Cross-Sectional Field Studies in Management Accounting

Research - Closing the Gaps between Surveys and Case Studies

Forthcoming JMAR 2005

Anne M. Lillis
University of Melbourne

Julia Mundy
University of Greenwich

Abstract: While empirical researchers in management accounting frequently address

overlapping research issues using a variety of methods, there is little evidence of productive
dialogue addressing the uncertainties and ambiguities raised within each stream of research.
For example, survey researchers frequently call for deeper field-based insights into
conflicting or ambiguous findings. Case study researchers convey rich organizational stories
of management accounting in context. However, these field-based findings are rarely used to
resolve the ambiguity in construct definition, measurement and inter-relationships that plague
our empirical research bases. In this paper we seek to regenerate interest in a method that has
been implemented in the past to promote productive field-based dialogue on issues related to
complex constructs and their interrelationships. The method is best illustrated by the crosssectional field study approach adopted by Merchant and Manzoni (1989) to study budget
target achievability. By considering the Merchant and Manzoni study as well as two other
examples (Bruns and McKinnon (1993) and Abernethy and Lillis (1995)) we identify the
range of questions suited to this method and how the method contributes significant insights
to the management accounting literature. We also articulate the design attributes of crosssectional field studies by explicitly linking the rationale for these studies with the complexity
of the phenomenon under study, sampling logic, instrument design and data analysis
protocols. The insights produced from the relatively few published studies using a crosssectional field study method suggest that opportunities for the application of this method may
be underexploited.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Joan Luft (the editor), Barry Spicer, Frank Selto, Margaret Abernethy,
William Maguire, seminar participants at The University of Otago, participants at the
AAANZ Conference, Perth 2002 the European Accounting Association conference, Seville,
April 2003 and the AAA Management Accounting Section Conference, Miami, January 2004
as well as anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

INTRODUCTION
Many reviews of management accounting research discuss the ad hoc nature of
contributions to the literature and the pervasiveness of inconsistent and inconclusive research
findings (Young, 1996; Atkinson et al., 1997; Chapman, 1997; Ittner & Larcker, 2001;
Chenhall, 2003; Luft and Shields, 2003). Otley (2001) argues that we are bound to be left
with a sense of ad hoc and inconsistent findings because the social facts that constitute
management accounting practice are highly context-dependent, unstable or difficult to
replicate, and changeable over time. Case studies are popular as a means of studying
management accounting within its organization context. However, these individual case
studies lack generalizability and frequently also lack explicit connection with the theoretical
base of management accounting (Ferreira and Merchant, 1992; Keating, 1995). This paper
seeks to regenerate interest in an underexploited cross-sectional field study research method
as a way of addressing specific knowledge gaps in management accounting and enhancing
the dialogue between field research and other empirical research. Regenerating interest in this
research method is consistent with calls in the management accounting literature for more
innovative approaches in our use of the methods of enquiry at our disposal (Atkinson et al.,
1997; Shields, 1997; Ittner & Larcker, 2001).
The cross-sectional field study method is best illustrated by Merchant and Manzonis
(1989) study of budget target achievability. The method involves limited-depth studies
conducted at a non-random selection of field sites, thus lying somewhere between in-depth
cases and broad-based surveys. There are several mainstream examples of this method
including Bruns and McKinnon (1993) and Abernethy and Lillis (1995) so the approach is
not unconventional, but it is uncommon (Arnold, 1970; Ittner & Larcker, 2001). Published
studies use a cross-sectional field study approach in a context where there is significant extant
theory but doubt or disagreement about either the nature of the constructs on which the theory

is built, the relations among these constructs, or their empirical interpretation. Such research
falls generally into the category of theory refinement, which is concerned with improving the
precision of theoretical concepts through clear statements that disconfirm, respecify or refine
existing constructs and relationships (Keating, 1995). Drawing on published studies, we
illustrate the advantages in using cross-sectional field study methods to address specific gaps
in the management accounting literature. We also identify from these studies design criteria
that address the way in which researchers using cross-sectional field studies establish the
critical contribution of their research to extant theory. The absence or weakness of such a link
between field study findings and theory has been identified repeatedly as a failure of
management accounting field study work (Ferriera and Merchant, 1992; Keating, 1995). The
failure to establish such links is not only a criticism of the reporting of published field
studies; it also represents a missed opportunity to refine the theoretical basis for empirical
research in management accounting more generally.
The literature has always recognized the value of developing a dialogue between
methods within a single study, for example pilot field studies that clarify the dimensions of
variables or potential interrelationships (eg. Davila, 2000) or follow-up field studies that
validate findings (eg. Widener and Selto, 1999). However, the cross-sectional field studies
discussed here demonstrate that the contribution of limited depth, focused field studies to
theory development can be more extensive than a prelude or finale to the main study. By
studying and validating social constructs and relations cross-sectionally, these studies can
enhance the credibility and generalizability of field-based theory refinement.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section we consider
significant and widespread issues that have been identified in the development of
management accounting literature, and articulate the comparative advantage of crosssectional field studies in addressing some of these issues. The third section assesses the

contributions made by three published studies that have used a cross-sectional field study
approach, and evaluates their common method features. In the fourth section we describe the
key design attributes of cross-sectional field studies in sampling logic, instrument design and
data analysis. The final section contains concluding comments.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING

Several pervasive problems in the modeling or execution of management accounting
research questions are acknowledged to inhibit the development of a complete and coherent
knowledge base (Chenhall, 2003; Luft & Shields, 2003). These include simplified modeling
of management accounting relationships (e.g. linear and unidirectional), the failure to identify
important intervening variables in the relationships studied, the absence of linkages between
areas of study and a lack of understanding as to how organizational-level attributes are linked
with outcomes via perceptions and actions at an individual level (Luft and Shields, 2003).
While these are technical problems in the way management accounting research studies are
modeled, they also reflect the difficulties of studying scientifically phenomena that are
essentially social (Otley 2001). Other authors refer to ambiguity and disagreement about the
precise nature of management accounting constructs, which also affects our ability to build a
cohesive body of literature (Chapman, 1997; Ittner and Larcker, 2001; Chenhall, 2003). Like
modeling problems, these issues with construct definition and measurement are also partly
attributable to the social, highly contextualized nature of organizational and management
accounting concepts, and a lack of research tradition addressing the refinement of concepts
and measures (Otley, 2001; Chenhall, 2003).
Given the comparative advantage of field studies in documenting and describing the
nature and impact of key social and contextual influences, any apparent reluctance to
generate a continual dialogue between fieldwork and other research methods potentially

