Practice theory and management accounting

(1)

Pierre Bourdieu’s practice theory: a systematic review of its utilization in

management accounting practice

Matthijs W.E. de Boer1

University of Groningen

Abstract

Empirical research papers that use Bourdieu’s practice theory and case study applications are examined focusing on the three principle elements habitus, capital and field in relation to recurrent themes in alternative management account research. Recurrent themes that are dealt with are stability and change, agency and external factors. Eighteen papers were eligible for analysis and demonstrated that practice theory particularly enhances understanding when the concepts are used in relation. The nature of habitus helps understand how stability and change occur. However it appears to be

problematic in explaining individual behavior; therefore the inclusion of theories on cognitive processes as captured by Kahneman (2002) is suggested to better understand agency. Capital has supported researchers in finding a more sensible manner in understanding that behavior of individuals in not only guided by economic aspects, also social and cultural aspects are in play. External factors are recognized by the field concept. Field enables delimitation of research areas and by studying differences across similar fields dimensions of time and space are clarified.

Keywords: Bourdieu; practice theory; habitus; field; capital; behavioral economics; cognitive processes

Word count: 14.528

Date: June 21st, 2013

1 Introduction

Utilization maximization is a concept that stems from neoclassical economics. Economic models are constructed to understand the workings of economic growth. The scope of economic analysis is macro and depending on many factors; of which human behavior is only a small part. In these models human behavior is reduced to an oversimplified assumption of economic rationality. Economic rationality assumes that all possible options available are known and that individuals have the mental capacity to select the option that maximizes their utilization. This view on human behavior is carried forward into neoclassic economic modeling and forms a cornerstone in modern management philosophy.

Understanding the role of individuals is of greater importance in an organizational context than in macro economic analysis. When attributing the role of individuals in organizations there are some limitations to economic rationality, other elements like psychology also influence human decision-making (Augier, 2005).

The past decades academics became aware that their research in modeling human behavior did not match behavior of individuals in organizations. Neoclassical economics did not aid researchers sufficiently to explain phenomena observed in practice. This is also represented by academics who are investigating types of research that are applied in the field. Burrell and Morgan (1979) developed a model to classify accounting research. The two-dimensional model is based on the nature of social sciences and the nature of society, and used by Hopper and Powell (1985) to comment on management accounting research during the eighties. One of their conclusions is that functionalistic research is mainstream in accounting and that alternative perspectives should be developed, aiming at

interpretative and radical research. Other research shows that there is a demand for better explanations of human behavior in organizations (Hogarth, 1993) and that academic research is of limited support to practitioners (Lukka & Granlund, 2002). The demand for better understanding of human behavior has triggered an upswing of alternative streams in management accounting research. There are nine significant different streams present in the field called alternative management accounting. Baxter and Chua (2003) distinguished seven streams of literature on alternative research published in Accounting, Organizations and Society in the period between 1976 and 1999. More recently two other significant streams have emerged, Universal Darwinism (Johansson & Siverbo, 2009) and the other is Bourdieu’s practice theory.

(4)

with an alternative model to understand human behavior in society. The theory is translated to the field of management accounting to gain better understanding of behavior in organizations. Bourdieu’s practice theory consists of three concepts, habitus, capital and field. According to Bourdieu habitus is embodied history, which is internalized as a second nature and therefore forgotten as history

(Bourdieu, 1980). The inclusion of a time dimension by incorporating historic events into the embodiment of current behavior enables researchers to explore how change is produced and

reproduced in organizations (Özbilgin & Tatli, 2005). Their research demonstrates that the concepts of field and capital can provide a connection between human agency and structure by the inclusion of the individual in the context of the organization and mutual relations. Practice theory places the

organization and corporate culture within a context of history and society (Özbilgin & Tatli, 2005).

Other streams of research have been reviewed extensively. Englund et al. (2011) for example provided an extensive review of the contributions of Structuration Theory towards alternative research. Similar research has been conducted on Actor Network Theory and how it has contributed to our

understanding of case research in accounting (Lowe, 2001). The work of Bourdieu consists of a broad range of publications that entail many theories and concepts. Concepts of Bourdieu’s practice theory have been applied by different academics in alternative management accounting research. Malsch, Gendron and Grazzini (2011) provided a review on the influence of Bourdieu on accounting practice. This paper is more specific and focuses on the contributions that Bourdieu’s practice theory has made to alternative management accounting research. The aim is to evaluate how Bourdieu deals with themes that are recurrent in alternative research, put them in a framework and demonstrate what elements of practice theory have been used in alternative management accounting research.

The following research question is formulated to find a solution to the above-mentioned problem:

How has Bourdieu’s practice theory supported researchers in gaining an understanding of the recurrent themes in management accounting practice? In order to support the main research question, the following sub questions are constructed:

- What are recurrent themes in alternative management accounting research? - How does Bourdieu account for these themes in practice theory?

(5)

Outline of the paper

(6)

2 Theoretical background

The theoretical chapter is constructed in two parts. The first part provides an overview of alternative research in the field of management accounting. The purpose of this review is to analyze what themes are recurrent in the field and answer the first sub question. The second part will provide a detailed overview of practice theory by Bourdieu, concepts will be explained and mutual relations clarified; which leads to an answer of the second sub question of this research. The final sub question is answered in chapter four, after the analysis.

Alternative management accounting research

Baxter and Chua (2003) classified alternative research in seven dominant streams. Apart from practice theory, Universal Darwinism is the other significant stream that has emerged since the review of Baxter and Chua (2003). For all eight streams the main contributions to alternative management accounting research will be described. Practice theory is not evaluated here, as it is the object of study in the second part of this section. The evaluation of eight streams that are dominant in alternative management accounting research will give adequate insights in the central themes that are recurrent in the field of management accounting.

The non-rational design school has helped us recognizing the constraining and constitutive roles management accounting systems can have in organizations. The naturalistic approach contributed that management accounting techniques are enacted quite differently among organizations. The

technologies transmit local values, meanings and nuances. The radical alternative provides a platform for critique, change and improvement within organizations. Founded on the ideas of Marx, it

constitutes that management accounting is created and maintained by an unequal society. This inequality in society promotes profound forms of conflict and repression.

Institutional theory views that collective behavior is different than the aggregation of individual actions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). It focuses on socially generated rules as an explanation of these actions. Institutional theory is influenced by organizational theory and sociology and was introduced by Burns and Scapens in 2000 when they proposed a framework of rules and routines. These

(7)

economic rational behavior. It acknowledges that humans do not always have all options available, but external institutions guide behavior.

