Accounting For Strategic Management, Strategising and Power Structures in The Jordanian Higher Education Sector
Accounting For Strategic Management, Strategising and Power Structures in The Jordanian Higher Education Sector
Accounting For Strategic Management, Strategising and Power Structures in The Jordanian Higher Education Sector
www.emeraldinsight.com/1832-5912.htm
JAOC
15,3 Accounting for strategic
management, strategising and
power structures in the Jordanian
430 higher education sector
Received 23 June 2018 Khaled Hutaibat
Revised 9 December 2018
12 January 2019
Department of Accounting, Mutah University, Karak, Jordan
Accepted 5 March 2019
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a field study, investigating accounting,
strategising and accounting for strategic management and power structures in the Jordanian higher education
(HE) sector on the basis of Bourdieu’s theory of practice.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper adopts an interpretive stance, seeking to investigate the
perceptions of actors in the field, with regard to accounting, strategising and accounting for strategic
management in HE. The adopted methodology is adapted grounded theory, as this study assumes a prior
theoretical stance of Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts. Data were collected through participant observation in
meetings, at the workplace, interviews and documentation.
Findings – The main findings of this paper reflect how strategising and accounting in practice manifest
themselves in the Jordanian HE sector. Bourdieu’s theory of practice sets the meta-theoretical context of the
current study, with field setting the scene, and habitus being represented in the strategising mind-set
participants adopt. The mind-set determines how strategic management accounting is perceived and dealt
with. Strategic management accounting takes place at varying degrees. The power structures that influence
and determine strategising and accounting in support thereof are researched on the basis of Bourdieu’s forms
of capital. Different forms of capital matter in the HE sector determined by fields’ doxa.
Research limitations/implications – The researcher is a part of the field, the Jordanian HE sector;
thus, their habitus has been exposed to its characteristics and features. Thus, certain internalised structures
and experiences needed to be challenged for this analysis, which was not an easy task.
Originality/value – This study investigates accounting, strategic management and power structures in
HE, and it highlights the different power structures, using Bourdieu’s forms of capital, which offers a great
insight into how different cultures approach similar issues.
1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, countries’ economies have experienced significant developments
and changes (Aula and Tienari, 2011), with the economic crisis 2008/2009 being the most
recent event, from which many economies have not yet fully recovered. Strategic
management and related financial management are rendered even more necessary by these
developments. In higher education (HE), these include greater complexity due to increased
Journal of Accounting &
Organizational Change
international competition, developments towards mass education, introduction of the notion
Vol. 15 No. 3, 2019
pp. 430-452
of customer with regard to students, tighter financial resources, and the general move
© Emerald Publishing Limited towards more business-like practices (Parker, 2002). In many countries, HE has taken on a
1832-5912
DOI 10.1108/JAOC-06-2018-0054 business-like quality (Aula and Tienari, 2011), with public and private universities charging
significant tuition fees to students, and research being as competitive as ever, since often Jordanian
spin-offs, marketable products and consultancy jobs would result from successful outcomes. higher
This article results from a study of accounting, strategising and accounting for strategic
management in Jordanian HE over a five-year time period. This was necessary to get
education
immersed completely in the field, in particular with regard to observation. The Jordanian sector
context highlights a number of perspectives that are also applicable in other sectors. First,
Jordan operates a rigorous austerity programme, which has reflected on HE as much as on
other sectors, in terms of salary structure, operational expenditure and capital investments. 431
Institutions are either public, thus fully accountable to the government, or private, in which
case they can be either non-profit or for-profit, with single or multiple relevant stakeholders.
Furthermore, tuition fees are a common policy in all institutions. Its financial context is
strained because financial means are limited, thus investigating accounting for strategic
management can provide insight into how such financial context is dealt with in practice. In
addition, the Jordanian HE sector is primarily teaching-focussed, because lack of resources
prohibits significant investment in research activities. Yet at the HE international level
competitiveness flourishes, as academic institutions and their human capital, academics
themselves, seek to achieve maximum recognition, and in the process seek to acquire
research funding, tuition fees or industry co-operations (Hutaibat et al., 2011; Parker, 2002).
