Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 512

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 137 of the 137 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MAKING SENSE OF RESEARCH INTO THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING: A REVIEW OF ITS UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS [1]

Open access
Hopper, Trevor, Powell, Andrew·1985·Journal of Management Studies

Abstract

A central notion behind this paper is that certain fundamental theoretical and philosophical assumptions underlie any piece of research there is no such thing as a totally objective or value free investigation. Given this initial claim it is thought that the underlying assumptions behind any piece of work should be recognized and assessed by researchers to ensure that they are consistent with their personal beliefs. In other words, researchers into the management sciences should consider their own values and beliefs concerning the nature of society and the social sciences. In order to assist people in this task previous research into the organizational and social aspects of accounting is reviewed and grouped into various schools of thought within a basic sociological framework devised by Burrell and Morgan (1979). This classification of previous accounting literature according to its principal theoretical and philosophical assumptions serves a number of important purposes. First, the framework forms a map that can be used to find one's way through the wealth of research, the aims of which are sometimes confusing and the results conflicting. It will be seen that the multi-disciplinary nature of management accounting, and the consequent variety of theories subsumed under its heading, masks the fact that they tend to stem from similar perspectives towards society and the social sciences. Secondly, a practically oriented subject such as management accounting has often embraced theories from other areas with little concern for their philosophical underpinnings. By making explicit the basic assumptions behind different pieces of work, it is hoped that a greater tolerance and awareness of research from alternative disciplines and perspectives may br

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1985.tb00007.x

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 137 references

Cited by

See all 512

Metadata

Authors
Hopper, T., & Powell, A.
Venue
Journal of Management Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1985-09
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
429-465
ISSN
  • 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6486
OpenAlex
W2071951470
Cited by
512
References
137
FWCI
5.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: MAKING SENSE OF RESEARCH INTO THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING: A REVIEW OF ITS UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS [1]. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1985.tb00007.x
The paper
Hopper, T., & Powell, A. (1985). MAKING SENSE OF RESEARCH INTO THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING: A REVIEW OF ITS UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS [1]. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1985.tb00007.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.