Structuration theory is concerned with the conceptualization of the interconnection between the agency of individuals and the reproduction of social structures (Englund et al., 2011a). It describes the extend to which organizational participants are capable of making choice and reproduce rules and utilize resources in their courses of action. Giddens attributes that much of human action is embedded in our routinized nature. Replication of given structures happens through space and time. Rules can structure behavior over time; they are not only active when communicated face to face (Baxter & Chua, 2003). Change is enabled because, Giddens argues, that human agents can act differently from the prevailing norms and rules. An important contribution identified by Baxter and Chua (2003) is that the behavior of individuals influences their societal context and conversely. Englund, Gerdin and Burns (2011) found that the framework appeared to be useful to explore accounting as a social practice rather than as a system per se.

The Foucauldian approach teaches us that management accounting practices emerge depending on demands from the external environment. Foucault, the French sociologist and philosopher, developed theories on the workings of society; in particular his theme “archaeology” is applied in the field. It outlines the possibility for certain management accounting technologies to emerge at determined times and places. The concepts of discipline and docility by Foucault have been used in to understand and explain management accounting control. It attempts to explain how management accounting is initiated of influenced by external factors. These factors can be political, economical or social.

The last approach discussed in Baxter and Chua (2003) is the Latourian approach. Latour developed Actor Network Theory, or ANT in short. Actor Network Theory interprets management accounting technologies in the context of human and non-human agents. Main arguments are that accounting numbers are developed in correspondence with the actors in the network that deal with them. These numbers are used to persuade members with other interest in the organization or network. Numbers are translated into facts so that certain organizational members can maintain their position. It has also been argued that the normality of appearance of accounting numbers in organizational functioning is embedding biased values into daily routines. The main contribution is that management accounting routines are explained not by external factors, as is suggested by institutional theories and the Foucauldian approach, but by the positions and interests of actors within a network.

(8)

Management accounting development is explained by the interaction of the evolutionary sub processes of retention, variation and selection, and therefore it addresses both continuity and change. Universal Darwinism is viewed as a guiding principle in connecting multiple theories of institutions and change.

The research streams show differences and similarities, are critical to earlier work and sometimes show overlap. A critique on the work Burns and Scapens (2000) is that their framework explains stability more than change (Englund, Gerdin, & Burns, 2011; Lounsbury, 2008). Lounsbury (2008) for example, does not distinguish ANT separate from practice theory; he views ANT as part of a stream of practice theorists. Despite these differences there are several dimensions that appear to be recurrent. The first of these dimensions is how time and space are mutually bonded and how time and space can explain behavior. The second dimension involves systems and structures. Social systems are

constituted of situated practices and social structures appear to be implicit, out of time and space existing, as they are involved in the reproduction of social systems. Thirdly, reproductive systems are also referred to routines, or recurrent patterns of behavior. Fourthly, agency is a term that is used to describe the interplay between the individual and the context. Finally there appears to be a need to explain how management accounting is influenced by external factors.

This section of the theoretical chapter supports an answer to the first of the sub questions: - What are recurrent themes in alternative management accounting research?

The above-observed phenomena are grouped into three categories and provide an answer to the first sub question. The first category is stability and change, concerning dimensions of time and space, structure and routines or recurrent patterns of behavior. The second category is titled agency and is concerned with individual behavior, where it is originated and what the relationship between the individual and the context is. The third category is labeled external factors, and entails external factors that influence the emergence of management accounting practice. The three categories serve as primary input for the framework of analysis.

Practice theory by Bourdieu

Pierre Bourdieu is a philosopher who turned into an anthropologist and sociologist. He is regarded as one of the most inventive French sociological researchers in the post-second world war era. The theories he developed in sociology have spread around the world, but also into other academic fields, examples are anthropology, education, history, linguistics, philosophy and political science. Bourdieu has published some 25 books and over 260 articles and as a result, researchers from different

(9)

followed when working on his theory of practice. The explanation of the theory is in reference to the publications by Bourdieu concise, however in its conciseness it provides a good overview. To prevent bias, misreading and misinterpretation of the theory, books by Bourdieu were cardinal in this study. In addition, to better understand the interpretations of Bourdieu, sociological reviews on Bourdieu have been consulted.

There are four principles that are key in the work of Bourdieu. Overcoming the subjectivist-objectivist paradox is first principle achievement in the work of Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1973; Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1980). Next to that Bourdieu views mental and social structures as reciprocal, this is a breaking with classical sociological theory, forms the basis for overcoming the difference between the agents and social structures. The third principal in the work of Bourdieu provides an alternative to either a holistic or individualistic view on society. Bourdieu argues that theoretical interpretation should always reflect the practice of human being in totality, rejecting the existence of dualism and therefore also rejecting a separation between the body and the mind. The final principal deals with Bourdieu’s concern for reflexivity in research where he describes three possible sources of bias between the position of the researcher, the academic environment the research is performed and how this influences the role of the researcher. His care for reflexivity is unique in the field of sociology and lays the basis for an alternative methodology and epistemology in research.

Overcoming the objectivistic and subjectivist paradox

Objectivism and subjectivism are ostensibly theoretical opposing points of view. Objectivism in philosophical and sociological terms dictates that we can observe society without the influence of a subject, this implies that relations and systems exist without the interference of social agents. The risk of the objectivistic point of view is that by the lack of any theoretical underpinning it is easily replaced by reality. While objectivism is based on statistical resources and ethnographic research this does not suffice to map the workings of society. The members of society have knowledge of the world around them and use this knowledge in life (Bourdieu, 1980). The objective structuralism stance finds support in the readings of Marx, Durkheim and Weber who all agree on the principle of “non-consciousness” which means that social life is shaped by individuals who cannot oversee the impact of their behavior and what subsequent reactions their behavior provokes. Bourdieu refers to structural objectivism as objectivity of the first order.

(10)

the second order. Bourdieu considers two flaws in this point of view. The first flaw explained is that a stream of individual actions and strategies cannot explain permanence of social utility. Next to that social agents that construct the social reality do not do that independently, they do so using

classification methods that have been developed by others (Bourdieu, 1989).

