Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to distinguish two roles of theories, domain theory and method theory, and examine their relationships in management accounting research. Are these two roles explicitly distinguished in management accounting studies? Can this be achieved in an unambiguous manner? Where do ambitions for theoretical contribution lie in management accounting studies that employ method theories? Design/methodology/approach: – The authors develop a conceptual framework for analysing possible relationships between domain theories and method theories in studies and illustrate the theoretical arguments with examples from management accounting studies employing Actor-Network Theory (ANT) as their method theory. Findings: – There can be various types of relationships between domain theories and method theories, and the theoretical ambition of the analysed studies typically focused on domain theories. However, ambiguity can exist with regard to the location of a study's theoretical ambition. Both domain theories and method theories tend to be moving fields, and their interaction can add to this feature. Research limitations/implications: – The suggested conceptual clarification assists in the reconciliation of extreme perspectives that relate to management accounting and theory. It will also help researchers to systematically design their own work and evaluate that of others. An increased understanding of how a field develops as a result of interaction with method theories might perhaps alleviate concerns regarding the value of mobilizing the latter. Originality/value: – The analysis contributes to the on-going debate on the value and effects of employing method theories, or theoretical lenses, in management accounting research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The distinction between domain and method theory is relative rather than absolute; whether a particular theory is domain or method theory depends on its role in the study.
“The distinction is relative rather than absolute; whether a particular theory is domain or method theory depends on its role in the study in question (Lukka and Vinnari 2014).”
From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Lukka and Vinnari 2014
Contribution usually centers on the domain theory, not the method theory.
“This means that contribution usually centers on the domain theory, not the method theory (Lukka and Vinnari 2014).”
From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Lukka and Vinnari 2014
Other theories are used as tools, or method theories, to provide an alternative frame of reference to adjust or expand the conceptual scope of the domain theory.
“Other theories are used as tools, or method theories (Lukka and Vinnari 2014) to provide an alternative frame of reference to adjust or expand its conceptual scope.”
From Designing conceptual articles: four approaches (2020) · cites this paper as Lukka and Vinnari 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 117 · Cited by 299
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- [12]12. Callon, M. (1986), "The scallops of St. Brieuc Bay. Some elements of a sociology of translation", in Law, J. (ed.), Power, Action and Belief, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 196-233.
- [39]39. Humphrey, C. & Scapens, R. (1996), "Theories and case studies of organizational accounting practices: limitation or liberation?", Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 86-106.
- [47]47. Keating, P.J. (1995), "A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical contributions of case research in management accounting", Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7, pp. 66-86.
- [49]49. Krishnan, R. (2010), "A multi-theoretical approach to management accounting research", Plenary speech at the 7th EIASM conference on New Directions in Management Accounting, 15-17 December 2010, Brussels.
- [51]51. IV, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 53-73.
- [62]62. Lukka, K. (2005), "Approaches to case research in management accounting: The nature of empirical intervention and theory linkage", in Jönsson, S. & J. Mouritsen (eds.), Accounting in Scandinavia -the Northern lights, Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, pp. 375-399.
- [72]72. Miller, P. (1998), "The margins of accounting", in Callon, M. (ed.), The Laws of the Markets, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 174-193.
- [74]74. Miller, P. & O'Leary, T. (1994), "Governing the calculable person", in Hopwood, A.G. and P. Miller (eds.), Accounting as social and institutional practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 98-115.
- [86]86. Power, M. (1996), Accounting and Science. Natural Inquiry and Commercial Reason, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- [105]105. Sutton, R.I. & Staw, B.M. (1995), "What theory is not", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 371-384.
- [115]115. Wildavsky, A. (2002), Budgeting: a Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes. Revised edition. Transaction Publishers New Brunswick, NJ.
- Authors
- Lukka, K., & Vinnari, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Turku (FI)
- Venue
- Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2014-10-02
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1308-1338
- ISSN
- 0951-3574 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131152376
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 117
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 21.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.utupub.fi
- Locations
- Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal (publishedVersion)
- UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Accounting and Organizational Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting Theory and Financial Reporting
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Keywords
- domain theory, management accounting research, actor-network theory, conceptual framework, research design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