Jordan is generally a good example for a developing, resource-limited HE sector, which
results in an education-driven and -dominated mission and strategy.
Apart from the regular operational activities of research and teaching, institutional
structures and practices play an important role. Appropriate strategic and financial
management structures can significantly affect a business’s, and similarly a university’s,
performance (Groves et al., 1997; Hutaibat et al., 2011). Long-term strategic investments
allow an institution to be in a stronger and more competitive position in the future, however
a number of questions arise that are addressed in the current study. Do institutions indeed
engage in such management and accounting activities? If so, what practices and methods do
institutions adopt? What decision-making structures exist and who has the power to
determine or at least influence what is considered strategically important? In the context of
lacking research resources, is accounting for strategic management impacted accordingly?
These questions address in particular the association of accounting and strategic
management in HE, which the current study seeks to investigate in the Jordanian context. It
addresses these issues, in a bid to provide a socially and practically relevant, and
theoretically well-informed study (Parker et al., 2011) that provides empirical insight into
how education strategy drives accounting for strategic management and develops guidance
for practical application of strategic management and accounting policies and practices.
Financial funding plays a major role, especially in not-for-profit institutions that are
bound by governmental policies. At the same time, the most effective use of financial
resources can significantly affect an institution’s reputation, its ability to attract high
quality staff and students, and its ability to obtain high profile research projects and related
funding. For the use of financial resources to be effective in the long run, their use should be
related to strategising. Despite recent criticism of its relevance in practice (Langfield-Smith,
2008; Otley, 2008), several recent publications have linked accounting and strategy (Carter
et al., 2011; Jørgensen and Messner, 2010; Ma and Tayles, 2009; Skærbæk and Tryggestad,
2010) and Chua(2007) has called for more publications connecting strategy and accounting
in practice. In this context, power structures play a very important role, as they significantly
affect strategic decisions and accounting for strategic management, but have not been
researched in the HE context. The data from the HE sector offer new insights regarding
strategy and accounting in practice, context of Jordanian HE and application of accounting
JAOC for strategic management in HE, and its reflections of and upon Bourdieu’s theory of
15,3 practice as the theoretical starting point. Bourdieu’s theory of practice (Bourdieu, 1990) leads
the investigation, with habitus being the dominant feature determining perceptions and
usability of strategising and accounting, represented through the strategising mind-set.
Jordanian HE possesses its own unique features, which represent the field that shapes the
strategising mind-set. Bourdieu’s forms of capital determine power structures in the
432 fragmented academic field (Lukka and Granlund, 2002), which affect accounting and
strategic management. While institutions are found to employ accounting practices in
support of strategic management, the strategising mind-set determines perceptions of such
practices and how they are employed by participants.
The strategising mind-set as addressed by Hutaibat et al. (2011) and Broad and Goddard
(2010) is the conceptual element that the current study contributes to investigating, in
relation to strategy and accounting, power structures and the HE context. It seeks to
contribute to how strategy and accounting, intentionally or organically, are connected and
enacted at the organisational level (Chua, 2007) and how power features in this relationship
(Carter et al., 2011; Jørgensen and Messner, 2010;Whittle and Mueller, 2010). The author
seeks to investigate how power structures manifest themselves in the researched HE sector
and how these affect management, decision-making and accounting for strategic
management, which presents the accounting context. The findings, therefore, outline the
different features of the strategising mind-set in the given context and then compares and
contrasts to relevant prior studies (Broad and Goddard, 2010; Hutaibat et al., 2011). The
current study importantly contributes to the body of studies investigating the strategising
mind-set that impacts strategising and accounting, as only few studies engage with the
concept (Broad and Goddard, 2010; Hutaibat et al., 2011).