restricts our ability to produce a cohesive body of literature (Ittner & Larcker, 2001;
Chenhall, 2003). In particular, we observe a lack of research dialogue focused on the
definition, measurement and relations among key constructs used in our research (Shields,
1997; Chapman, 1997; Chenhall, 2003). Field studies are frequently used to explore new
areas of research and to provide preliminary input to surveys where the topic can be
investigated in greater breadth (Bryman, 1989, 1992; Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Chapman,
1997; Otley & Berry, 1994). Once this preliminary phase is over, and an established body of
quantitative research is created, it is rare that researchers return to the field to reassess the
assumptions on which the original research was based (Chapman, 1997).1 Complex
phenomena from the field are frequently reduced to simple constructs and researchers often
fail to check that their assumptions, variable definitions and terminology remain valid
(Birnberg et al., 1990; Young, 1996; Atkinson et al., 1997; Chapman, 1997; Chenhall, 2003).
Some constructs, such as task uncertainty and strategy, are highly contextualized and need to
be constantly realigned with information from the field in order to avoid, for example, underspecification of survey questions (Richardson, 1996; Young, 1996; Chapman, 1997; Ittner &
Larcker, 2001).
Many survey studies conclude with the suggestion that insights from the field may be
required to explain unhypothesized results or to explore the process by which variables
interact to produce results. Notable recent examples include Ittner, Larcker and Randalls
(2003, p.739) call for ..improved methods for eliciting what firms mean by a balanced
scorecard, as well as the need to explore more deeply the disconnection between perceptual
satisfaction with management accounting systems and organizational performance. Baines
and Langfield-Smith (2003) interpret statistically the cross-sectional variation in exogenous
and endogenous influences on management accounting system change, and then highlight the
1

Such case studies are often viewed as no more than pilot studies by true case study researchers, particularly

need to understand the actual drivers or catalysts for change and the time lags over which
change occurs. Also using survey data, Kennedy and Affleck-Graves (2001) find that firms
adopting ABC techniques outperform matched non-ABC firms in stock market performance.
However, they highlight that their findings accentuate the still unresolved paradox raised by
Gosselin (1997) that if ABC firms outperform non-ABC firms, why dont more firms
implement ABC and why do so many stop using it? Concluding questions of this kind are
common in survey research, and they are frequently suited to cross-sectional field study
investigation.
More generally, cross-sectional field studies can deepen our insights into the
constructs and relations commonly studied empirically. Compared with studying
management accounting phenomena in individual cases, cross-sectional field studies can
broaden our understanding by detecting cross-case patterns in specific issues that are
otherwise embedded in detailed case write-ups. For example, cross-sectional field studies can
detect and document variation in interpretations of practice-defined variables such as activitybased costing or the balanced scorecard or important dimensions of theory-defined variables
with a social interpretation such as goal difficulty or flexibility.
The topics of interest in case study research clearly overlap those commonly studied
in survey research, including the topics addressed in the survey-based studies mentioned
above balanced scorecard impact (e.g. Malina and Selto, 2001), issues associated with ABC
(e.g. Anderson, 1995; Dekker, 2003) and management accounting change (e.g. Helliar et al.,
2002; Scapens & Jazayeri, 2003). Yet there is little clear dialogue between site-specific case
study accounts of management accounting systems, the catalysts for change and decision
impacts of such systems, and the surveybased study of similar phenomena. In particular, we
find little evidence that the uncertainties raised by survey researchers regarding the definition

those following the interpretative paradigm (Birnberg et al,. 1990; Chua, 1996).

and measurement of critical constructs and their inter-relationships are systematically

addressed in the field. Field study researchers frequently gather data relevant to these issues
but do not establish the contribution of individual cases to issues of construct definition,
measurement and relationships. Furthermore, we are not aware of any metaanalyses of fieldbased research findings designed to identify or contrast patterns across cases in different
studies.
Some of these concerns about the state of management accounting research are well
documented. Our argument in the context of these concerns is to revisit the method used by
Merchant and Manzoni (1989) and to consider it as a research model that bridges the gulf
between survey and case-based research. By capitalizing to some extent on the breadth
attributes of surveys and the depth attributes of case studies, the cross-sectional field study
approach used by Merchant and Manzoni (1989) can potentially reduce some of the research
gaps in management accounting research. In particular, cross-sectional field studies can
contribute significantly to resolving some of the inherent contradictions in management
accounting research findings, clarifying the key empirical phenomena represented by the
constructs that we use, and documenting the social context in which the constructs interact to
produce organizational outcomes. The examples from the few prior studies conducted using
this approach demonstrate a capacity to identify:
1) the dimensions of theory-defined variables when used in a social organizational
setting. For example, goal difficulty is a theory-defined variable that has a strong
practice interface which affects its interpretation, influence and stability (Merchant
and Manzoni, 1989). Other examples of theory-defined variables with a strong
practice interface include task, environment and strategy attributes.
2) the role and impact of individual-level actors within organizations as the conduit by
which organizational-level attributes and events are linked. For example, individuals

have information needs associated with functional responsibility that ultimately

influence information system structure, content and perceived usefulness of
information at the organizational level (Bruns and McKinnon, 1993). Other examples
include the role of individuals in exerting control which in aggregate becomes the
organizational management control system, and individual strategic decisions that in
aggregate become the organizational or strategic business unit strategy.
3) non-linearities in variables and their relations with other variables (e.g. motivation,
integration, flexibility), multidirectional relationships (e.g. between goal difficulty and
performance) and causal intervals (e.g. how managers interest in count data changes
to an interest in financial data over longer time periods) (Merchant and Manzoni,
1989; Bruns and McKinnon, 1993; Abernethy and Lillis, 1995).
While studies can be designed in many different ways to approach some or all of
these deficiencies in the management accounting knowledge base, we argue that crosssectional field studies represent an underexploited means to focus specifically on credible
theory refinement with high construct, internal and external validity. This theory refinement
payoff is achieved by combining the field-based, contextual, social treatment of management
accounting with the science of cross-sectional replication. Such efforts may go some way to
addressing persistent criticisms of definitional ambiguity, mixed levels of analysis and
measurement anomalies (Chenhall, 2003; Luft and Shields, 2003).2
In the next section we outline the Merchant and Manzoni (1989) study, along with
two other studies, Bruns and McKinnon (1993) and Abernethy and Lillis (1995), that also use
2

This call for field-based examination of established constructs and empirical relations in management
accounting is not dissimilar to Gibbins (2001) call for context-sensitive field-based research in the audit
judgment and expertise literature. The method described by Gibbins is more structured and directed at shifting
the emphasis on theory testing in the laboratory to field survey approaches which are less common in the
auditing literature than they are in management accounting. The cross-sectional field study method described
here is more focused on researchers taking advantage of narrative exchanges within field-based studies to clarify
constructs and their interrelationships rather than the development of more field-based surveys. However, the
approaches share a common focus on the importance of field-based narrative as the source of important research
context. We are grateful to Steve Salterio for drawing our attention to this link with Gibbins work.

a cross-sectional field study approach. These published studies provide some insights into the
positioning of studies using a cross-sectional field study approach, the framing of questions
suited to this research method and the rationale for the design choices the authors make.
These studies do not necessarily represent outstanding or highly influential contributions to
the management accounting literature. The design of these studies is used here to convey the
potential of the method used to be applied more broadly to resolve current uncertainties and
ambiguities in the management accounting knowledge base. In the fourth section we distill
key design recommendations from these published studies.3

PUBLISHED CROSS-SECTIONAL FIELD STUDIES

Review of three published cross-sectional field studies
Merchant and Manzoni (1989) (MM)
The MM study4 aims to explore an anomaly between textbook prescriptions of budget
target achievability levels and the authors own field-based observations. Whereas accounting
textbooks referred to laboratory experiments that consistently reported optimal managerial
performance occurring when the probability of budget target achievement is approximately
50 percent, MM observed that actual profit centre budget target achievability appeared to be
set at considerably higher levels than this (a mean of 83%). They set out to quantify these
observed levels of budget achievement and to provide reasons for these when applied to
profit centre budget targets. Furthermore, they identified a lack of empirical grounding in
previous operationalizations of the term achievable compared with their own observations.
The study is thus strongly connected to existing theory, but it captures well the social context
of goal difficulty as a theory-defined variable.
3

We do not imply that the authors originally designed their studies this way. In fact there is no evidence that
they did so. This description of process is distilled from a comparison of the studies as described by their
authors, and an ex post reflection on their design characteristics in the context of the literature more generally.

