Assessment of the Methodological Rigor of Case Studies in the Field of Management Accounting Published in Journals in Brazil

This study aims to assess the methodological rigor of case studies in management accounting published in Brazilian journals. The study is descriptive. The data were collected using documentary research and content analysis, and 180 papers published from 2008 to 2012 in accounting journals rated as A2, B1, and B2 that were classified as case studies were selected. Based on the literature, we established a set of 15 criteria that we expected to be identified (either explicitly or implicitly) in the case studies to classify those case studies as appropriate from the standpoint of methodological rigor. These criteria were partially met by the papers analyzed. The aspects less aligned with those proposed in the literature were the following: little emphasis on justifying the need to understand phenomena in context; lack of explanation of the reason for choosing the case study strategy; the predominant use of questions that do not enable deeper analysis; many studies based on only one source of evidence; little use of data and information triangulation; little emphasis on the data collection method; a high number of cases in which confusion between case study as a research strategy and as data collection method were detected; a low number of papers reporting the method of data analysis; few reports on a study's contributions; and a minority highlighting the issues requiring further research. In conclusion, the method used to apply case studies to management accounting must be improved because few studies showed rigorous application of the procedures that this strategy requires.

本研究旨在评估巴西期刊刊载的管理会计案例研究（case study）的方法论严谨性。本研究为描述性研究。研究数据通过文献研究（documentary research）与内容分析（content analysis）方法采集，最终选取2008年至2012年间发表于评级为A2、B1、B2的会计期刊、且被归类为案例研究的180篇论文作为分析样本。基于现有研究文献，我们确立了15项评判标准，用于判定案例研究在方法论严谨性层面是否合规——这些标准需在案例研究中得到明确或隐性体现。经分析，参评论文仅部分满足上述标准。与文献中提出的规范契合度较低的方面包括：对论证“需结合情境理解研究现象”的必要性重视不足；未阐明选择案例研究策略的缘由；多数研究采用的提问方式无法支撑深度分析；大量研究仅依赖单一证据来源；数据与信息三角验证（triangulation）的应用比例偏低；对数据收集方法的阐述不够充分；大量案例存在混淆“作为研究策略的案例研究”与“作为数据收集方法的案例研究”的问题；报告数据分析方法的论文占比偏低；对研究贡献的阐述较为匮乏；仅有少数研究提及了有待后续探索的研究议题。综上，当前管理会计领域案例研究的应用方法仍有待完善——仅有少数研究严格遵循了该研究策略所需的操作规范。