The next Section, Section 2, outlines the relevant prior literature, then in Section 3 the
research approach and data collection and analysis will be discussed, in Section 4 the research
context and finally in Section 5 the findings are outlined. Lastly, the findings are discussed in
Section 6 in the context of the existing literature and conclusions regarding strategy and
accounting in HE and accounting for strategic management in general are drawn.
2. Prior literature
The prior literature of this study is divided into two parts. First, Bourdieu is addressed as
the current study’s theoretical context. Second, accounting for strategic management in
general, its origins, its various practices and its application, are outlined.
2.1 The theoretical context – Bourdieu’s theory of practice, and notion of academia
Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1977) sets the theoretical context of the current study.
Bourdieu is understood as ‘one of the pioneers of the practice turn in sociology’ (Hurtado,
2010, p. 52). Practice theorists have developed their theories to include action in social
theories, considering how action arises from structures and how structures affect action
(Ahrens and Chapman, 2007). Bourdieu is such practice theorist, suggesting that objective
and subjective cannot exist on their own and cannot explain social phenomena individually
(Ahrens and Chapman, 2007). As this study engages in strategy and accounting in practice,
i.e. something that is actively done rather than just ‘is’ (Chua, 2007), Bourdieu’s theory of
practice is most fitting. For instance, Hurtado (2010) connects the theory of practice with the
strategy-as-practice field, i.e. strategising. Furthermore, this study focusses on power
structures in the public and private HE sectors (fields), using Bourdieu’s (1990) different
forms of capital, and drawing on the fragmented nature of academia (Lukka and Granlund,
2002). The theory of practice consists of several components, which Malsch et al. (2011) refer
to as the “Bourdieuian triad” (p.198). The components include habitus, field and capital. Jordanian
Field represents the objective social structure, whereas habitus stands for the subjective higher
individual (Bourdieu, 1977; Malsch et al., 2011). Capital creates power structures (Malsch
et al., 2011). These combine into what Bourdieu refers to as the “the logic of practice” (Baxter
education
and Chua, 2008a). Practice, or practical knowledge, represents what an individual gathered sector
from the field and has internalised in its habitus (Baxter and Chua, 2008a), which suggests
neither exclusive knowledge arising from objective structures, nor from subjective
phenomena. Habitus reflects an individual’s characteristics, background, origin and 433
experiences (Bourdieu, 1977). Essentially, it is a set of dispositions, which guide an actor to
function within and engage with their field. These dispositions are an internalised reflection
of the field and a person’s experiences. The perfect internalised representation of the field is
referred to as doxa by Bourdieu (1990), which creates a perfect alignment of habitus and
field structures (Baxter and Chua, 2008a). Doxa is related to power, as the concept favours
the most dominant in the field (Bourdieu, 1990). The field is the context in which the
participants are located and the habitus is created. The field represents the external and
societal structures that an actor functions within. Power structures play an important role in
the creation of the field and formal positions (Malsch et al., 2011). Field and habitus have a
reciprocal relationship as they influence, shape and impact on each other. Habitus is a
structuring structure and structured structure, which is created through incalculation of
structures, facilitated for instance through formal education (Malsch et al., 2011). This
bridges the gap between objective (field) and subjective (habitus), and creates a connection
between the two (Baxter and Chua, 2008a). No individual is only a product of their
surroundings, neither completely free from the structures within which they live (Ahrens
and Chapman, 2007; Bourdieu, 1977). The dominant will seek to remain in their position
through determining and adopting the fields’ doxa, to which end individuals utilise four
different forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1977), which separate the powerful and dominant from
the rest (Bourdieu, 1977). Capital and its relation to power also plays an important role in
Bourdieu’s social theory of practice, as Bourdieu (1977) suggests that pattern of practices
emerge in the field through individuals calling upon four different forms of capital to impose
their points of view of a situation (Baxter and Chua, 2008a). The four different forms of
capital are economic, social, cultural and symbolic (Baxter and Chua, 2008a). Economic
capital refers to the financial resources, social capital includes networks and connections an
individual has at their disposal (through family, friends, work, etc.), cultural capital
addresses an individual’s competencies, skills and qualifications, and symbolic capital
suggests legitimacy within a field based on socially determined classifications (Bourdieu,
1990; Jacobs, 2011). Bourdieu considers formal education as a key factor of passing on the
different forms of capital from one generation to another (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990).
