approach provides the best opportunity for addressing research questions.Originality/valueThis paper provides encouragement to those who may wish to bridge the authors' ideological gaps and to those who are actively trying to do so.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper reports evidence on the effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as a strategy communication and management-control device. This study first reviews communication and management control literatures that identify attributes of effective communication and control of strategy. Second, the study offers a model of communication and control applicable to the BSC. The study then analyzes empirical interview and archival data to model the use and assess the communication and control effectiveness of the BSC. The study includes data from multiple divisions of a large, international manufacturing company. Data are from BSC designers, administrators, and North American managers whose divisions are objects of the BSC. The study accumulates evidence regarding the challenges of designing and implementing the BSC faced by even a large, well-funded company. These findings may be general-izable to other companies adopting or considering adopting the BSC as a strategic and management control device. Data indicate that this specific BSC, as designed and implemented, is an effective device for controlling corporate strategy. Results also indicate disagreement and tension between top and middle management regarding the appropriateness of specific aspects of the BSC as a communication, control, and evaluation mechanism. Specific results include evidence of causal relations between effective management control, motivation, strategic alignment, and beneficial effects of the BSC. These beneficial effects include changes in processes and improvements in both the BSC and customer-oriented services. In contrast, ineffective communication and management control cause poor motivation and conflict over the use of the BSC as an evaluation device.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of three research methods employed in managerial accounting: experimental, survey and field research. We do this by drawing on the three papers published in this issue of the Journal. These three papers provide the reader with a ‘behind the scenes’ exposé on the problems, choices and decisions confronted by the researcher during the method phase of the empirical study. The complexities associated with method are rarely reported in published papers nor is there any explanation of why effort is devoted to particular methodological issues. It is, however, important for the novice researcher to recognise these choices and problems, both when selecting a particular method, and in designing a study. We attempt to critique these papers in terms of choice of method and also the extent to which each of the studies satisfies the three ‘maxims’ of scientific method, namely, construct validity, internal validity and external validity. Our review demonstrates the trade‐offs that are necessarily made when designing a research study. There are, however, ways in which the effects of these trade‐offs can be minimised and we provide guidance as to how the study design might be improved to achieve this.