Table 1: Organisational responses to environmental disturbances Rebuttal Reorientation Colonisation Evolution Design archetype Management Management Management Management (these relate to processes change processes change processes are processes evolve Ferreira and slightly but forced to change significantly in Otley (2009) eventually revert response to PMS) back to original changed state interpretive schemes Sub-systems No change Changes in Significant Significant response to changes changes design-archetype changes Interpretive No change No change Forced changes Changes occur schemes led by a small after debate and group of acceptance organisational stakeholders Adapted from Laughlin (1991) Organisational responses to external disturbances may be examined by exploring whether and how the management processes (the design archetypes) change, and also by whether and how organisational members change their ideas, beliefs and values. This framework is employed later on in this paper to consider how two organisations in different sectors responded to external accountability demand changes. Research approach Many researchers argue for the use of case studies as a research methodology in the study of accounting within organisations. A key advantage of this method is that it facilitates the discovery of anomalies in extant theories by illustrating areas of difference between actual practice and current theoretical thinking (Jensen and Rodgers, 2001; Humphrey and Scapens, 1996; Llewellyn, 1996; Eisenhardt, 1989, 1991). Carlile and Christensen (2005) argue that anomalies are valuable in theory building because the discovery of an anomaly is an enabling step to less ambiguous description and improvement in a body of theory. Indeed, productive theory-building research is almost invariably prompted or instigated by an anomaly or a paradox (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989).
Table 1: Organisational responses to environmental disturbances Rebuttal Reorientation Colonisation Evolution Design archetype (these relate to Ferreira and Otley (2009) PMS) Management processes change slightly but eventually revert back to original state Management processes change Management processes are forced to change Management processes evolve significantly in response to changed interpretive schemes Sub-systems No change Changes in response to design-archetype changes Significant changes Significant changes Interpretive schemes No change No change Forced changes led by a small group of organisational stakeholders Changes occur after debate and acceptance Adapted from Laughlin (1991) Organisational responses to external disturbances may be examined by exploring whether and how the management processes (the design archetypes) change, and also by whether and how organisational members change their ideas, beliefs and values. This framework is employed later on in this paper to consider how two organisations in different sectors responded to external accountability demand changes. Research approach Many researchers argue for the use of case studies as a research methodology in the study of accounting within organisations. A key advantage of this method is that it facilitates the discovery of anomalies in extant theories by illustrating areas of difference between actual practice and current theoretical thinking (Jensen and Rodgers, 2001; Humphrey and Scapens, 1996; Llewellyn, 1996; Eisenhardt, 1989, 1991). Carlile and Christensen (2005) argue that anomalies are valuable in theory building because the discovery of an anomaly is an enabling step to less ambiguous description and improvement in a body of theory. Indeed, productive theory-building research is almost invariably prompted or instigated by an anomaly or a paradox (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989).
ADVANCES_version_6Sept.docx