Academia represents one pillar of such formal education. Bourdieu researched the academic
field, and found that there are preconceived notions of how academia should be ranked, who
is the most powerful and influential, and which disciplines carry the greatest recognition
(Bourdieu, 1990). Based on this, he identified the fragmented academic field, in which the
elite dominate the field (Lukka and Granlund, 2002). All forms of capital are employed to
maintain a particular disciplinary order (Bourdieu, 1990). Bourdieu’s logic of practice sets
the theoretical context for the current study. It seeks to investigate the power structures of
the academic field in the Jordanian HE sector, and how these affect the habitus regarding
accounting and strategic management, as this has not been researched in detail previously.
Thus, it is used to investigate the mind-set adopted in Jordanian HE with regard to strategy
and related accounting practices, and which elements impact upon this mind-set. It is also
used to analyse the features that create the strategising mind-set in the current study.
JAOC In this vein, prior studies have investigated such mind-set in different contexts. Broad
15,3 et al. (2007) and Broad and Goddard (2010) primarily focus on performance management in
universities, but in the context refer to strategy, perceptions thereof, and the application of
strategy and accounting, surmised as strategising. Hutaibat et al. (2011) researched strategic
management and accounting in an English HE institution, and found that participants adopt
a particular mind-set, labelled strategising mind-set, which reflects their belief of strategy
434 and accounting in HE. They found that particular practices, such as a strategic planning
process, a long-term budget and associated budgeting process, customer accounting
(students as customers) and strategic investment decision-making and related capital
budgeting reflected strategic management and accounting practice in their case institution.
They also identified a split nature of strategising and accounting, as daily financial and
operational management are as much strategising as is long-term planning and financial
management. Based on the findings of these three prior studies, the conceptual context of
this study is the concept of the strategising mind-set (Hutaibat et al., 2011) and how it
manifests itself in different HE sectorial contexts. Broad and Goddard (2010) define
strategising as the mind-set which reflects participants’ perception of strategy, strategic
management and accounting in their respective institution and/or disciplinary division.
They suggest that there are two extreme positions, albeit on a continuum, where one places
great emphasis on institutional budgeting, whereas the other is more concerned with long-
term strategic management and positioning (Broad and Goddard, 2010). Hutaibat et al.
(2011) identify similar positions. They identify a two-fold split of the mind-set, where
participants are either bureaucrats or entrepreneurs, and accordingly perceive strategy and
accounting. Based on these two prior studies, the extreme positions of the mind-set imply
that in the accounting context on the one end individuals adopt a more outward-facing,
longer-term prospect and seek to finance their long-term strategic aspirations, while on the
other end individuals are more concerned with current, internal financial planning and
resource allocation. Both are relevant in a strategising and accounting context but
depending upon the position of the mind-set adopted a particular institution, faculty or
department is run. Due to the fragmented and diverse nature of HE the respective position
matters in terms of competitiveness, performance and success (Hutaibat et al., 2011).
The current study focusses on strategy and accounting, thus adopts the strategising
mind-set, which reflects perceptions, points of view and impressions that ultimately
influence the application of accounting and strategic management practices in general. In
this context, accounting in support of strategic management concerns itself with long-term
financial management which displays particular characteristics, such as long-term,
environmental or competitive, akin to Cadez and Guilding (2007), Hutaibat et al. (2011), Ma
and Tayles (2009) and Tillmann and Goddard (2008). Furthermore, Bourdieu’s theory of
practice leads into the investigation of power structures within the HE sector and its
institutions and their impact on accounting for strategic management and strategising. The
current study seeks to investigate the elements of the strategising mind-set in the particular
context, on the basis of Bourdieu’s theoretival concepts. Studies investigating the
strategising mind-set behind strategising and accounting are limited to Hutaibat et al. (2011)
and Broad and Goddard (2010), thus to have further insight, prior developments in
strategising and accounting will be addressed in the following section.