The study was conducted in 54 profit centres at 12 firms. The findings are not
statistically generalizable, but they are not intended to be so. MM did not attempt to specify
the nature of the relation between achievability levels in budget targets and factors such as
industry type, size, customer base, etc. Rather, they documented the rationale behind higher
levels of ex ante achievability than those prescribed in the accounting literature. Through
semi-structured interviews with 203 managers they developed an understanding of the
motivations for actual levels of achievability among both profit centre managers and top
managers. They offer empirical insights into the relationships defined in extant theory
between goal difficulty (the likelihood of target achievement), goal commitment (the
motivation to meet targets) and incentives (the managers rationales for setting achievable
targets), in settings characterized by high levels of uncertainty and task complexity. For
example, they suggest that both profit centre managers and senior executives are motivated to
establish highly achievable profit centre targets, but for different reasons. Profit centre
managers focus on maximising their bonuses, protecting their credibility, and obtaining slack
resources. Senior executives are concerned with increasing the predictability of corporate
earnings, protecting against excess consumption of resources, and maintaining commitment
to the organizations goals.
While a single in-depth field study could have provided similar data on the rationale
underlying target setting, it would not have provided the evidence of cross-case patterns that
significantly enhance the internal and external validity of MMs findings. Similarly, survey
approaches (without interviews) could not have provided contextual explanations from
multiple respondents on the distinctions in meaning that are critical to MMs contribution.
Specifically, MM suggested that the previously undefined construct highly achievable
budget targets could be operationalized in future studies as challenging, but very likely to
4

The study we describe here is based on the paper published in The Accounting Review, not the full study

10

be achievedif [managers] exert a consistently highly effort. (p.547.) Such preciseness

could not easily have been captured by structured research instruments. Because they start
with such an unambiguous construct definition and then document the causal reasoning of
participants and provide cross-case repetition, the internal validity of their expressed relations
between target setting, incentives and organizational outcomes is high. The study provides
strong insights into the motivations of individual organizational actors and the influence of
these theory-defined motivations in changing the relationship between psychological
attributes (goal difficulty) and events (organizational outcomes) (Luft & Shields, 2003). For
example, both levels of management recognized that sustaining individual-level commitment
requires some slack in target levels (goal difficulty), which then results in targets that are
quite likely to be met (organizational outcomes). Thus, MMs choice of method enabled them
to refine an important construct and to develop the empirical interpretation of the theoretical
relation between target difficulty and individual and organizational outcomes with a degree of
combined internal and external validity that would not be achievable through a single case
study or survey.
MMs design works because the domain of the study is narrowly framed and clearly
defined. This level of definition and theoretical grounding limits the complexity of the
phenomenon under study, but provides high returns in the form of theory refinement from
limited contact with individual respondents.

Bruns and McKinnon (1993) (BM)

Similarly to MM, BM5 sought to reconcile theoretical notions of management
accounting concepts with their own casually observed phenomena in the field. They were

published by Merchant in the book Rewarding Results, Harvard Business School Press, 1989.
5
The study we describe here is based on the paper published in Journal of Management Accounting Research,
not the full study published by McKinnon and Bruns in the book The Information Mosaic, Harvard Business
School Press, 1992.

11

motivated to document why normative concepts about the needs, use and sources of
accounting information appeared to differ from managers own experiences. The study
consisted of 73 one-hour interviews in 12 non-randomly selected manufacturing
organizations. Despite the lack of systematic research in this area, BMs domain of interest
was sufficiently well defined for them to use structured interviews. They describe their
research design as no more than a field study, but their purposeful use of cross-sectional
data allows them to produce several important contributions that are of particular relevance to
the current paper. First, they provide a framework of the key organizational determinants of
managers information needs and use. Unlike MM, BM do not specifically address the
operationalization of ambiguous or complex constructs. Instead they focus on the
determinants of information needs and use. Functional activity, inventory policy, time
horizon, and types of reports all emerge as important influences on the information needs and
uses of managers. Qualitative data provide a credible basis for the identification of such
determinants but we do need to accept the constructs of information needs and use as
unproblematic. Greater insight into these constructs may have enhanced the contribution of
the BM study. Nonetheless, the use of cross-case patterns increases the readers confidence in
the broad relevance of these factors. While a survey could identify the patterns, it would not
permit the collection of archival data and associated contextualization that support their
findings.
They not only introduce a systematic approach to the previously under-researched
area of information use by managers, they also contextualize the many fragmented findings in
diverse literatures. For example, while they confirm findings in the computing, decision
sciences and management literatures that emphasize the importance of interpersonal
communications as an information source, they also describe how and why managers use
informal sources in order to disseminate hard, factual data. Their findings suggest that such

12

data may sometimes be more efficiently and effectively transmitted by informal verbal
communication than by attempting to incorporate them into standard reports. Similarly, BM
confirm managers preference for daily non-monetary information in order to manage their
key activities, but contribute to the existing literature by explaining how this transforms over
the space of a month into a keen interest in the financial reports that summarize and aggregate
this information.
In common with MM, the BM study also focuses on the role of individual-level
perceptions in establishing the critical connection between theoretical organizational-level
attributes

(structure,

information

system

content),

information

attributes

(scope,

internal/external, time horizon)) and events (information use). For example, the desire of
managers to obtain timely, accurate, and idiosyncratic data influences their preference for
personal sources and ad hoc systems. BM point out that such behaviour has clear
implications for the design of management information systems, for example, in legitimately
excluding data readily available by other means. They also provide insight into the duration
of causal intervals (in which preferences shift from count data to financial data). These social
attributes of theory-defined variables are difficult to document in surveys and difficult to
generalize from individual case studies.
Despite the limited number of firms and the non-randomness of the sample BM draw
on the language of scientific methods, referring to replication logic, reliability, validity and
causality. In doing so, they capitalize on the strengths of combining elements of the two
methodsthe science of multiple observations and careful design alongside the contextualized
realism of their empirical observations to jointly enhance internal and external validity.

