حسابداری مدیریت و اداره دولتی: منابع تحلیلی تغییر ساختاری
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. The theoretical roots of the paradox of embedded agency
3. Unpacking the paradox of embedded agency—the GIAMER framework
4. MA and the paradox of embedded agency
5. Concluding discussion and directions for the future
6. The papers in this special issue
Acknowledgements
References
Abstract
In recent years there has been a large and growing stream of management accounting research focusing on the theoretical puzzle often referred to as the paradox of embedded agency. That is, how can embedded agents come to (un-)intentionally change social structures when their interpretations, intentions, and rationalities are all shaped by these very structures? As a means of addressing this paradox we elaborate on how six qualities of social structures may work as sources of embedded agency, namely their Generality, Inadequacy, Ambiguity, Multiplicity, Embeddedness, and Reflexivity. This so-called GIAMER framework is then used to analytically disentangle common ways of explaining the paradox within the management accounting area and to propose ideas for future research. We close the editorial by presenting the three papers included in this Special Issue.
Introduction
Social structures have traditionally been seen as forces that shape social practices in ways that typically reinforce conformity and continuity (see e.g. Giddens, 1979, 1984). Despite this though, history has taught us that even the most ingrained and taken-for-granted practices may undergo change over time. Not least in the management accounting (MA) literature, there has been a large and growing interest in exploring the theoretical dilemma that arises in the intersection of these two contradictory insights, often referred to as the paradox of embedded agency (Englund et al., 2013; Covaleski et al., 2013, Kilfoyle and Richardson, 2011; Sharma et al., 2014; Yang and Modell, 2013). The dilemma is as follows: if agents are embedded in social structures which largely condition their interpretations, intentions, and rationalities, how can they come to (un-)intentionally change these very structures? While the paradox as such was formulated for the first time some two decades ago (see e.g. Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Holm, 1995), our understanding of it has arguably evolved over time as researchers from different disciplines (including MA) have discussed it from different viewpoints and by means of different theoretical perspectives. In particular, our understanding has developed rather significantly as researchers have come to relate the paradox to theories that claim to have overcome the previously dominating dualistic view on the relationship between structure and agency (see e.g. Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Giddens, 1984; Macintosh and Scapens, 1990; Sewell, 1992).