2.2 The accounting context – accounting for strategic management, and strategising and
accounting
Accounting in relation to strategy and strategic management has been addressed in a
number of studies over the years, and proponents have focussed on various angles and
elements. It suggests a profit incentive, and incorporates an outward-facing, competitor- Jordanian
concerning and future-planning stance (Ma and Tayles, 2009). The management accountant higher
is no longer supposed to just concern themselves with financial management in the current
year, but should extend their focus beyond that into the future, seeking to integrate financial
education
management and accounting with the organisation’s proposed strategy and strategic sector
management practices (Hopper et al., 2007; Pitcher, 2015). Recently, Roslender and Hart
(2010) suggested the concept of accounting for strategic management to express an equal
relationship between strategy, management and accounting. This is suggested to free 435
accounting from its traditional constraints, a suggestion that is adopted in this study.
Pitcher (2015) focussed on accounting for strategic management practices that were adopted
in practice, and identified that practitioners refer to these activities as “business partnering”.
The three practices that were identified as particularly relevant and applied were
competitor-focussed benchmarking future-oriented investment appraisal and customer-
centric customer profitability analyses. Complex costing, on the other hand, such as value
chain costing, were not applicable, as were complex tools, such as the Balanced Scorecard,
although financial and non-financial key performance indicators were tracked. The agreed
upon objective of such practices is the long-term creation of value and development and
sustainability of the organisational competitive advantage.
Different approaches are part of accounting for strategic management, but all adopt a
future-orientated approach with a focus on different details (Roslender, 1995; Lord, 1996).
These include a competitor focus (Bromwich, 1990; Lord, 1996; Simmonds, 1981), customer
orientation (Guilding and McManus, 2002), competitive advantage creation (Porter, 1985),
strategic long-term investment appraisal, strategic cost management (Shank, 1989, 2007), a
combination of accounting with other disciplines, like marketing (Roslender and Hart, 2003),
activity-based costing and activity-based management, and in general consideration of the
accountant’s involvement in strategic management (Langfield-Smith, 2008; Tillmann and
Goddard, 2008). Guilding et al. (2000) and Cadez and Guilding (2007) classify accounting
practices as traditional or strategic-related, on the basis of their environmental, marketing,
competitive or outward-looking, long-term orientation. Whittle and Mueller (2010) identify
the management control system as the obligatory strategic accounting tool in their case
study, in which they sought to determine how ideas are being considered strategic. Having
the “right numbers” (p. 641), generated through the management accounting system, created
a great deal of power for a particular group of employees (Whittle and Mueller, 2010), thus
allowing their ideas being viewed as strategic.
Other recent publications on accounting for strategic management have assumed a broad
stance as to what it constitutes. For instance, Roslender and Hart (2003) state that
accounting for strategic management is an approach to accounting for strategic positioning
(p. 255), and Tillmann and Goddard (2008) suggest that it should be understood as
management accounting practices in support of strategic decision-making (p. 80). Ma and
Tayles (2009) identify it to incorporate at the core a strategic focus, a future orientation and
an outward-facing focus (p. 474), and Nevries et al. (2006) determined it as management
accounting in support of the strategic process, whereby the process consists of an annual
planning cycle and involvement of top and divisional management. Carter et al. (2011) create
a strong link between strategy, power and political use of practices to convey a particular
message in a subtle manner. They believe that strategy, and its related practices, serve to
create a reality for an organisation, and that strategy and strategising are largely
determined and driven by the power structures in place (Carter et al., 2011). The authors
suggest that researching strategy in practice is useful but that researchers should go beyond
the practice and investigate on a more critical note, giving consideration to power and
JAOC politics regarding strategy. Power and politics play an important role in the current study, in
15,3 particular identifying power and strategic decision-making structures, and how accounting
relates to and supports these.