13

Abernethy and Lillis (1995) AL

AL set out to examine the impact of strategic commitment to manufacturing
flexibility on performance measurement system design and the use of coordinative structural
arrangements. Their field study design was justified based on the empirical novelty of the
research question and the lack of established instruments for measuring ambiguous constructs
such as manufacturing flexibility and integrative structural forms. Thus, the rationale was
clearly focused on construct definition and operationalization rather than on rich
organizational stories. Data were collected from 42 firms via semi-structured interviews and
analyzed using qualitative techniques. AL justify the choice of semi-structured interviews on
the basis of the lack of existing instruments to operationalize the constructs under study. They
also collected quantitative data in accordance with existing measurement instruments, but the
elaborated responses obtained from the semi-structured interviews made transparent the
failure of these instruments to capture the theoretical constructs of interest. AL propose that
these measurement difficulties at least partially explain inconclusive findings in prior studies
of whether the match between control system design and contextual factors is associated with
performance outcomes.
AL are able to explore the empirical attributes of theory-defined variables (flexibility
and integrative structures). They utilize the qualitative and quantitative data in combination to
build new measurement schemas for flexibility and integrative structural mechanisms that
reflect the contextualized empirical dimensions of these constructs. The classification and
rating schemas AL develop reflect both categorical and non-linear variability in the
operationalization of these variables. The cross-sectional field study approach applied by AL
enabled them to exploit qualitative insights to gain richer construct definitions, thereby

14

enhancing construct validity. The cross-sectional design also enabled them to exploit sample
breadth to test hypotheses relating to the associations among these validated constructs.
Finally, in their examination of the multiple influences on performance outcomes not
captured by a simple interaction model, they identify many important intervening variables in
the relation between organizational attributes (control systems) and outcomes (organizational
performance). The elaborated responses and cross-sectional nature of the design generated
patterns in additional influences on performance (beyond the strategy /management control
system fit) that tend to be treated as random, uninteresting influences in survey-based studies
and unique events in in-depth case studies (e.g. the pursuit of the wrong strategy, changes in
industry regulation, technological obsolescence and the importance of measuring
performance changes rather than levels-we are a 2 .. but we were a 5).
Common features of published studies
Table 1 summarizes the design attributes, rationale and contribution of the three
studies.
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

The studies summarized in Table 1 share several common features:

1) Consistent with the body of literature from which they are motivated, they adopt a
positivist epistemology. This is evident in the constrained functionalist framing of the
research questions. While the link between method and methodology is not essential,
limited depth studies are less likely to be suited to more critical interpretative
methodologies.
2) They are grounded in significant extant theory, but there remains doubt or
disagreement surrounding either the nature of the constructs, the relations between

15

them, or their interpretation in an empirical setting. Table 1 summarizes the constructs

and relations refined in each study.
3) They include multiple research sites (ranging from 12-42 sites) as a means of
identifying patterns in their observations (Eisenhardt, 1989).
4) They use relatively short interviews to collect data. For example, interviews of
between one and two hours are reported by Merchant and Manzoni (1989) and
Abernethy and Lillis (1995).
5) They use field studies rather than survey instruments to study clearly defined aspects
of management accounting in natural organizational contexts. The rationale for study
design in each case articulates the link between field study design, extant theory and
the domain of observables.
These studies also have in common a persuasive sense of realism that is informative in the
context of the management accounting literature generally. More specifically, they offer a
means to improve our understanding of important constructs and empirical relations that may
otherwise remain poorly understood and operationalized. The next section generalizes from
these specific examples to analyse the broad characteristics of cross-sectional field study
designs at a conceptual level.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CROSS-SECTIONAL FIELD STUDY METHOD

Cross-sectional field studies differ from more common approaches to survey and case
methods in that they are less structured in their data collection than surveys, and involve
shorter, less intensive data collection on site than in-depth case studies. In order to identify
clearly the distinguishing characteristics of a cross-sectional field study approach, we begin
by comparing it with the method underlying surveys and case studies. Table 2 summarizes
and contrasts these methods along critical dimensions related to complexity of the

16

phenomenon under study, breadth, sampling logic, instrument design and data analysis
approaches. The contents of Table 2 are elaborated in the rest of this section.

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

The breadth/depth trade-off

Studies employing a cross-sectional field study approach draw on a larger number of
observations than in-depth case studies, but can also deal with more complex how and
why questions than survey approaches (Eisenhardt, 1991; Ahrens and Dent, 1998).
Deliberately limiting the depth of a study conducted in the field enables the researcher to
focus more clearly on the contextual elements that she considers a priori of interest. In
particular, such studies may focus on the interpretation of key constructs, leading to an
improved understanding of complex phenomena. In surveys researchers do not usually have
ready access to respondents in order to mine human experience (Atkinson and Shaffir,
1998, p. 45). In case studies it may be difficult to replicate known contradictions or
ambiguities as replications inevitably occur at the expense of depth of analysis (Ahrens and
Dent, 1998). A cross-sectional field study approach provides researchers with an effective
means of capturing complex phenomena within a confined domain. It also enables them to
uncover reasons that might explain conflicting results, ambiguities or tensions in prior
research. Elaborated responses gained from data collection techniques such as semistructured interviews may also highlight previously unhypothesized relations between
variables (Spicer, 1992; Lillis, 1999).
Cross-sectional field studies are applicable where the complexity of the phenomena
under study and the importance of contextual issues are reduced. For example, Merchant and
Manzoni (1989) explore how managers interpret the term achievable in relation to budget

17

targets, and how these interpretations differ from the theoretical literature. The constrained
framing of this research question contrasts with more complex questions about target setting
that could be studied in one or several in-depth cases. Similarly, Bruns and McKinnons
(1993) functionalist cross-sectional analysis of the information functional managers need and
use contrasts with the similar question asked by Preston (1986) but framed from an
interpretive perspective; i.e. how do managers become informed?. It is the constrained and
functionalist framing of the question by Bruns and McKinnon that lends itself to a crosssectional field study design with limited depth within individual sites.
To the extent that research methods can be validly described along breadth (number
of observations) and depth (of each observation) dimensions, single case studies are in the
low breadth, high depth quadrant. Broadbased surveys of practice are in the opposite high
breadth, low depth quadrant. Multiple case studies and cross-sectional field studies are both
positioned between the two extremes. We position multiple case studies towards the single
case study approach, and cross-sectional field studies closer to surveys. Studies using a crosssectional field study approach are similar to multiple case study designs along dimensions of
the multiplicity of sites, the importance of replication logic, and a limited depth of analysis of
contextual data at individual sites (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). However, multiple case
studies generally imply a unit of analysis that constitutes a case. and the number of cases
examined is generally small in order to avoid significantly compromising depth of analysis.
In cross-sectional field studies the unit of analysis is defined more flexibly as an observable
occurrence of the phenomenon under study. This level of analysis may or may not conform to
a level of aggregation that would also be defined as a case (Spicer, 1992). Furthermore,
relative to multiple case studies, cross-sectional field studies will generally involve a larger
number of units of study and thus lie closer to surveys on the continuum. This positioning is
illustrated in Figure 1. Unless specified, we have used the term case study in this paper to

18

encompass both single- and multiple-site case studies, since they are essentially identical in
method and methodology, differing only in the number of sites visited.

