Nonpositivism in Behavioral Accounting Research: Initiated a Collaboration of Paradigm

Authors

  • Theresia Woro Damayanti Damayanti Satya Wacana Christian University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17722/ijme.v3i1.119

Keywords:

Behavioral accounting research, Interpretivism paradigm, Positivism paradigm

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explain how a paradigm can affect research results and how a paradigm apparently is no longer relevant in answering a practiceespecially in behavioral accounting researchIn additionthis article also want to describe what is the appropriate paradigm for development associated with behavioral accounting researchThis article suggests that the failure of behavioral accounting research to narrow down between the research and practice of accounting due to the paradigm used in behavioral accounting researchBased on the characteristics of the behavioral accounting research interpretivism paradigm is more suitableHowever, between positivism and interpretivism paradigm has advantages and disadvantages of each, and therefore the collaboration between the two is necessary.

References

Ashton, Hopper, & Scapens. (1984). The Changing Nature of Issues in Management Accounting. Current Issues in Management Accounting and The Public Interest.

Baxter, W. (1988.). Accounting research–academic trends versus practical needs. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.

Birnberg, & Shields. (1989). Three Decades of Behavioral Accounting Research: A Search for Order. Behavioral Research in Accounting 1, 23-74.

Burrel, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heineman.

Chariri, A. (2009). Landasan Filsafat dan Metode Penelitian Kualitatif Paper presented at the Workshop Metodologi Penelitian Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif, Laboratorium Pengembangan Akuntansi (LPA), Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Diponegoro Semarang.

Damayanti, T. W. (2013). Who is Affraid of Qualitative Research? A Compromise of Accounting Research Failure In Improving Accounting Practices. International Journal of Advances in Management and Economic, 2(2).

Deegan, C. (2004). Financial Accounting Theory. Australia: McGraw-Hill.

Finlay, L. (2006). Going Exploring’: The Nature of Qualitative Research”, Qualitative Research for Allied Health Professionals: Challenging Choices. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hopper, T., & Powell, A. (1985). Making Sense Of Research Into the Organizational and Social Aspects of Management Accounting: A Review of Its Underlying Assumptions. Journal of Management Studies, 22(5), 429-465.

Hopwood, A. (1988.). Accounting research and accounting practice: the ambiguous relationship between the two In A. Hopwood (Ed.), Accounting from the outside. New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc.

Hudayati, A. (2002). Perkembangan Penelitian Akuntansi Keperilakuan: Berbagai Teori dan Pendekatan yang Melandasi Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia, 6 (2).

Inanga, E. L., & Schneider, W. B. (2005). The failure of accounting research to improve accounting practice: a problem of theory and lack of communication. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 16 227–248.

Indriantoro, N., & Supomo, B. (1999). Metodologi Penelitian Bisnis Untuk Akuntansi dan Manajemen. Yogyakarta: BPFE.

Komsiyah, & Indriantoro, N. (2000). Metodologi Penelitian Akuntansi Keperilakuan: Pendekatan Filsafat Ilmu. Jurnal Bisnis dan Akuntansi 2(2).

Kuang, T. M., & Tin, S. (2010). Analisis Perkembangan Riset Akuntansi Keperilakuan Studi Pada Jurnal Behavioral Research In Accounting (1998-2003). Jurnal Akuntansi 2(2), 122-133.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. (1970). Logic of Discovery of Psycology of Research? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kurnia. (2012). Pengantar Akuntansi Keperilakuan.

Kusuma, I. W. (2003). Topik Penelitian Akuntansi Keperilakuan dalam Jurnal Behavioral Research in Accounting (BRIA). Jurnl Bisnis dan Akuntansi, 5(2), 147-166.

Lee, T. (1989). Education, practice and research in accounting: gaps, close loops, bridges and magic accounting. Acc Bus Res, 19(75), 237–253.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1986). Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage.

Ludigdo, U. (2007). Paradoks Etika Akuntan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Meyer, & Rigsby. (2001). A Descriptive Analysis of the Content and Contributors of Behavioral Research in Accounting 1989-1998. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 253-278.

Moleong. (2005). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya Offset.

Parker, L. D. (2012). Qualitative management accounting research: Assessing deliverables and relevance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 23, 54-70

Putri, A. D. (2009). Implikasi Riset Akuntansi Keperilakuan Terhadap Pengembangan Akuntansi Manajemen. Jurusan Akuntansi Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Udayana.

Richardson, A. J. (2012). Paradigms, theory and management accounting practice: A comment on Parker (forthcoming) “Qualitative management accounting

research: Assessing deliverables and relevance”. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 23, 83-88.

Riduwan, A. (2007). Teori Akuntansi: dari Normatif ke Positif, Isu Bebas Nilai, hingga Mitos dan Wacana Redefinisi. TEMA, 8(1).

Siegel, Marconi, & Helena. (1989). Behavioral Accounting: South-Western Publishing Co.

Tiyan, A. (2013). Tinjaauan Terhadap Keperilakuan ; Dalam Perspektif Akuntansi

Willis, J. W., Jost, M., & Nilakanta, R. (2007). Foundations of Qualitative Research Interpretive and Critical Approaches: Sage Publications.

Downloads

Published

30-04-2014

How to Cite

Damayanti, T. W. D. (2014). Nonpositivism in Behavioral Accounting Research: Initiated a Collaboration of Paradigm. International Journal of Management Excellence (ISSN: 2292-1648), 3(1), 320–325. https://doi.org/10.17722/ijme.v3i1.119