Bourdieu integrates these two orders of objectivity by introducing momentum that justifies the use of two social realities. Social praxeology integrates structuralism and constructivist stances. In the first phase it provides room for different positions in fields by surpassing the individual and creating an objective structure where agents can take a position. The second phase draws back to the subjective experiences of the social agents where he takes a position in the objective societal space and, by expressing his perception and appreciation dispositions, action is structured from inside (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

The reciprocal nature of mental and social structures

The presumed difference between mental structures and social structures is another paradox Bourdieu is attempting to liberate. This is only possible by breaking with the sociological principles of

Durkheim in four instances. At first he redefines the second fundamental hypothesis of sociology: there is a connection between mental structures and social structures. Durkheim and Mauss tested this hypothesis in pre-capitalistic societies. Bourdieu finds this connection also in modern societies. The second deviation Bourdieu makes is demonstrating that there is a causal relation; social structures derive from mental structures, by this interplay between both types of structures they become

interconnected and cannot be seen separately. If this second order objectivity, habitus, flows from the structures of the first order of objectivity than the apparent paradox between sociology and social psychology disappears. The third and most important difference Bourdieu mentions is that the interactions between mental and social structures also have political functions. Symbolic systems are not only means of information; they are also means of domination. The fourth and final deviation from Durkheim is that social classification systems are subject of struggle as they are fought in different fields on individual and collective base in everyday life. Because social structures and mental structures are interlinked they provide one of the most solid foundations for social domination. (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992)

Sociologists are constructing social structures objectively by putting aside the subjective

representations of agents. However these representations, and the mental structures that reinforce them, must be taken into account when constructing an objective social structure. These two types of structures are interlinked as they guide the individual and collective confrontations through which the structures are being transformed or maintained by agents (Wacquant, 2006).

(11)

Bourdieu rejects both methodological holism and individualism. Individualism believes that society can be understood by the actions of individuals. Holism constitutes that the whole of actions of individuals sum up to something larger than the sum of its parts. Durkheim and Marx are examples of holistic thinkers and find its origins in the writings of Plato 23. Bourdieu refuses to use the notion of society in its holistic sense. He replaces society with the notions of habitus fields and forms of capital. Cohesion in a differentiated society does not exist because there is a mixture of system functions, a common culture, reciprocal conflicts or administering authorities. It exists, according to Bourdieu, from a whole of relatively seen autonomous playing fields that cannot be redirected to a single social logic, whether this is capitalism, socialism or post modernism. Habitus, field and forms of capital are central concepts in Bourdieu’s practice theory. He views the habitus as a structuring mechanism that is creative and inventive within the limits of its own structures. The habitus is not strictly individual; behavior is not completely defined by it. Habitus and field only function fully when in correspondence with the other. A field can only exist when there are players actively using that field. Those players enact dispositions based on their past and current experience and their incentives to change or defend the rules of the game (habitus). The other way around the habitus cannot be fully exploited when a field leaves no room for improvisation of agents.

The improvisation of these agents is only possible because Bourdieu is rejecting any form of dualism. He does not make an explicit distinction between internal and external, conscious and subconscious, body and mind, understanding and feeling, subject and object. With the rejection of dualisms and the acceptance of monism Bourdieu is broadening the concept of interest (illusio, and more recently replaced by libido) and narrowing the dependence on consciousness and utilitarian considerations. Illusio can be described as the acknowledgements of different stakes that are present in a field and the way interests and investments can be acquired by agents (Bourdieu, 1990a).

By approaching sociology in a non-Cartesian way (Descartes separates the mind from the body, Cogito ergo sum) it should be an integrated total science. Bourdieu explains that sociology should be able to construct the fundamental unity of human practice. This theoretical interpretation should always reflect the practice of human being in totality. This is in accordance with Mauss who defines the concept of total social facts (Mauss, 2000). Total social facts are activities that have implications throughout society, in economic, legal, political and also religious domains (Edgar, 1999). Theory building should always be posed upon practical implications or their social underpinnings; theorizing phenomena without a practical implication should be refrained from (Bourdieu, 1990a).

Reflexivity as a characteristic for the work of Bourdieu

(12)

To summarize and point out the underlying principles that distinguish the work of Bourdieu to that of other sociologists is his constant aim for reflexivity. According to Bourdieu there are three types of biases that can occur. The first one is concerned with the origin of the researcher; this can be

theoretical background, gender or race. This bias can easily be controlled for by self-critique and peer reflection. The second bias covers the position of the researcher within the field. In this instance Bourdieu is not referring to the social structure but to the field of the academics. This questions to what extent the researcher is able to put his academic position into perspective. A much deeper lying bias with more hazardous effects is the intellectual bias that arises when researchers observe the world as a spectacle that demands interpretations rather than a sequence of practical problems that need to be solved practically. This third bias is more distorting than the other two because it can lead researcher to miss the differentia specifica of practice theory (Bourdieu, 1980; Bourdieu, 1990b). By researching the social world with questionnaires, and other statistical methods we run the risk of reducing practical logics into mere theoretical logics and thereby losing the initial value of the research.

The constructions of two social realities, the first and second orders of objectivity, are the foundations for the development of the notions of field and habitus. The reciprocal nature of mental structures and social structures reinforces the argument that there is interplay between the individual and the

collective objective structures. Bourdieu refuses to perceive society as either holistic or individualistic by replacing the term society by the notions of habitus, capital and field. Finally his constant aim for reflexivity is of much value for academic researchers in that it demands a critical reflection on the position of the researcher in the field of academics. The four principals described above provide a solid basis to follow the line of reasoning that Bourdieu uses to elaborate his theory of practice. The following section augments on the concepts that together make up Bourdieu’s theory of practice: habitus, capital and field.

An explanation of the central concepts of Bourdieu’s practice theory

After having introduced the line of thought Bourdieu is following and outlining the most important dualisms Bourdieu is dealing with in his sociological theory of practice, the remainder of this chapter will provide definitions of the central concepts of habitus, field and capital. Defining the concepts without putting them in their context is somewhat contrary to the principles of Bourdieu as he

(13)

The habitus is the central concept that stipulates the second order of objectivity. It is an old

philosophical concepts originating from Aristotle as hexis and is a term that has been used by other scholars as well. Habitus is the system through which we perceive, act and judge in the social world. This system is filled through experiences in life and exposure to social circumstances and conditioning activities that take place in life. For example past education, the people you hang out with, the

influence of your parents, the stability in their relationship, the number and type of side jobs you have had, the extent towards you have had the possibility to develop your intellectual and emotional skills and so on. Different layers of experience and exposure together make up the habitus. Some layers are shared with other people (for example the social environment you grew up in is most likely to be similar to that of your siblings) other not joint experiences (hanging out with different people, other gender) may result in a habitus that differs among people. This implies that new experiences and exposures can change the habitus but only within the limits of prior acquired layers. Through exposure to new experiences the habitus is constantly refined. This provides durable properties but not

unchangeable. Despite these properties, Bourdieu argues that people are statically destined to revolve circles that are similar as where the habitus was initially developed. This inclines that people have the tendency to experience things that strengthen their dispositions. Dispositions are the tendencies to perform activities based on the habitus by social agents. The habitus is structured, because it was formed by patterned social forces and is also structuring because it gives form and direction to the individual in different courses of action. In this sense the habitus is a mediating principle between past experiences and exposure and, current impressions.