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

Surveys, case studies, multiple case studies and cross-sectional field studies can be
compared on many dimensions. Contrasting them purely on the number of observations and
depth of observation at specific sites is simplistic and fails to address fundamental differences
in research design logic. The design logic is driven by the level of complexity of the
phenomenon under study and the need to observe patterns across cases.
A cross-sectional field study approach might be viewed by adherents of the survey
method as limited in breadth and reliability because of the influence of the researcher when
data are collected using semi-structured interviews, lack of randomness and lack of
generalizability. In contrast, proponents of in-depth field studies may criticize the limited
contextual understanding and insights (Spicer, 1992; Young and Selto, 1993; Ahrens and
Dent, 1998; Dyer and Wilkins, 1991). We consider the trade-off between breadth and depth
by identifying research questions and ways of theorizing that are more suited to broad-based
comparative field studies. That is, rather than suggest there are more or less appropriate ways
to explore phenomena we suggest that there are multiple ways to conduct field research,
which can be judged in terms of their match with the framing of research questions
(Richardson, 1996; Otley, 2001). In particular we argue that the how and why questions
that motivate field research generally vary in complexity. If complexity of how and why
questions is viewed on a continuum then there emerges the need for a research protocol that
requires qualitative insights of relatively limited depth on issues of relatively limited
complexity. An example of this continuum is illustrated in Figure 2.

19

INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE

When research questions are framed so as to capture highly complex real-world

events and interactions, researchers engage with the field in order to obtain rich contextual
explanation (Ahrens and Dent, 1998). However, even at relatively low levels of complexity,
significant insights may be gained into empirical phenomena that are considered to be well
understood in theory. There are still important how and why questions to be answered but
they probe phenomena that are not deeply embedded in organizational reality. In these
situations contact between researcher and respondent is important to the clarification and
understanding of constructs and their interrelations but not at a level that would motivate an
in-depth case study.
Although accepted in the positivist management accounting literature, the study
design issues associated with a cross-sectional field study approach have not been fully
articulated. In the following subsections we articulate the implications of moving away from
traditional case study and survey research methods on the following study design attributes

sampling logic

research instruments

data analysis protocol

We also reflect on the way these design attributes are illustrated in the published studies
discussed in the prior section.

Sampling Logic
While we have positioned a range of methods based on their breadth of observation
this conceptualization is somewhat meaningless. In method terms, surveys rely on a highly
consistent approach to both data collection and data analysis applied across a number of

20

observations randomly selected from a prespecified population (de Vaus, 1995). This is done
in order to achieve statistical generalizability. Case studies, however, aim for theoretical
generalizability by employing purposeful sampling in order to obtain information-rich cases
(Yin, 1994). These aims are different, and therefore it makes no sense to compare the
methods along a single dimension. An analogy would be to compare apples and bananas on a
scale of greenness. However, this fundamental distinction between surveys and case studies
raises the question of generalizability as applied to cross-sectional field studies. The issue of
sampling and generalizability is potentially the greatest method issue affecting research
conducted using a cross-sectional field study approach because pure case and survey work
differ fundamentally in their sampling approach. Choosing a method sharing characteristics
of both surveys and case studies may simply result in a confused or poorly chosen sampling
strategy.
Arnold (1970) proposes a rational, defensible value-creating approach to sampling
in cross-sectional field studies that is based along dimensional lines. A key step is to
explicitly list those variables, or dimensions, along which members of the relevant population
vary, and from that to build a typology that is then used as a sampling frame to select a small
number of cases from the population. The requirement to prespecify the dimensions of
interest suggests a priori theoretical knowledge of the phenomena being investigated, and is
therefore well suited to research in which the researcher is attempting to refine existing
theory rather than build new theory. Arnold (1970) differentiates this approach from
theoretical sampling thus: it is based on a preconceived theoretical framework, although not
on a preconceived theory. (p. 147, italics in original.)
Researchers using cross-sectional field studies can employ dimensional sampling,
first, to indicate that their choice of method represents an attempt to resolve outstanding
issues in the existing literature; second, to clarify the dimensions or variables on which there

21

exist contradictory or inconclusive knowledge; and third, to identify those theoretical samples
between which the variables differ (Scapens, 1990). An example of this type of sampling
logic can be seen in Merchants (1985) study of the different types of controls used in
discretionary decisions within a single organization. The sampling approach is described
thus: managers were selected to maximize the diversity of the sample in terms of the two
variables that were considered most likely to cause differences [in the dependent variable].
(p.68)
Among the studies discussed in the prior section, BM dimensioned their sample along
the lines of functional responsibilities as a primary causal determinant of information use, and
used multiple field sites sharing similar functional responsibility variation. BM state that their
sample is non-random and openly opportunistic selected on the basis of location and
accessibility, personal contacts and expected willingness to help with the research process
(p.90). The population from which it was taken comprised three sub-groups in the
manufacturing and distribution sector. In fact, they approached companies with similar
characteristics to those already studied, suggesting a rather more purposeful approach than
might appear at first glance. AL selected their sample within industries where there was
expected to be variability on the dimension of flexibility. MM did not specifically use
dimensional sampling, possibly because of an expectation that any sample drawn from the
general population would exhibit variety along critical dimensions of the target-setting
phenomenon.

Construction of research instruments

The need to establish construct validity forces survey researchers to define clearly and
unequivocally their theoretical constructs and the domain of observables. The survey
researcher works with a well-defined domain of constructs that are well grounded in theory

22

and measurable. On the other hand, case research allows the exploration of less well-defined,
less obviously measurable constructs. The protocols of case research deliberately set out to
capture contextual variability that is relevant to the research domain, although not necessarily
captured by existing theory. Cross-sectional field studies start with strong theoretical
foundations and a narrow domain, but also with recognition of uncertainty in definition
and/or measurement of constructs or the modeling of their interrelationships. The risk with
cross-sectional field studies is that research instruments and data collection will be seen as
fuzzy in definition and theoretical grounding relative to surveys and too structured and
defined for in-depth case studies (Ahrens and Dent, 1998). Dyer and Wilkins (1991) argue
that surface or relatively superficial field studies by definition ignore the social setting and
that the phenomena of interest could well be different in each separate case. Indeed Dyer and
Wilkins are critical of Eisenhardts (1989) focus on constructs rather than rich stories. This
argument may be of greater significance where the researcher is attempting to create
theoretical constructs without the benefit of prior theoretical foundations and measurement
instruments. However, where the construct is already within the broader domain, but
suspicions exist as to its interpretation in different settings or across different time periods
(for example, Merchant and Manzoni, 1989; Otley and Pollanen, 2000; Otley and Fakiolas,
2000), then moving immediately to an in-depth study will probably not resolve any conflicts.
By definition, these are well-theorized settings (Keating, 1995). The aim of the crosssectional field study is to permit the survey researcher to depart from the demands of precise
measurability and ask critical how and why questions of respondents that may inform and
develop existing theory (Keating, 1995).
Another potential criticism of interview data collected in relatively superficial field
studies is the risk of undetected desirability bias in the data provided by participants a
propensity well documented by Young and Selto (1993). While this is a risk with field studies

23

generally, the reliance on patterns across multiple sites in cross-sectional field studies reduces
somewhat the risk of influential spurious findings from a single site.
Given these risks, it is critical that cross-sectional field studies establish clearly the
specific constructs and relations that are the focus of field investigation. Systematic definition
of the domain of observables in the context of extant theory will draw out the critically
important contribution of the cross-sectional field study (Ferreira and Merchant, 1992;
Keating, 1995). All of the studies considered here MM, BM and AL - focus very strongly
on clearly specifying the domain of observables and the rationale for capturing contextual
data in the context of the established knowledge base. In the case of MM and AL, their
research questions are tightly specified and indicative of a narrow domain within potentially
very broad subject areas relating to target achievability (MM) and manufacturing flexibility
and structural response (AL). BM define their domain of observables starting with four broad
research questions then narrowing their domain within these questions. Thus, for example
they state their first research question as what information do managers say they need and
use? and then narrow their domain further to focus on the types of data used (count and
financial), characteristics of data (timing and relevance), the task dependency of information
characteristics, and the use of formal and informal communications.

