PurposeThe purpose of this study is to further our understanding of how and why interpretations of budget targets differ from one person to another even in the same business unit.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative case study research approach is adopted, involving a review and analysis of the literature and interviews conducted among controllers and managers of a highly successful business unit.FindingsBoth the theoretical and empirical results suggest that organizational budgetary processes do not provide a similar understanding of budget targets for each person. While some shared interpretations are evident, individual‐level variations occur in the personal and subjective meanings that controllers and managers give to budget targets in their own consciousness, situationality and corporeality. A personal historical basis for understanding may impact a manager's interpretation of budget targets, but the interpretations can also be dynamic and change over time.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is both facilitated and limited by its basic assumptions and approaches, and the findings may be most relevant to companies with similar profiles. Nevertheless, the study furthers our understanding of the characteristics of controllers and managers and their perception of the meaning of this important feature of accounting in practice.Practical implicationsIt could be highly useful to jointly discuss the intended primary purposes and nature of organizational budget targets. Otherwise, people may understand targets in different and perhaps even contradictory ways, which could in turn impair the functioning of control systems.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to current budgeting research in that it interprets individual‐level differences.

Purpose -The purpose of this study is to shed light on the threats to quality in mixed methods accounting research, wherein quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined in data collection, analysis and interpretation.Design -Our paper is framed according to the following three perspectives: We first synthesize the threats to validity and reliability in quantitative and qualitative parts of mixed methods research using the quality standards of each. We then introduce an integrative framework of mixed methods research quality by Tashakkori (2003, see also andTeddlie, 2008). Thereafter, we address the specific threats to quality that come to the fore when inferences from the quantitative and qualitative components of the study are combined to form meta-inferences using a legitimation framework by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006).Findings -Our analysis not only indicates a wide range of threats to the validity and reliability of mixed methods research in a range of categories, but also clarifies how the three perspectives described in this paper are linked and supplement each other. Research limitations -Methodological research published in English over the last decade isemphasized to create an approach to assess mixed methods accounting research. The frameworks analyzed could still be studied in greater detail. Additional perspectives on the validity and reliability of mixed methods research could also be studied and developed.Practical implications -This study furthers our understanding of such new developments in methodological research which may be of great importance to those conducting or evaluating empirical research.Originality/value -Based on a comprehensive synthesis, this paper presents and analyzes theoretical frameworks potentially useful for scholars, students and practitioners. It focuses on both traditional and novel areas of validity and reliability in mixed methods research.

No abstract

Purpose: This paper addresses the reporting of validation and evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies, which is a topic of critical debate in qualitative social science research. The objective of this study is to investigate the ways researchers have reported the use of evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies and whether they are associated with certain paradigmatic affiliations. Practical implications:The findings of this study enhance the knowledge of alternative approaches and criteria to validation and evaluation. The findings can aid both in the evaluation of management accounting research and in the selection of appropriate evaluation approaches and criteria. Originality/value: This paper presents a synthesis of the literature (Table 1) and new empirical findings that are potentially useful for both academic scholars and practitioners.

PurposeThis paper seeks to further the understanding of the rather fragmented research in the area of quantitative management accounting research. The purpose of this study is to provide a synthesis and an extended discussion of the literature from the performance outcome standpoint and to foster future research in this area by identifying promising recent developments in the assessment of performance outcomes and gaps in the literature.Design/methodology/approachA literature analysis was adopted based on empirical studies and literature reviews published in a wide range of journals.FindingsThe overall conclusion of this study is that future management accounting research can still make progress in the measurement of performance outcomes.Research limitations/implicationsResearch published in English, and the period of the past decade was emphasized to examine recent frontiers of knowledge. The results imply that increasing and simultaneous analysis of various kinds of performance outcomes could be conducted, ranging from accounting‐based to social and environmental outcomes and relative‐to‐peers assessments in different settings. If possible, development of performance outcomes could be investigated with longitudinal and panel, in addition to cross‐sectional, research designs. Attempts could be made to analyze the nature of causality to advance both management accounting literature and social science research.Practical implicationsThis study furthers understanding of behaviorally‐, organizationally‐ and strategically‐oriented management accounting research that has played a central role in assessing to what extent people are likely to succeed with their management accounting and control systems in various settings.Originality/valueThis paper presents a theoretical framework and several examples potentially useful for both academic scholars and practitioners.