The habitus is a strategy generating principle for both continuity and discontinuity. It is generative because it is always capable of dealing with unexpected and changing situations based on past experiences. It explains continuity through the embodiment of social forces in an individual, which takes these through space and time. It also represents discontinuity, when an individual is confronted with a setting that is different than from what he was exposed before, different behavior can be triggered and new dispositions can be acquired (Bourdieu, 1980; Bourdieu, 1990a; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). When defining habitus it must be considered that the individual and even the personal, the subjective is social or collective. Bourdieu defines habitus as a socialized form of subjectivity, this also where he deviates from bounded rationality, a principle proposed by Herbert Simon. Bourdieu argues that rationality is not bounded only by information, the mind of human beings, and the incapability to oversee and think through all possible outcomes in a situation. It is also bounded because the human mind is socially limited and structured. In wording of Marx this is because people are always locked up “within the limitations of their head” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

(14)

capital (skills, symbolic goods, and stature in the form of titles) and social capital (resources one has because someone belongs to network of people or certain social group). Cultural capital can exist in three different states: the embodied state, which can be dispositions that last in the mind and body; the objectified state, in the form of a dress code or uniforms, pictures, machines or books; and the

institutionalized state, such as a diploma, license or qualification. The fourth form of capital, symbolic capital can be labeled to all other forms of capital that are not perceived by the agent as capital. An example is the provision of donation by the upper class by spending time and money in charity. The position an agent is having in a field is determined by the composition of different types of capital, the volume of that capital and the appropriateness of each type in capital in a field. And to determine the appropriateness of economic capital and social capital consider a wealthy man who is imprisoned. Even though in a different field he possesses a dominant position due to his economic capital, in prison he would benefit more of social capital; have a relation with the guards to obtain certain benefits. His economic capital is of low value. Economic theory has reduced the exchange of capital towards a sales exchange in our social world, the invention of capitalism. Capitalism is oriented towards the maximization of profit and is, according to Bourdieu, largely self-interested; therefore it has made the other forms of exchange as noneconomic and disinterested (Bourdieu, 1986).

Fields are constructed in the first degree of social objectivity. A field can be defined in terms of a network or configuration of objective relations between positions. Those positions are being

objectively defined by their actual or potential situation (situs). The positions in a field are not stable; they reflect the positions of power that are vivid in a field. The degree towards someone is in

possession of certain types of capital determines the extent towards someone can acquire specific benefits that are available in a field. A field can be for example the academic setting at the university, the working area in your job or more personal the relation one can have with their spouse. In every field there occurs tension between institutions or agents, those who wish to maintain the current distribution of capital and those who wish to alter the distribution, therefore it could show similarities to with for example a battlefield. Agents occupy positions in a field determined by their ability to access certain types of capital in a field and what type of capital is considered to be influential in that particular field. The position an agent obtains in a field induces certain thinking and behavior; agents with dominant positions in a field have the desire to maintain current structures, while agents who are dominated are more inclined to change the distribution of capital. Current employees in an

(15)

by the combination of the subjective categories of the habitus and the objective structures that exist in fields.

This chapter concludes by answering the second sub question:

- How does Bourdieu account for these themes in practice theory?

(16)

3 Methodology

The aim of this review is to provide an extensive overview of literature using Bourdieu’s practice theory as tool of analysis in management accounting. This section motivates the chosen methodology and how validity and reliability are obtained.

In order to analyze the contribution of any body of literature an analytical review scheme is necessary (Ginsberg & Venkatraman, 1985). When executing a review there are two methods that can be used, a narrative review and a systematic review (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). A research strategy explaining the selection and qualification of content is not required by a narrative review, therefore its academic value is limited. A systematic review is a method that minimizes bias and improves the process of the review (Tranfield et al., 2003). It is argued that the systematic review is most efficient in identifying and evaluating extensive literature. The research process consists of three steps: data collection, data analysis and data synthesis.

Data collection

Secondary data in the form of academically peer-reviewed literature will be used. This provides a broad range of stable, exact and unobtrusive information (Yin, 2008). There will be criteria set for the quality of the literature by selecting only those journals that are relevant for the field of management accounting. Next content will be selected based on keywords. Collecting the data by predefined search algorithms eliminates subjectivity in the selection of literature (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010).

Quality selection

The research question is concerned with the field of management accounting. The vast majority of research in this area is published in journals that are accounting related. Therefore the scope of this research is narrowed to literature published in accounting journals. The most important literature in the field of alternative management accounting research is published in a small selection of journals. Lowe and Locke (2005) analyzed British accounting journals by perceived quality and research paradigm. There are three journals that are outstanding in quality and publishing critical / interpretative content. These journals are:

- Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA) - Accounting, Organisations and Society (AOS)

- Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ)

(17)

origin (Lowe & Locke, 2005). Reviews on the contribution of Structuration Theory, also an alternative management accounting research stream found that these four journals were most dominant in

providing results (Englund & Gerdin, 2011). The four journals will be utilized to obtain valid results. In addition these journals are all peer reviewed which is another quality measure that ensures

academic quality of the papers (Yin, 2011).

Content selection

Articles are selected in four steps to derive at articles with the proper content; the first step is putting keywords in databases, the second step is removing duplicates, the third step entails a scan of the abstracts of all papers to filter outliers and the final step is the analysis of the remaining articles. The first step is consulting databases using keywords that highlight articles that have used Bourdieu’s practice theory. The selected keywords, in Table 1: preliminary search results, show that all central concepts of Bourdieu have been searched for with exception of “field” since field is too generic and yields results that are too diffuse. Searching in the title, abstract and keywords or in “all-but-the-full-text” of the articles provides a good indication that any of the keywords play a central role in the article. Limiting the search to these elements omits casual reference to one of the indicated keywords. Preliminary search results yield 67 articles eligible for analysis.