Data analysis
The limited number of data points in cross-sectional field studies indicates that
quantitative data will be of relatively little value for statistical testing. AL is an exception. In
that study, the qualitative data were scaled and inferential statistical analysis undertaken.
However the qualitative development of the classification schemas that represents the key
contribution of the paper is quite independent of this statistical testing. In general, the desire

24

to explore fuzzy constructs and to seek explanations of why and how in their empirical
relations implies reliance on qualitative data.
Given the justification for the method in terms of connection with existing theory and
limited domain of observables, it is important that the analytical protocol provide the critical
link back to theory. The Miles and Huberman (1994) matrix data displays are ideally suited to
the organization and analysis of patterns in data collected across multiple research sites on a
limited domain of potentially related variables (Eisenhardt, 1989). Analyses are time-ordered,
role-ordered, or thematic depending on the source of doubt or disagreement surrounding the
interpretation of constructs in existing theory. The matrix display, partially enabled by the use
of qualitative coding and analysis software, offers a means of identifying themes in the data,
categorizing them, quantifying their regularity and representing this quantification in network
diagrams.6 This systematic form of analysis offers two distinct advantages in establishing the
rigor of the analytical protocol. First it promotes completeness in assessing the
presence/absence of constructs and relations in all cases. Completeness enhances credibility
by giving the reader a greater sense of discipline and rigor in the assessment of significant
findings in the data. Second it allows the researcher to maintain an audit trail through data
(documents, interview transcripts), coding, arrangement in matrices and interpretation of
findings. While replications in our discipline are rare and doubts as to the researchers
impartiality or veracity in dealing with data are not exclusive to qualitative research, an audit
trail allows for the evaluation of rigor to extend to the process by which conclusions are
reached.
None of the studies MM, BM or AL - are explicit in describing their data analysis
methods. BM state that they used a consistent data collection protocol across sites and a
6

A discussion of the role of qualitative analysis computer-based packages such as NUD*IST/NVivo and Atlas/ti
is beyond the scope of this paper. Such packages are highly valuable in enabling detailed analysis of qualitative
data. They enhance data accessibility through coding and retrieval, as well as providing analytical tools to

25

consistent framework for analysis to enhance reliability. Beyond this, for all three studies it
can only be deduced from the way their findings are reported that the analyses were
predominantly qualitative and tightly constrained within the domain of the constructs and
relations of interest. None of these studies contains wide-ranging organizational stories of
depth and complexity. They all propose relations among variables based on patterns in the
data. The question of how these patterns become observable in such data is not discussed
within their papers. While few field studies in the management accounting literature describe
their analytical processes in any detail, there are some papers that describe data analysis
approaches that are suited to cross-case analysis. Slagmulder (1997) describes in some depth
a coding protocol that supports disciplined theory building. While the process described is
deliberately unencumbered by existing theory, it could be readily adapted to support coding
based on existing theoretical categories. Malina and Selto (2001) describe a coding and
analysis protocol that begins with data classification based on existing theory, allowing for
free coding of observations that do not fit within such theory. Malina and Selto also describe
the use of computerized software for both coding and analysis. The approach they describe is
particularly relevant in detecting and quantifying the incidence of patterns in the data using
the relational query capability of qualitative analysis software. Lillis (2002) describes an
application of Miles and Hubermans (1994) conceptual matrix displays highlighting the
development of an audit trail linking data with emergent theoretical propositions.
In order to illustrate the use of matrices for data analysis, Figure 3 contains a
hypothetical matrix display that would suit analysis of the data in the MM study. The matrix
is structured first by grouping cases by bands of target achievement estimates collected from
profit centre managers (PCM). The columns of the matrix would then be completed by
associating with these PCM estimates case-specific data relating to general manager
examine patterns of interest in the data. The use of these tools in management accounting research is described

26

(supervisor) estimates and incentives for target setting (both at the PCM and supervisor
level). The illustrative matrix has attributes of both thematic and role ordering. It allows the
extraction of thematic patterns in linking incentives with estimated probabilities of target
achievement and it allows the extraction of role-based patterns by associating supervisor and
PCM-level responses. The matrix is purely illustrative and highly incomplete. MM do not
suggest that they used this form of analysis, and the attribution of incentive data in the paper
to particular cases does not allow for the completion of the matrix.

INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE

CONCLUSION
The starting point for this paper was the substantive concern raised in recent review
literature that there remains a significant amount of ambiguity and disagreement surrounding
the precise nature of a number of important management accounting concepts, which impacts
on the development of a cohesive body of literature (for example, Chapman, 1997; Ittner &
Larcker, 2001; Chenhall, 2003). These writers suggest that researchers can contribute to the
development of a unified body of research by focussing specifically on improved definition
and measurement of our key constructs (Ittner & Larcker, 2001; Chenhall, 2003), by
modeling management accounting phenomena with greater real-world complexity (Luft and
Shields, 2003), and by capturing the social attributes of management accounting practice
(Otley, 2001). This paper promotes the use of a cross-sectional field study approach, which
enables the study of management accounting as a social, organizational phenomenon while
capitalizing on cross-sectional analysis to build internal and external validity.

elsewhere (Lillis, 1999; Malina and Selto, 2001; Abernethy et al., 2005)

27

The studies reviewed here, and the discussion on the design elements of a crosssectional field study approach, demonstrate that its use is particularly appropriate when there
is:7

Established theory relating to the phenomena under study but a sense that
extant theory may not capture important aspects of the empirical phenomena.

Significant doubt about the precise specification and measurement of

variables, their empirical interpretation or the relations among them.

In this way, a cross-sectional field study approach can make significant contributions to
theory refinement by facilitating improved understanding of managers descriptions of
management accounting and contextual phenomena (Keating, 1995, Ittner & Larcker, 2001).
The MM, BM and AL studies described here capitalize on depth of analysis by capturing and
documenting managerial reasoning, while offering some breadth of comparison across cases.
An ex post review and comparison of these published studies also provides insight
into the cross-sectional field research process:

The studies start with a clearly defined domain of observables. In particular

they identify the constructs or relations of interest and constrain the scope of
their research questions to a greater extent than would normally be expected in
case study research.

