Critical Review of the Traditional Paradigm
Critical review of the Traditional Paradigm of Management Accounting
Arnold and Hope (1983) defined that management accounting is considered to provide the information to managers to assist them to make decisions about the ways in which an organisation’s resources should be allocated. Puxty (1998) said that a framework should be provided because of many different approaches that can be taken to define a subject. Also, in order to understand management accounting, it is necessary to study the assumptions and reasoning behind the various frameworks (Puxty, 1998). Therefore, Puxty (1998) categorised a wide variety of perspectives on management accounting into five frameworks, which are the traditional paradigm, the systems movement, the interpretative approach, radical critique and universal abandon. The traditional paradigm will be primarily explained and discussed in this paper. Puxty (1998) referred to conventional management accounting as the traditional paradigm that has philosophical roots. The definition of Management Accounting made by Arnold and Hope, in some ways, reflects the characteristics of the traditional paradigm. In this paper, six typical characteristics of traditional paradigm will be identified and explained in detail. And then the validity of these characteristics will be discussed with the relevant examples.
There are six characteristics of Management Accounting’s Traditional Paradigm being described and explained with respective examples. Simultaneously, the traditional paradigm of management accounting has come under critical review, which has resulted in many accountants and others beginning to question the current validity of the management accounting practices currently utilised by many organisations. Therefore, the overall validity of these characteristics will be discussed and illustrated with relevant examples after the description of each character.
The first characteristic is that management accounting is framed from the
Arnold and Hope (1983) defined that management accounting is considered to provide the information to managers to assist them to make decisions about the ways in which an organisation’s resources should be allocated. Puxty (1998) said that a framework should be provided because of many different approaches that can be taken to define a subject. Also, in order to understand management accounting, it is necessary to study the assumptions and reasoning behind the various frameworks (Puxty, 1998). Therefore, Puxty (1998) categorised a wide variety of perspectives on management accounting into five frameworks, which are the traditional paradigm, the systems movement, the interpretative approach, radical critique and universal abandon. The traditional paradigm will be primarily explained and discussed in this paper. Puxty (1998) referred to conventional management accounting as the traditional paradigm that has philosophical roots. The definition of Management Accounting made by Arnold and Hope, in some ways, reflects the characteristics of the traditional paradigm. In this paper, six typical characteristics of traditional paradigm will be identified and explained in detail. And then the validity of these characteristics will be discussed with the relevant examples.
There are six characteristics of Management Accounting’s Traditional Paradigm being described and explained with respective examples. Simultaneously, the traditional paradigm of management accounting has come under critical review, which has resulted in many accountants and others beginning to question the current validity of the management accounting practices currently utilised by many organisations. Therefore, the overall validity of these characteristics will be discussed and illustrated with relevant examples after the description of each character.
The first characteristic is that management accounting is framed from the
Bibliography: ARNOLD, J. and HOPE, T. (1983) Accounting for management decisions. London: Prentice Hall. ARNOLD, J. and HOPE, T. (1990) Accounting for management decisions. 2nd ed. London: Prentice Hall. ARNOLD, J. and TURLEY, S. (1996) Accounting for management decisions. 3rd ed. London: Prentice Hall. ATRILL, P. and MCLANEY, E. (2005) Management accounting for decision makers. 4th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. ATRILL, P. and MCLANEY, E. (2007) Management accounting for decision makers. 5th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. COLLIER, P.M. (2009) Accounting for managers: interpreting accounting information for decision-making. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DUNGWORTH, S. (2011) Radicalism: the traditional paradigm. [Blackboard] October. Available from: https://vle.dmu.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_group=courses&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Fcontent%2Ffile%3Fcmd%3Dview%26content_id%3D_2332960_1%26course_id%3D_372971_1%26framesetWrapped%3Dtrue. [Accessed 23/03/11]. KAPLAN, R.S. and NORTON, D.P. (1996) The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. KAWADA, M. (1998) Product cost measurement under the disequilibrium manufacturing process [www]. Available from: http://www3.bus.osaka-cu.ac.jp/apira98/archives/pdfs/55.pdf [Accessed 1/04/11]. PUXTY, A.G. (1998) The social & organizational context of management accounting. 2nd ed. London: International Thomson Business Press.