Keyword: Journal Total:

AOS CPA MAR AAAJ

Habitus 2 7 1 4 14 Practice theory 4 1 3 1 9 Bourdieu 7 15 1 6 29 Social Capital 4 3 0 2 9 Cultural Capital 2 1 0 1 4 Economic Capital 1 0 0 0 1 Symbolic Capital 0 0 0 1 1 Total: 67

Table 1: Preliminary search results

(18)

Schatzki (Ahrens & Chapman, 2007; Jørgensen & Messner, 2010), other theorists (Whittington, 2011) or how different researchers approached practice (Spicer, 1992).

Articles on social capital that have used other theorists in their framework (Annisette & Richardson, 2011; Armstrong, 2011; Nyamori, Lawrence, & Perera, 2012; Toms, 2002). Articles that did use the theoretical framework of Bourdieu, but did not apply it to Management Accounting but to study the academic context have also been excluded (Chiapello & Baker, 2011; Cooper, 2002; Cooper, Coulson, & Taylor, 2011; T. A. Lee, 1999; T. Lee, 1995; Ramirez, 2001; Shenkin & Coulson, 2007).

Bourdieu has a wide spectrum of theories and work published throughout his career: symbolic violence and theories on the role of the State (Cooper et al., 2011; Farjaudon & Morales, 2013), theories on social reproduction (Dezalay, 1995), cultural theory (Jacobs & Evans, 2012) and works published around his book Homo Academicus (1990) on the academic élite (Lukka & Granlund, 2002). These publications used other theories and are therefore excluded from the database. Finally a number of articles were removed for having very limited use of Bourdieu (Englund & Gerdin, 2011; Everett, 2003; Everett, 2008; James & Otsuka, 2009), no use (Annisette & Richardson, 2011), or no connection to management accounting (Jacobs, 2011; Neu & Ocampo, 2007).

Data analysis

Every research is concerned with reliability and validation of the research process. Reliability is obtained by using an analytical model that is transparent in its construction so that similar results will be yielded in different occasions and by other observers. The analytical process is described in detail; this enhances the ability to reproduce the results (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2002). Validity can be distinguished in external validity and internal validity. External validity is concerned with the

generalizability of the research results. The results are not generalizable towards other areas of research as they are specifically intended to review contributions in the field of management

accounting. Internal validity can be obtained by performing a sound data analysis. Therefore academic tools will be used to validate the analysis (Yin, 2008).

(19)

Next to the generic analytic techniques of rival explanation that is ongoing throughout the entire research there are five techniques that can be used to analyze qualitative data. For this study pattern matching and explanation building will be used (Yin, 2008; Yin, 2011). Pattern matching is a technique that helps the researcher to identify patterns in qualitative data. The patterns can be related to the dependent or independent variables of the study or both. In this in study the dependent variables of study are the concepts of Bourdieu’s Practice theory: Habitus, capital and field.

Explanation building is actually a special type of pattern matching; the goal is to study case data by building an explanation about the data. Explanation is achieved by a repeated process of cases with revision of the achieved proposition after each case is analyzed. It is different from the pattern matching method in that the final explanation is not yet specified at the beginning of the study. A potential danger for this method is slowly drifting away from the initial topic (Yin, 2008). The construction of a research framework and the use of a protocol that shows which articles are to be collected, safeguards the focus on Bourdieu and alternative management accounting.

Data synthesis

Careful analysis and thorough data collection are the principle drivers in the creation of new knowledge through a systematic review. Data synthesis is the primary value added product to new knowledge (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Based on the input from theoretical research two dimensions are constructed into a research framework. The first dimension exists of the concepts that Bourdieu utilizes in his practice theory. When referring to capital in the model, all forms of capital are

integrated. The second dimension exists of the three themes that are central in alternative management accounting research. In addition a fourth category is added labeled “other” when researchers use the concepts to explain other phenomena. The utilization of framing each concept in the domain of a central theme in alternative management accounting research is particularly useful because it enforces the researcher to think at a deeper level to what meaning the concepts of Bourdieu have been applied, rather than purely scoring the use of each concept. Each dimension on in the review scheme is scored according to the scoring scheme that is explained in detail in table 2: Scoring dimensions.

CODE Description 0 Element is not used

1 Element is referred to, but not used as a central concept 2 Element is referred to, and used as a central concept Table 2: Scoring dimensions

(20)

meaningless unless they are considered in relationship with the other concepts (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu, 1980; Bourdieu, 1990a). This is another factor that has been accounted for in the framework. After pilot testing the framework on two articles (Chenhall, Hall, & Smith, 2010;

(21)

4 Results / Synthesis

This chapter provides an overview of the research results that are collected during the analysis. After collecting the data and scanning the abstracts, as mentioned in step three, 28 articles were eligible for analysis. During the analysis, referred to in step four, another eleven articles were removed from the dataset, leaving seventeen appropriate articles for analysis. Table 3: overview of articles shows per journal the amount of articles analyzed, included and excluded.

The seventeen articles can be grouped in four different research topics. Five articles dealt with accountability, three articles where centralized around the theme of accounting implementation, three articles were concerned with accounting practice, and four independent articles on development accounting, translation gaps of transferring theories from one academic discipline to another, enacting CFO and calculative reproduction of social structures. Figure 1: Research Paradigms provides an overview of the research paradigms used in the analyzed articles.

Journal Analysed Included Excluded

AOS 12 6 6

CPA 9 4 5

MAR 1 1 0

AAAJ 6 6 0

Total: 28 17 11

Table 3: Overview of articles

Table 4: Overview of results indicates the extent that the different concepts have been applied. To prevent double counting of the occurrences, articles that used the concepts in relations, six in total, are not scored independently. Note that in this overview the different forms of capital have been combined to “capital”, the section on capital provides a classification per type. One paper can have references to one or more forms of capital. In this overview capital has been summed and therefore the number of seventeen analyzed papers are exceeded. The remainder of this section explains how habitus, capital and field have been used, whether the concepts have been used in relation, and finally observations that cannot be grouped in the before mentioned concepts are discussed.

Case study 7 Emperical 5 Grounded Theory 1 Historic Study 1 Literture Review 1 Theoretical 2

(22)

Level 1 Level 2 Total use: Level 1 Level 2 Total use: Habitus Field

Stability & Change 1 2 3 Stability & Change 1 3 4

External Factors 0 0 0 External Factors 0 3 3

Agency 1 2 3 Agency 0 0 0

Other 1 1 2 Other 1 1 2

3 5 8 2 7 9

Capital Relation

Stability & Change 0 3 3 Holistic use of the

concept 1 5 6

External Factors 2 2 3

Agency 0 5 5

Other 6 1 7

8 11 19 1 5 6

Table 4: Overview of results

Habitus

Habitus is shaped through experiences, education and exposure to social groups and thus can be considered a package that stimulates dispositions, unconsciously or consciously, to respond to the social world. Table 5: Use of Habitus demonstrates the use of habitus in different settings. The concept has been utilized least of the three central concepts, in eight instances it was used as a central concept while in three occurrences it was mentioned but not used as central concept. In three

occurrences, it was used to explain stability and change, three times to explain agency, no use to account for external factors. Habitus is further used as lens to view how accounting is characterized by true and fair view, this is limiting harmonization of accounting standards (Hamilton & Ó hÓgartaigh, 2009). Further the concept was explained but not used in the analysis (Neu, 2006) and in two

occurrences it was used in relation to the other concepts without application to one of the factors (Malsch et al. 2011; McPhail, Paisey, & Paisey, 2010).