The researchers utilize a sampling strategy that maximizes the likelihood of

obtaining meaningful comparative data on the variables of interest. That is, the
sample is chosen to maximize variability in relevant dimensions of the
phenomenon under study.

This is not intended to be a finite list of criteria against which researchers should choose to undertake a crosssectional field study. Rather, it serves to demonstrate that there is a particular set of issues for which the
deliberate choice of a cross-sectional field study is highly appropriate.

28

Semi-structured interview protocols are used to constrain the data collection

within a tightly defined domain while ensuring that comprehensive,
comparative, narrative data are collected across a range of sites.

Data are analyzed in a disciplined, systematic way that draws out the patterns
across cases and provides the critical link back to theory.

In the published studies, these design processes appear to enhance the perceived credibility
and validity of the research conducted, so that the resultant studies are not viewed as
superficial field studies or uncontrolled surveys of practice. The cross-sectional field study
approach taken seems justified in the settings described.
Finally, the rich and diverse nature of management accounting research offers many
opportunities for researchers seeking to make contributions to the institutional realism of
research (Richardson, 1996, p. 306). In using published examples to develop an explicit
framework for the use of cross-sectional field studies, it is hoped that this paper has
demonstrated the potential of such an approach.

29

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 1
Summary of Published Cross-sectional Field Studies Discussed in this Paper
Contribution to the literature
Study

Research Question

Method and Sample

Rationale for study design

Constructs refined
by the field study

Relations between
constructs informed by
the field study findings

MM

1. Do profit centres have

multiple budget targets?
2. How achievable are
profit centre budget targets?
3. Why are profit centre
budget targets set at the levels
they are?

12 corporations of
varying size, sector (service
and manufacturing) and
industry

Interviews of 1-2 hour

duration conducted in 54
profit centres across the 12
firms

Observation of practice
inconsistent with prevailing
theory-based textbook
prescriptions

Relatively standardized data

collection to enhance reliability

Broad cross section of

participant firms to enhance
generalizability

In-depth interviews to
track the meaning managers
attach to estimates of
achievability and explanations of
incentives in target setting

Budget
achievability

Link between
budget achievability,
commitment,
managerial motivation
and incentives

BM

1. What information do
managers say they need and
use?
2. Where do managers get
the information that they use?
3. Are some managers
better prepared to use
information than others?
4. Has the development of
technology changed the way
managers receive and process
information?

12 manufacturing firms
selected on the basis of
location, accessibility,
personal contacts and
willingness to help

Interviews (duration not

stated) conducted with 73
managers crossing
functional groupings across
the 12 firms

Little prior study of actual

information use (but lots of
theory on useful information)

Relatively standardized data

collection to enhance reliability

Study across 12 similar

firms to enhance external
validity

Multiple sources of
evidence and pattern matching
to enhance internal validity

Link between
organizational
attributes (structure,
information system
content and
information system
attributes) and
information system
use

Causal interval
over which desire for
quantitative data

NA

translates into
financial data
AL

1. Do firms committed to
manufacturing flexibility use
performance measures which
de-emphasize accounting and
other efficiency measures?
2. Does a commitment to
flexibility influence
interfunctional structural
arrangements? In particular,
do firms increase their
reliance on integrative liaison
devices?
3. Is the performance of the
firm enhanced when the
manufacturing performance
measurement system or
structural arrangements are
adapted to facilitate the
implementation of
manufacturing flexibility?

42 manufacturing firms
selected from industry codes
where variability on
flexibility was expected

One interview of
approximately 2-hour
duration conducted with the
general manager of each
firm

Lack of prior empirical

study of the impact of flexibility
on control systems. Literature
primarily prescriptive

Difficulties in capturing
constructs using arms-length
questionnaires

Qualitative data particularly

useful in development of
measures of key constructs

Collection of data across 42

cases allowed for statistical
testing (based on measures
developed from qualitative data)

Manufacturi
ng flexibility

Integrative
liaison devices

Linear
measurement of
variables
challenged

Link (non-linear)
between flexibility,
integrative liaison
devices, management
control characteristics
and organizational
performance

Intervening
variables between
management control
systems and
performance

MM = Merchant and Manzoni (1989)

BM = Bruns and McKinnon (1993)
AL = Abernethy and Lillis (1995)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

31

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2
Critical Characteristics Distinguishing Cross-Sectional Field Studies from Related Methods
Case study

Multiple case study

Cross-sectional field
study

Survey

Example uses of
method

Explore existence
and nature of
phenomena
Explain causal
links
Explore context

Compare and contrast

nature of phenomena
in different contexts

Compare and contrast

contradictions in
existing literature with
nature of phenomena

Evaluate extent of
phenomena and
relations between
them

Complexity of
phenomena studied

High

Medium

Medium

Low

Sampling rationale

Theoretical
specific interest

Theoretical
replication

Dimensional
construct driven

Statistical
generalizability

Sampling

Non-random

Non-random

Non-random

Random

Sample size

Low

Low to Medium

Medium to Large

Large

Preciseness/
measurability of
existing constructs

Low

Low

Medium

High

Usual method of data

analysis

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative and
quantitative

Statistical

_______________________________________________________________
FIGURE 1
Positioning of Cross-Sectional Field Studies among Related Methods
along Dimensions of Breadth and Depth
Hi
Depth

* Single case studies

* Multiple (comparative) case studies

* Cross-sectional field studies

Lo

* Surveys
Lo

Breadth (Sample Size)

Hi

_______________________________________________________________

33

_______________________________________________________________
FIGURE 2
Example of Variations in Complexity of How and Why Questions
Low Complexity

High Complexity

How did you respond to last

months variances against the
pre-set budget?

How is the organizations

strategy formulated?

Why did you choose these

actions?

Why is the current strategy

considered appropriate?

_______________________________________________________________

34

_______________________________________________________________
FIGURE 3
Illustrative thematic analytical matrix (Miles and Huberman, 1994)
hypothetical matrix for Merchant and Manzoni (1989) study
Case Number
Target achievability
70-80% (PCM)

GM estimate (if
available)

Incentives PCM

Incentives GM

A3

90% (higher)

This cell would include narrative

relating to incentives described by
the PCM of PC A3

This cell would include narrative

relating to incentives described by
the GM supervisor of PC A3

A4

78% (higher)

A5

NA

C5

75% (same)

E2

50% ( much lower)

E5

NA

Target achievability
81-90% (PCM)
A1

NA

B1

50% (much lower)

B2

NA

C2

NA

C3

NA

C4

75% (lower)

D2

55% (much lower)

E4

NA

F2

90% (same)