Chua (2007) addresses the practice turn in accounting in general and accounting for
strategic management in particular, in support of strategising, which reduces the focus on
particular practices and increases the adoption of a particular mind-set/stance regarding
436 strategising and accounting. Whittington (2004), who suggests that strategy is something
an organisation does, i.e. engages in strategising. Furthermore, Whittington (1996, 2006a,
2006b) suggests that there are two sides to strategy and strategising, one being the grand
plan side and the other one being the daily management activities (Hurtado, 2010). In
accounting, this is illustrated for instance by Ahrens and Chapman (2005), Hansen and
Mouritsen (2005) and Miller and O’Leary (2005). Accounting is something actually done in
practice, although few studies have been published highlighting accounting-in-practice
(Chua, 2007), which Boedker (2010) refers to as the performative approach for researching
accounting and strategy. Boedker (2010) suggests that strategy is a change-able object, as
opposed to being pre-defined and constant, depending on circumstances and who engages
with it, and that accounting does not just take a subordinate position to strategy, but rather
actively engages with strategy and is part of transforming and expanding strategy. Chua’s
(2007) reference to doing strategy in practice, i.e. strategising and accounting accordingly, is
referred to as the performative approach (Boedker, 2010). Not many studies have assumed
this research stance in accounting research, thus Chua (2007) concludes with a call for such
studies.
Some exceptions are Tillmann and Goddard (2008), Ma and Tayles (2009), Skærbæk and
Tryggestad (2010) and Jørgensen and Messner (2010), who investigate accounting for
strategic management in various organisational contexts. Tillmann and Goddard (2008)
identify sense-making as the main activity with regard to accounting for strategic
management in a large German corporation. Management accountants seek to make sense
of the past, current and future situation through relevant accounting information, to support
strategic decision-making (Tillmann and Goddard, 2008). Ma and Tayles (2009) investigated
the changing role of the management accountant in a longitudinal case study, identifying
that increasingly strategic decision-making was informed by management accountants, due
to external competitive pressures. For instance, accountants were strongly involved with the
marketing department, allowing both sides to get a better understanding of each other’s
daily activities (Ma and Tayles, 2009). Furthermore, they adopted a competitor focus and
future orientation, reflecting key notions of accounting for strategic management (Ma and
Tayles, 2009). Skærbæk and Tryggestad (2010) also assume a non-subordinate role of
management accounting to strategy but instead seek to determine what role management
accounting can adopt in relation to strategy. They find that accounting devices can play a
complex part in strategising, in enacting and formulating strategy (Skærbæk and
Tryggestad, 2010), i.e. assume a performative role. Skærbæk and Tryggestad (2010)
conclude that strategy is a temporary achievement that is constantly changing and
adapting, in which accounting devices can be actively involved. As one of the most recent
studies, Jørgensen and Messner (2010) have addressed strategising and accounting. They
investigate how accounting contributes to strategising, i.e. the determination of different
strategic objectives, during new product development projects. They also seek to answer to
Chua’s (2007) recent call for researching accounting in practice, and seek to determine to
which extent strategising is part of accounting, taken the concept beyond typical accounting
representation (Jørgensen and Messner, 2010). Their study sheds light on how accounting
can actively contribute to crafting strategy (Jørgensen and Messner, 2010), and it informs the
current study with regard to their interplay between accounting and the concept of Jordanian
strategising, which is a focal point of the current investigation. higher
Little research has been done regarding accounting for strategic management in HE
institutions. Traditionally, the HE sector is part of the Jordanian public sector. Private
education
universities exist but have to adhere to governmental policies. Several authors have sector
investigated managerial and accounting practices in HE (Angluin and Scapens, 2000; Brown
and Brignall, 2007; Covaleski and Dirsmith, 1988; Dearlove, 1998; Deem, 2004; Moll and
Hoque, 2011; Valderrama and Del Rio Sanchez, 2006) but only Agasisti et al. (2008), Broad
437
et al. (2007), Broad and Goddard (2010), Groves et al. (1997), Hutaibat et al. (2011) and Parker
(2002) address strategy and accounting in the university context. Agasisti et al. (2008)
analyse management accounting and strategy in four Italian universities, during a period of
change. They use institutional and self-referential theory, and find that each institution has
its own approach to accounting for strategic management, as the sectorial change led to an
increase in institutional autonomy, thus requiring more focus on management and
accounting. Parker (2002) addresses the changes HE has gone through, factors that are still
prominent features of HE sectors today. These include globalisation, financial pressures, the
difficulty to unite research, education and funding pressures, and all of these pressures have
altered the HE system permanently (Parker, 2002), in particular the domination of the
knowledge culture by commercial values. Deem (2004) suggests that academia has changed
and that academic workers have to manage the demands of an academic, i.e. teaching and
research, administration and performance-related expectations. Dearlove (1998) in particular
addresses the tribal nature of academia, as academics rather relate to the discipline than the
actual institution they work for. Consequently, they seek to further their discipline and their
own careers, as opposed to the institutional benefit (Dearlove, 1998).