Level 1 Level 2 Total

Stability & Change 1 2 3

Agency 1 2 3

Other 1 1 2

3 5 8

Table 5: Use of Habitus

Stability and Change

(23)

capital are mentioned but not used in the analysis on perceptions of accountability. Neu et al. (2006) use the concept to define as change enabling properties of fields in governments and supranational institutions, in this paper habitus is defined as a property of a field. Neu et al. (2008) used it to explain influences in the adoption of recommended financial practices by the World Bank. Baxter and Chua (2008) refer to habitus as something that Smith, the CFO subject of research, has the ability to maintain or change the habitus in the context that he can do so consciously. It is noted that to some extent that the habitus is also relationally dependent on the expectations of others in the field.

Agency

Agency is the role of the individual in relation to other persons. Habitus introduces agency to explain the differences in practice in different organizations and provides a link between structure and practice (Goddard 2004). Baxter and Chua (2008) used habitus to explain how the CFO is interacting with organizational participants and the finance department. Cooper and Johnston (2012) remarkably do not use the concept of habitus to explain the actions of the individual. They use the other concept of the framework, however the concepts of habitus by Bourdieu do not appropriately explain individual behavior. Therefore behavior of the individual is analyzed through a theoretical lens of Lacan. Lacan is a sociologist that views people as insecure, anxious, desiring contradictory socially constructed subjects. He views humans as “decentered/split” by using concepts of Freud on childhood

development, the mirror stage in particularly. The loss of selfhood and control is the ultimate fear of people and confirmation of these two are the ultimate desires in life and provides a better explanation of human action (Cooper & Johnston, 2012).

Habitus was used only in a few instances to explain stability and change and agency. Overall the contribution of habitus is said to be diffuse, remarkable is the contribution of Cooper and Johnston (2012) who use the framework thoroughly with exception to habitus. The next section shows how different forms of capital have been used.

Capital

(24)

Social Capital Economic Capital Cultural Capital

Level

1 Level 2 Total Level 1 Level 2 Total Level 1 Level 2 Total

Stability & Change 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2

External Factors 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 1

Agency 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 2

Other 2 0 2 2 1 3 2 0 2

2 4 6 3 3 6 3 4 7

Table 6: Types of capital employed

Diffuse use of forms of capital

It needs to be noted that the application of forms of capital is quite diffuse. Jayasinghe (2011) elaborates on the framework of Alawattage (2011) however he uses two forms of capital, economic and symbolic capital. Cultural capital and social capital flow from symbolic capital according to Jayasinghe (2011). Kurunmäki (1999) also uses two forms of capital, economic capital and professional capital. In this context professional capital is referred to as the clinical freedom that physicians in hospitals have, her explanation of professional capital shows similarities to that of cultural capital because it is due to qualifications the physician has this power. Goddard (2004) explains three forms of capital, economic, symbolic and cultural. Ramirez (2001) and Alawattage (2011) and also use three forms of capital, however they do not refer to symbolic capital but to cultural capital. The addition of symbolic capital as fourth form of capital is used by Malsch et al. (2011), Baxter and Chua (2008) and McPhail et al. (2010). Finally a multitude of six different types of capital was also presented, including educational capital, which can also be seen as part of cultural capital, and linguistic capital apart from the social, economic, cultural and symbolic capital (Thompson, 1999).

Social capital

(25)

paper, but are not used as central concept. Thompson (1999) and Baxter and Chua (2008) mention social capital but it is not used as a central concept.

Economic capital

Material assets and money are referred to as sources of economic capital. Neu (2006) argued that reforming accounting and accountability practices changed cultural and economic capital types and amounts, this has lead to enabling more finely distinguished social groupings. A consequence of this is that new ways of saying and doing are being developed. Kurunmäki (1999) explicitly refers to the possession of economic capital by political decision makers to influence in the introduction of market mechanisms is healthcare in Finland. Thompson (1999) and Goddard (2004) and Chenhall et al. (2010) mention the concept of economic capital but do not use it as central unit of analysis.

Cultural Capital

Education, qualifications, licenses, skills and statutory titles are forms of cultural capital according to Bourdieu. In the paper of Thompson (1999) different sociologists are referred to when coming to a definition of cultural capital. From the combined theoretical contributions of Gouldner, Cohen and Bourdieu they formed a definition that is quite similar to Bourdieu’s version: all forms of non-physical wealth founded on reputation, and acquired and maintained via the range of different social and institutional mechanisms(Thompson, 1999). It is different in that it also entails how capital is acquired, Bourdieu does not attribute that kind of properties to capital. In the paper of Cooper and Johnston (2012) cultural capital is used to show key features of the field of football. The other key features that influence the behavior of participants in this field are habitus and illusion. In this paper cultural capital is worked out in the form of skills of football players and their ability to demand higher wages through better skill. Habitus and illusion are referred to but are not worked out throughout the text (Cooper & Johnston, 2012). The concept is also used in passing by Chenhall et al. (2010), Goddard (2004) and Baxter and Chua (2008).

Throughout the analysis it became apparent that the use of capital is quite diffuse, this can be

(26)

Field

A field is referred to as a particular context, setting or scene. Examples of fields can be the academic field, which entails all dynamics that deal with students, researchers and universities, or a specific organizational setting (Baxter and Chua, 2008). This section explains how stability, change and external factors where accounted for in the analyzed articles. Table 7: Field utilization, shows that the concept of field was used seven times as a central concept and two times mentioned but not used centrally.