PCM = Profit Center Manager

GM = General Manager

_______________________________________________________________

35

REFERENCES
Abernethy, M. A., Horne, M., Lillis, A. M., Malina, M. and Selto F. 2005.
Forthcoming. A multi-method approach to building causal performance maps
from expert knowledge. Management Accounting Research.
Abernethy, M. A., and A. M. Lillis. 1995. The impact of manufacturing flexibility on
management control system design. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20
(4): 241-258.
Ahrens, T., and J. F. Dent. 1998. Accounting and organizations: Realizing the
richness of field research. Journal of Management Accounting Research 10: 139.
Anderson, S. W. 1995. A framework for sssessing cost management system changes:
The case of activity based Costing implementation at General Motors, 19861993. Journal of Management Accounting Research 7 (3): 1-51.
Arnold, D. O. 1970. Dimensional sampling: An approach for studying a small number
of cases. American Sociologist 5 (2): 147-150.
Atkinson, A. A., et al. 1997. New directions in management accounting research.
Journal of Management Accounting Research 9 (3): 79-108.
Atkinson, A. A., and W. Shaffir. 1998. Standards for field research in management
accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research 10: 41-68.
Baines, A., and K. Langfield-Smith. 2003. Antecedents to management accounting
change: A structural equation approach. Accounting, Organizations and
Society 28 (7/8): 675-698.
Birnberg, J. G., M. D. Shields, and S. M. Young. 1990. The case for multiple methods
in empirical management accounting research (with an illustration from
budget setting). Journal of Management Accounting Research 2 Fall: 33-66.
Brewer, J., and A. Hunter. 1989. Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles.
Newbury Park: Sage.
Bruns, W. J, and S. M. McKinnon. 1993. Information and managers: A field study.
Journal of Management Accounting Research 5: 84-108.
Bryman, A. 1989. Research Methods and Organization Studies. London: Unwin
Hyman.
Bryman, A. 1992. Quantitative and qualitativer: Further reflections on their
integration. Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Ed. Julia
Brannan. Aldershot: Avebury. 57-80.

36

Chapman, C. S. 1997. Reflections on a contingent view of accounting. Accounting,

Organizations and Society 22 (2): 189-205.
Chenhall, R. H. 2003. Management control systems design within its organizational
context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the
future. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28: 127-168.
Chua, W. F. 1996. Issues in substantive areas of research: field research in
accounting. Research Methods in Accounting: Issues and Debates. Ed. A. J.
Richardson. Vol. Research Monograph Number 25. Vancouver: CGA-Canada
Research Foundation.
Davila, A. 2000. An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems
design in new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society
25: 383-409.
de Vaus, D. A. 1995. Surveys in Social Research. 4 ed. NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Dekker, H. C. 2003. Value chain analysis in interfirm relationships: A field study.
Journal of Management Accounting Research 14 (1): 1-23.
Dyer, W. G., Jr., and A. L. Wilkins. 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to
generalize better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. The Academy of
Management Review 16 (3): 613-619.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review 14 (4): 532-551.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1991. Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and
comparative logic. Academy of Management Review 16 (3): 620-628.
Ferreira, L. D., and K. A. Merchant. 1992. Field research in management accounting
and control: A review and evaluation. Accounting Auditing and Accountability
Journal 5 (4): 3-34.
Gibbins, M. 2001. Incorporating context into the study of judgment and expertise in
public accounting International Journal of Auditing 5: 225-236.
Gosselin, M. 1997. The effect of strategy and organizational structure on the adoption
and implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organizations and
Society 22 (2): 105-123.
Helliar. C., I. Cobb and J. Innes. 2002. A longitudinal case study of profitability
reporting in a bank. British Accounting Review 34 (1): 27-53.
Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker. 2001. Assessing empirical research in managerial
accounting: A value-based management perspective. Journal of Accounting
and Economics 32: 349-410.

37

Ittner, C. D., D. F. Larcker, and T. Randall. 2003. Performance implications of

strategic performance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 28 (7/8): 715-742.
Keating, P. J. 1995. A framework for classifying and evaluating the theoretical
contributions of case research in management accounting. Journal of
Management Accounting Research 7 Fall: 66-87.
Kennedy, T., and J. Affleck-Graves. 2001. The impact of activity-based costing
techniques on firm performance. Journal of Management Accounting
Research 13: 19-46.
Lillis, A. M. 1999. A framework for the analysis of interview data from multiple field
research. Accounting and Finance 39 (1): 79-105.
Lillis, A. M. 2002. Managing multiple dimensions of manufacturing performance
An exploratory study Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27 (6): 497-529.
Luft, J., and M. D. Shields. 2003. Mapping management accounting: Graphics and
guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. Accounting, Organizations
and Society 28 (2/3): 169-250.
Malina, M. A., and F. H. Selto. 2001. Communicating and controlling strategy: An
empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of
Management Accounting Research 13: 47-91.
Merchant, K. A. 1985. Organizational controls and discretionary program decision
making: A field study. Accounting, Organizations and Society 10 (1): 67-85.
Merchant, K A., and J.-F. Manzoni. 1989. The achievability of budget targets in profit
centres: A field study. The Accounting Review 64 (3): 539-558.
Miles, M. B., and A. B. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook.2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Otley, D. T. 2001. Extending the boundaries of management accounting research:
Developing systems for performance management. British Accounting Review
33 (3): 243-261.
Otley, D. T., and A. J. Berry. 1994. Case study research in management accounting
and control. Management Accounting Research 5(1): 45-65.
Otley, D. T., and A. Fakiolas. 2000. Reliance on accounting performance measures:
Dead end or new beginning? Accounting, Organizations and Society 25 (4/5):
497-510.
Otley, D. T., and R. M. Pollanen. 2000. Budgetary criteria in performance evaluation:
A critical appraisal using new evidence. Accounting, Organizations and
Society 25 (4/5): 483-496.

38

Preston, A. Interactions and arrangements in the process of informing. 1986.

Accounting, Organizations and Society 11 (2/3): 521-540.
Richardson, A. J. 1996. Research Methods in Accounting: Issues and Debates. Ed. A.
J. Richardson. Vol. Research Monograph Number 25. Vancouver: CGACanada Research Foundation.
Scapens, R. W. 1990. Researching management accounting practice: The role of case
study methods. British Accounting Review 24 (4): 259-281.
Scapens, R. W., and M. Jazayeri. 2003. ERP Systems and management accounting
change: Opportunities or impacts? A research note. European Accounting
Review 12 (1):201-233.
Shields, M. D. 1997. Research in management accounting by North Americans in the
1990s. Journal of Management Accounting Research 9 (Fall): 3-62.
Slagmulder, R. 1997. Using management control systems to achieve alignment
between strategic investment decisions and strategy. Management Accounting
Research 8 (1): 103-139.
Spicer, B. H. 1992. The resurgence of cost and management accounting: A review of
some recent developments in practice, theories and case research methods.
Management Accounting Research 3(1): 1-37.
Widener, S. K. and F. H. Selto. 1997. Management control systems and boundaries of
the firm: Why do firms outsource internal auditing activities? Journal of
Management Accounting Research 11 (Fall): 45-73.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research
Methods Series. Ed. Leonard Bickman. 2nd ed. Vol. 5. 6 vols. Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Young, S. M. 1996. Survey research in management accounting: A critical
assessment. Research Methods in Accounting: Issues and Debates. Ed. A. J.
Richardson. Vol. Research Monograph Number 25. Vancouver: CGA-Canada
Research Foundation.
Young, S. M., and F. H. Selto. 1993. Explaining cross-sectional workgroup
performance differences in a JIT facility: A critical appraisal of a field-based
study. Journal of Management Accounting Research 5 Fall: 300-326.

39