|مقالات مرتبط با این موضوع|
|مقالات انگلیسی ترجمه شده حسابداری|
کد محصول: H365
قیمت فایل ترجمه شده: برای اطلاع از هزینه و مدت زمان انجام ترجمه با پشتیبانی وب سایت تماس حاصل نمایید (۰۹۳۷۲۵۵۵۲۴۰)
تعداد صفحه انگلیسی: ۱۵
سال نشر: ۲۰۱۷
مقاله انگلیسی حسابداری ۲۰۱۷ : دیدگاه تئوری ساختاری در تعامل بین استراتژی و حسابداری: باز شدن پیوستگی اجتماعی و تحول
A structuration theory perspective on the interplay between strategy and accounting: Unpacking social continuity and transformation
Anthony Giddens is generally considered one of the most prominent sociologists of modern time. In this paper, we draw upon a micro-process case study to explore how his theory of structuration (ST) can be used to analyze the interplay between strategy and accounting in day-to-day-organizational life.
In short, we find that strategizing and accounting should not be viewed as two separate practices, but rather as two aspects of one and the same practice, which form and feed each other in a recursive manner over time. Based on these findings, we also elaborate on how ST may be usefully applied to understand continuity and transformation of strategizing practices more generally. An overall conclusion is that ST not only provides a strong and consistent ontological framework for theorizing about these practices, but also offers a rich conceptual toolbox which can be usefully applied to better understand how and why structural continuity and change may coexist and intermingle in daily organizational life.
Keywords Giddens,Structuration theory, Accounting, Strategy, Continuity, Transformation
As one of the most prominent sociologists of modern time (e.g. Cassell, 1993), Anthony Giddens’ writings cover a large number of intellectual endeavours, ranging from the early critiques and reinterpretations of sociological classics to later writings on modernity, globalization and the thirdway politics.
Perhaps most known though are his writings on the theory of structuration (ST), in which he suggested a view of society as constituted in and through social practices. Moreover, his view aimed to abandon a number of conventional dualisms in social theory (such as individual/society, subject/object, conscious/ unconscious) in favour of a recursive approach which emphasized “the mutual dependence of [among other things] structure and agency” (Giddens, 1979; p. 69). Thanks to the works of Whittington (1996, 2006, 2010) and others (e.g. Carter, Clegg, & Kornberger, 2010; Carter, 2013; Jarzabkowski, 2004, 2008), ST has been introduced and exploited as a valuable theoretical lens in the steadily growing Strategy-As-Practice (S-A-P) literature (see e.g. Jarzabkowski & Paul Spee, [2TD$DIF]2009, and Vaara & Whittington, 2012; for excellent reviews of this literature).
Guided by the works of Giddens and other practice theorists, an overall message of this literature is that “we should examine strategy not as something a firm has, but something a firm does” (Jarzabkowski, 2004; p. 529), emphasis added, see also Carter et al., 2008a). That is, we should look upon strategy as emergent practices—i.e. processes ofstrategizing rather than as managerial decision-making by means of particular ‘strategic tools’ such as SWOT-analysis and the Boston Matrix (Carter et al., 2008b; Whittington, 1996).
This paper adds to the extant S-A-P literature in two important respects. First, we explore how Giddens’ theory of structuration can be usefully applied to analyze how strategizing and accounting may interplay in day-to-day-organizational life.
The premise is that not only has ST been extensively used in the S-A-P literature to investigate strategy as constituted in what people actually do (Seidl & Whittington, 2014; Whittington, 2010), but also in the accounting literature to understand accounting as an organizational and social practice (Conrad, 2014; Englund & Gerdin, 2014; Englund et al., 2011; Roberts, 2014). However, there is relatively scant attention given to exploring how the practices of strategizing and accounting may coexist and interplay to produce both social continuity and transformation (but see Jørgensen & Messner, 2010; Whittle & Mueller, 2010). Judging from our micro-process case study described below though, these practices may not only coexist, but rather constitute one interlaced practice where strategic and accounting considerations form and feed each other in a recursive manner as they are played out in organizational life.
Second, based on these empirical findings, we discuss how Giddens’ theory of structuration may be usefully applied as a conceptual apparatus for exploring strategizing practices more generally. More specifically, we consider how ST can assist us to better understand how processes of strategizing are: (i) institutionally embedded, (ii) brought off by knowledgeable actors, and (iii) inherently emergent in nature. In particular, these final sub-sections assist us to articulate and cast light on the co-existence of both continuity and transformation that characterizes much of day-to-day strategizing practices.
All in all then, this paper seeks to reinvigorate Giddens’ ST as a highly useful theoretical apparatus for exploring unfolding strategizing (and other organizational) practices. However, we also hope that our case analysis, in which we draw upon various (hitherto largely unexplored) facets of ST to theorize the intricate interplay between continuity and transformation, will offer a ‘sensitizing device’ by which future research may continue to explore the dynamics of such processes.
The remainder of our paper is organized as follows. The next section provides an outline of some of the central assumptions underlying ST. Thereafter, we present our case study, which assists us to develop our ideas relating to the intersection of strategy and accounting. Then, we draw upon our case study evidence to discuss how a Giddensian perspective may assist analyses of processes of strategizing more generally. In a final section, we then discuss the implications for theory and future S-A-P research.