Level 1 Level 2 Total

Stability & Change 1 3 4

Agency 0 0 0

Other 1 1 2

2 7 9

Table 7: Field utilization

The concept of field is used together with the notion of economic capital to assess the redistribution of power and control in transferring the Finnish healthcare system into a market mechanism (Kurunmäki, 1999). Neu et al. (2006) use the concept to explain different “microcosms” in the educational field in Latin America and how changes in execution differ due to differences in fields. In this paper the dimension of time and space have been captured by the notion of field. Ramirez (2001) uses the conceptualization of field to describe the hierarchies in the accounting profession in France in the period 1920-1939 and how other fields in governmental context inhibited the implementation of accounting. Ramirez (2001) uses the influences of different political and economical fields on the field of accounting that made the institutionalization of accounting unfavorable in France. Neu (2006) uses the notion of institutional fields to account for external factors in the field of public education in Alberta, Canada. Hamilton et al. (2009) apply the concept of field to show how linguistic exchange is involved when an auditor declares accounting statements ‘true and fair’ in the recreation of the accounting field. The field concept is also used to account for the influence of external factors on accountability (Cooper & Johnston, 2012).

In summary it can be observed that the concept field is used consistently to set boundaries to a certain area of investigation. Although there is common use of the concept of field, only few authors (Neu, 2006; Ramirez, 2001) apply the concept as direct mechanism to explain how positions are positioned in a particular field. The following section elaborates on authors that applied the concepts in relation.

Use of concepts in relation

(27)

Bank and two nations, Guatemala and Mexico, in the adoption of higher education. Xu and Xu (2008) describe the standardization of accounting in 20th century China by using the framework of Bourdieu holistically. Next to the three core concepts they utilized a conceptualization of the state that helped them explain interference from the state on the field of banking existing from a triad of banks, native, modern and foreign. Next to three forms of capital, they also utilize linguistic capital and symbolic capital, which they claim is sub to cultural capital. Habitus of modern bankers explains how competition among native and modern banks emerged, which was enforced by changes in power enforced by the state. McPhail et al. (2010) use the concepts of habitus, field and capital in relation to explain the reproduction of capital in the Scottish educational system, however the concepts of habitus and capital are not fully explored.

Malsch et al. (2011) provide a literature review on the use of the work of Bourdieu in accounting. The article uses three modes of analysis to: First they apply citation base in articles, 85 times cited, the second mode is the extent to which publications have used one of his triad of core concepts (habitus-capital-field) and finally the holistic use of the concepts. In the translation from sociological theory to accounting theory they have identified two gaps, half of the studies were not politically engaged, and two the concepts were not applied holistically. In their research they find four types of capital.

Remarkable note is that they explicitly state that the origin of the framework of Practice theory is to be found in the relation and interplay between, dominators and those who are dominated in society. Alawattage (2011) Performed ethnographic research in a Sri Lankan gem-mining village. The holistic use of the concepts helped identify that “calculative templates and procedures” make field specific logic. The templates and procedures are symbolic means through which structural properties form practical dispositions that turn in to day-to-day practices. Furthermore the concepts have shown that management accounting can emerge from, sustain and modify wider institutional and social structures. Finally they have used Bourdieu to establish a link between bodily (corporeal) dimensions of control and wider relations of power in a field.

Jayasinghe (2011) uses the three concepts throughout the analysis and also uses Bourdieu research methodology as basis for the research. The use of Bourdieu’s concepts has been very comprehensive, a remarkable note is that they conceptualize capital existing in two forms, economic and symbolic, and that social and cultural capital flows from symbolic capital.

(28)

Other observations

During the analysis it showed that only a limited number of applications in the field of business were studied. Of the empirical and case research studies, three studies were directed at business (Baxter & Chua, 2008; Cooper & Johnston, 2012c; Xu & Xu, 2008). The other studies were directed at

governments (Neu, 2006; Ramirez, 2001), Nongovernmental organizations (Kurunmäki, 1999; Neu, Ocampo Gomez, Graham, & Heincke, 2006; Neu, Silva, & Gomez, 2008b; McPhail, Paisey, & Paisey, 2010c; Chenhall, Hall, & Smith, 2010) or aimed at accounting practices in developing countries (Alawattage, 2011; Jacobs & Kemp, 2002; Jayasinghe & Wickramasinghe, 2011).

The final sub question can be answered after the analysis of the eighteen articles that deal with practice theory:

- To what extend has practice theory been used to explain the themes in practice?

The concept of habitus was significantly used to explain stability and change and to account for agency. Even though habitus is referred to, most often its use is rather diffuse and when it is applied it is used for quite different purposes. Many articles also show critique on practice theory by Bourdieu; a discussion on the critiques follows in the next chapter. Different forms of capital were primarily utilized to account for agency; also other uses of capital are noteworthy. Finally the concept of field was used mainly to deal with stability and change processes in relation with external factors.

(29)

5 Discussion

Based on the analysis there are five arguments discussed in this chapter. First the use of the concept habitus in management accounting is elaborated upon, specifically there appears to be critique in the use of the concept on explaining agency of the individual. The second section discusses the use of the concepts in relation, according to Bourdieu the only manner possible to apply his theory of practice. The third section of this chapter discusses the substantial amount of research in the domain of not for profit organizations. The fourth section presents different views on practice theory by academics. Next to Bourdieu’s theory of practice there are other forms of practice theory used in management

accounting. The final section discusses the decreased interest in practice theories by academics.

Application of the concept habitus

Firstly, the application of the concept habitus is used for various occasions in the research. This section discusses the distinct use and provides a discussion on critique and alternatives for Bourdieu’s habitus. Bourdieu (1980) describes habitus as a property of an individual. Goddard (2004) and Hamilton et al. (2009) refer to the notion of ‘accounting habitus’, attributing field properties to habitus. In terms of Bourdieu, accounting could be considered a field and when attempting to understand accounting one would look at positions, doxa and forms of capital that are present in the accounting field. Habitus is in these instances not applied in line with Bourdieu. It is the habitus of persons in a field that shape the field by utilizing forms of capital that are relevant and use a

composition of capital to modify or sustain the accepted rules and norms, referred to by Bourdieu as doxa. However Goddard (2004) and Hamilton et al. (2009) attribute these field properties to habitus.) Baxter and Chua (2008) noted that the habitus is to some extent relationally dependent on the

expectations of others in the field, however it is not the expectations of others who shape habitus, but the field in which the agent is present. Habitus is shaped and shaping, structure and structuring principle. These observations show that the concept of habitus is not applied unanimously.

