دانلود مقاله ترجمه شده نقش ها و آثار پارادایم ها در تحقیقات حسابداری – مجله الزویر

فهرست مطالب:

چکیده
مقدمه
۲ نظریه الگو و مباحثات در مورد ان
۳ با این حال چرا در مورد الگوها انتقاداتی وجود دارد؟
۴ موقیعیت اصلی تحقیقات حسابداری در خصوص الگوها
۵ موقعیت های دیگر در خصوص الگوها در چارچوب رشته حسابداری
۶ همگنی و یا ناهمگنی الگوها
۷ قبایل در جوامع پژوهشی
۸ نتایج تحقیقات حسابداری مدیریت

بخشی از ترجمه:

 هدف این بخش خاص تحقیقات حسابداری مدیریت ارائه اطلاعات و بینش هایی در خصوص نقش ها و اثرات الگوها  در تحقیقات حسابداری با تاکید بر حسابداری مدیریت است. دسته بندی فعلی  همگن و غالب تحقیقات حسابداری  حول یک الگو ظاهرا دارای اهمیت فراونی در آکادمی تحقیقات حسابداری مدیریت می باشد. این پدیده به طور گسترده توصیف و از دیدگاه مکتب امریکای شمالی توسط مرچانت ارائه شده است. دراروپا که ایده الگوی حسابداری چند الگویی  پذیرفته شده است، تحقیقات حسابداری مدیریت به خوبی در جریان است. تعداد  بسیار زیادی مقالات حسابداری مدیریت وجود دارند که به همایش های اروپایی و کارگاه ها و نیز چندین سری کنفرانس که مقالات حسابداری مدیریت را منتشر می کنند ارائه شده است. با این حال در امریکای شمالی وضعیت کمی متفاوت و گنگ است. در حال حاضر دانشگاه های زیادی برای حسابداری مدیریت وجود ندارد و رساله ها و پایان نامه ها در این زمینه در حال کم شدن می باشند. اختلاف قابل توجه  بین اروپا و امریکای شمالی در نحوه غالبیت روند همگن این رشته  است. مرچانت به شدت در خصوص وضعیت فعلی و اینده این رشته در امریکا  نگران بوده و به اروپاییان در خصوص  پیروی از این مکتب هشدار داده است.

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

1. Introduction This paper, as well as the three others in this special section of Management Accounting Research (the papers by Merchant, this issue; Malmi, this issue; Modell, this issue), is motivated by a concern for the increasing narrowness of accounting research in terms of its philosophical assumptions, methodological approaches, and theoretical underpinnings. The current hegemonising tendencies of the so-called mainstream in accounting research are the likely root cause of this narrowness, having led to excessive homogeneity in accounting research. It seems as if the fundamental nature of the discipline of accounting as one of the social sciences – having certain significantly different characteristics from the natural sciences – have become largely overlooked. With the help of the notion of paradigm, I will point out that there always exist, at least in principle, fundamentally different kinds of options for conducting accounting research, thereby seeking to invigorate accounting researchers’ consciousness of this plethora of possibilities. While accounting research of today can be celebrated in terms of the efficiency of the research network and volume of research outputs, as a matter of fact, there have been times of bigger and especially more truly scholarly enthusiasm within the accounting research academy (Hopwood, 2007, 2008). The bulk of accounting research of today pursues only marginal contributions within one, largely programmed, theoretical and methodological framework and applies taken-for-granted research methods. While there certainly are several exceptions to this, the outcome is far too often rigorously produced but relatively unsurprising research output. It is likely that most accounting researchers do not even realise, in what kind of ‘iron cage’ they are operating, as they have never been educated to ‘stop the world’, at least for a little while, in order to realise where they are coming from and where they are heading to; i.e., to take a look ‘outside the box’ (cf. Hines, 1988). While this phenomenon frequently surfaces in the dominant mainstream of accounting research, it is not unfamiliar to the alternative paradigms either. I will argue that rediscovering the true scholarly enthusiasm in the accounting research academy can be fostered by an open-minded nurturing of heterogeneity in accounting research. Thereby accounting academia would avoid the risk of losingmuch of its scholarly qualities in the longer run. 2. The notion of paradigm and debates around it The notion of paradigm was coined by Thomas Kuhn in 1962 in his treatise “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, now already a modern classic in the philosophy of science. The notion refers to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of time. Paradigms are about several things, most notably about what is to be studied, what kind of research questions are supposed to be formulated in relation to these subjects, with what methods these studies should be conducted, and how their results should be interpreted. In short, Kuhn (1962) argued that scientific disciplines tend to have periods of “normal science”, when researchers tranquilly work ‘within the box’ of the ruling paradigm. However, it is not untypical that research findings gradually start to bring forth anomalies, which do not fit into the current paradigm and persuade researchers to start thinking ‘outside the current box’. Sooner or later a new paradigm emerges to challenge the current one and thereafter a paradigm shift becomes a possibility. A number of clear examples of paradigm shifts can be found from various disciplines. A major one comes from physics, where Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics, positioning the latter as a particular case of a more general theory. With hindsight, Kuhn’s notions of paradigms and their dynamics may look innocent and almost self-evident, which is typical of most significantly innovative ideas once they have broken through and become ‘facts’ (Latour, 1987). However, when it was developed, it was revolutionary as it meant a major relativistic move in the philosophy of science: it implied that the values of researchers and their academic communities play a fundamental role in the scientific enterprise–it is not just neutral cognition that drives science and its development. In the philosophy of science, there have been several post-Kuhnian debates; some of them took place only a relatively short time after the publication of Kuhn’s book—e.g., those around Feyerabend (1975) and Lakatos (1977, 1978). Another notable period of paradigm-related debates was witnessed in the 1990s, when the so-called Science Wars broke out. It was a series of intellectual battles between “postmodernists” and “realists” about the nature of scientific theories. Postmodernists questioned the objectivity of science, leading to a huge variety of critiques on scientific knowledge and method in a number of disciplines, and especially in studies of science and technology (e.g., Latour and Woolgar, 1979; Latour, 1987). Realists countered that surely there is such a thing as objective scientific knowledge and that postmodernists are mixing political agendas with science. The peak of this counter-attack was the book by Gross and Levitt (1994) with the telling title: Higher Superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Another more infamous peak was the so-called “Sokal affair” in 1996. Physicist Alain Sokal got a paper published in Social Text, which he subsequently (in another journal, Lingua Franca) admitted to be a pure hoax. His purpose was to ridicule postmodernists by demonstrating how easy it is to publish pure nonsense in their journals (Sokal, 1996a,b).