Abstract
The management accounting field uses three research approaches: mainstream, interpretive and critical. These paradigms involve employing distinct research methodology whilst studying topics related to management accounting. The distinction in research methodology was made based on assumptions about the nature of social science and nature of society. Various scholars had used those assumptions to categorise research prototypes. Among them, the frameworks developed by Burrell and Morgan (1979), Hopper and Powell (1985, Chua (1986) and also Rayan and Scapens (2002) are all noteworthy. Therefore, the aim of this study is to critically review these frameworks as a way to identify their similarities and differences among them. On the basis of the review, it is observed that perspectives of management accounting were originated from an extremely long means of travel, and there are lots of similarities and significant differences among the frameworks reviewed.
Highlights
Management accounting research has drawn the attention of many scholars of accounting, and numerous studies have been conducted and various organisational theories, for instances contingency theory of management accounting and institutional theories, are suggested
Based on the above critical review, it can be observed that perspectives of management accounting originated out of a very long means of travel, as Ryan & Scapens (2002) accounting research transcends many boundaries and goes a long way in developing good accounting principles for understanding and applying the right paradigms
Accounting theories are compiled as mainstream, interpretive and critical accounting research approaches by Hopper & Powell (1985), Chua (1986) and Ryan & Scapens (2002)
Summary
Management accounting research has drawn the attention of many scholars of accounting, and numerous studies have been conducted and various organisational theories, for instances contingency theory of management accounting and institutional theories, are suggested. The development of different schools of thoughts within social and institutional characteristics, Hopper and Powell (1985), Chua (1986) and Ryan and Scapens (2002), attracted in the philosophical framework created by Burrell and Morgan (1979). First four sections have been devoted to review the frameworks evolved from Burrell and Morgan (1979), Hopper and Powell (1985), Chua (1986) and Ryan, and Scapens (2002).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