Critique on habitus

(30)

about individuals, and not from the individual. He places the individual in a context, field, and makes statements about the individual, but does not reason from the individual. Farnell (2000) argues that a concept like habitus is needed to properly capture the nature and location of human agency, however the habitus exists somewhere between neurophysiology and the person. In proposing a solution she argues that saying and doing might be connected, which is a problem that Giddens (1984) identified as a major problem in social theory and epistemology. Lau (2004) also states that the formulation of Habitus brims inconsistencies and ambiguities. He redefines the concept as emerging from practical experiences, so rejecting the corporeal component. By this definition the ambiguity between habitus and cultural capital is removed. Other suggestions for improvement of the model include the inclusion of the concepts of ‘lifeworld’ and ‘stock of knowledge’ from Schutz to the framework. These concepts would better deal with issues regarding the individual and conscious action (Atkinson, 2010).

An alternative to deal with agency: psychoanalysis

By talking about the individual instead of from the individual Bourdieu is able to escape the notion of economic rationality. However individual behavior may not be adequately captured this way.

Interesting is the replacement that Cooper and Johnston (2012) make. They use psychoanalytic theories by sociologist Lacan to explain the individual. Given the critiques mentioned above it could be a welcoming alternative to study individual behavior through psychoanalysis. The concept of habitus may be adequate in explaining why individuals respond in a certain context, it does not explain how individuals will respond, seen from the individual. Behavioral economics is a research stream in the field of economics that deals among other aspects with concepts of bounded rationality and satisficing. The incorporation of these concepts in economic analysis provides a more realistic perspective on individual and organizational decision making than mainstream economics does (Augier, 2005). Actions are based upon dispositions in the theory of Bourdieu, however the stream of behavioral indicates that action and judgment are primarily based upon intuition. Kahneman and Tversky are considered modern developers in the field of behavioral economics and provide research on heuristics and judgment (Augier, 2005). Kahneman and Tversky have used psychological

(31)

2011). The theory of Kahneman and Tversky was developed inductively, first they conducted experiments and afterwards the theory was designed; therefore this theory is grounded in empirical research. This is another critique on the theories developed by Bourdieu; only early works are empirically tested (Bourdieu, 1977). Because the theories of Kahneman and Tversky are based on actual behavior of human agents and provides a tested theory on what systems human agents use in responding to their environment, it may therefore provide a comprehensive alternative to analyze agency and individual behavior in organizations.

The use of Bourdieu’s concepts in relation

The second argument that is discussed is the use of the concepts in relation. The majority of the papers do not use the concepts of practice theory in relation. Bourdieu argues in his publications that it is impossible to use the concepts in isolation. The meaning of one concept is useless unless it is placed in relation with the other concepts. Other authors who have reviewed theories on Bourdieu also argue that it is important to use the concepts in relation (Macintosh, 2009b; Vaughan, 2008). The concepts need to be used like a sailboat needs its sails and a seaworthy crew. In this research only six articles used the concepts in relation. The theories of Bourdieu are moderately complicated to comprehend and when indirectly referring to Bourdieu as in Hamilton (2009), misinterpretation of the concepts is easily obtained. Hamilton attributes field properties to the notion of habitus. In this example Hamilton is the third step from Bourdieu, therefore increasing the likelihood of misinterpretation of the concepts and their mutual relationships. Atkinson (2010) also stipulates that the biggest problems in the theory of Bourdieu are misreading, misinterpretation, and de-contextualization. Authors that did use to model in its comprehensive meaning found insights in the workings of day-to-day practices (Alawattage, 2011) and the prevention of development accounting to happen (Jayasinghe & Wickramasinghe, 2011). The review of Malsch et al. (2011) is well documented and clarifies comprehensively academic relevance and gaps that can occur when translating from one field to another. The title of their work is “ the influence of Pierre Bourdieu on accounting literature”, this induces the reader to think that a comprehensive overview of all influential works of Bourdieu are investigated, however works published on élite academics and symbolic violence, are both concepts that were encountered quite frequently during this research, these concepts have not been elaborated upon. They did not mention why these concepts were not analyzed, even though they are not central concepts in the theory of practice, they appear to be influential concepts in accounting literature (Cooper et al., 2011; Farjaudon & Morales, 2013; Jacobs, 2011).

Focus of research on not for profit organizations

(32)

not that intensively interested in the deeper workings of power differences, domination and relation between the individual and its context. Another explanation might be found in the more recent publications of Bourdieu. His later work was more politically engaged with papers on the academic élite and the role of governments. He applied and modified his theory of practice accordingly. The research of Bourdieu is now primarily concerned in the area of qualitative and interpretative research, however there appears to be a call to further deepen the knowledge we have instead of expanding the numbers of theories (Chua & Mahama, 2012; Parker, 2012). Therefore we may need to consider expanding our knowledge on practice theory by testing the applicability in practice by empirical research grounded not in critical or interpretative research, but to speak in terms of Bourdieu: in research that is a combination of positivist and interpretative methodologies.

Other academics developing practice theories

Bourdieu is not the only academic that has a theory on practice; the fourth point of discussion is the development of practice theories by other academics. Ahrens and Chapman (2007) investigate the possibility to study management accounting as practice. However they do not refer to the concepts of Bourdieu in their framework at all. They construct their notion of practice based on Schatzki (2002). Schatzki defines practices as ‘arrays of activity’ in which the human body is connecting those activities. Other authors also refer to Schatzki (Hamilton & Ó hÓgartaigh, 2009). Reckwitz (2002) describes next to practice theory three other forms of cultural theory, mentalism, textualism and intersubjectivism. The four forms of cultural theory each provide different conceptualization of the body, mind, things, knowledge, discourse, structure / process and the agent. In the stream of practice theorists Bourdieu is referred to next to Foucault, Giddens, Taylor, Latour and Schatzki. All these authors display the importance of symbolic structures of knowledge to understand how action and social order work (Reckwitz, 2002). Malsch et al. (2011) indeed found gaps in the translation of practice theory from the field of sociology to accounting. However when looking “at the other side of the fence” there appears to be discussion on the theory of practice itself among sociologists. If the theory on practice is not worked out in a unilateral way academics in the field of sociology are still struggling to find a proper manner to deal with practice then one could argue that the stability of the theory is yet to be found.

Decreasing interest in practice by academics

(33)

influenced academics developing theories on practice. An explanation for the reduced interest may also be found in the difficulties Anglo-Saxon academics have in understanding continental thinking that is more dialectic and binding. If this were the case it would imply that the gaps between practitioners and academics and Anglo-Saxon versus continental thinking is widening instead of decreasing.

Practice theory and management accounting

Pierre Bourdieu’s practice theory: a systematic review of its utilization in

management accounting practice

Abstract

Table of contents

1

Introduction

2

Theoretical background

3

Methodology

4

Results / Synthesis

5

Discussion