The literature review illustrates that a variety of accounting and strategic management
elements matter and that strategic management and related accounting practices focus on
competitors, for instance through benchmarking, on future developments, for instance
through investment analysis, and on performance, in terms of profitability analyses. It also
illustrates that various studies have investigated strategy and accounting, also at HE level,
but none have focussed on Jordanian HE, and the relationship of power, strategic and
accounting practices in the Jordanian HE sector. The Jordanian HE example illustrates the
enactment of local and regional power structures in relation to more globally established
conventions of academia, and how these impact on strategic management and related
accounting practices. Furthermore, this study also sheds light on the structures of the
academic sector in a developing economy, the strategic priorities, and related accounting
practices.
5. Findings
This study investigates accounting and strategic management practices, on the basis of
Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts, in the public and private HE sector context. Importantly, the
unique features of the HE sector and of the Jordanian HE sector in particular will be
addressed. This section outlines the findings, which will be structured according to
Bourdieu’s three main featured aspects, as discussed in in the literary section: field, forms of
capital/power, and habitus reflected in the context of strategising, strategising mind-set and
accounting for strategic management.
In private institutions, students pay generally much higher fees. Accordingly, their needs are
prioritised, as opposed to delivering high quality education. ‘If the doctor enters the class with an
English book, you can be sure that all the students will leave the class afterwards and drop the
course. The Dean will call then and say: what are you doing? We want to make profits, so teach in
Arabic. We have a lot of students from Saudia {Saudi Arabia} who don’t speak English well and
this is the student body we have to cater to (academic, Jordanian institution 3).
One major issue is the shortage of adequate staff in sought-after areas, such as business
fields, engineering specialisations and rare subjects. Postgraduate study funding is the
sector’s survival programme, as institutions fund their future academic staff to study
Masters and doctoral programmes abroad, in order for them to return and work a set period
of time for each funded year:
The sector has a few problems: for one we are really under-staffed, like accounting, there are just
not enough qualified people, they are all going to the Gulf, because they pay better. Yes, the
funding helps because they have to come back and they sign a collateral agreement, so they can’t
just leave in most cases (academic manager, Jordanian Institution 1).
Thus, the long-term survival strategy is to fund future academics’ post-graduate education
and grow an active research body through allowing them to experience other HE sectors and
their policies.
One of the significant influences in Jordanian HE is the societal structures and influential
power positions that are attributed to groups and individuals within the Jordanian society.
The following section explores the capitals and power structures in more detail.
References
Agasisti, T., Arnaboldi, M. and Azzone, G. (2008), “Strategic management accounting in universities:
the Italian experience”, Higher Education, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2005), “Management control systems and the crafting of strategy: a
practice-based view”, in Chapman, C.S. (Ed.), Controlling Strategy – Management, Accounting,
and Performance Measurement, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 106-124.
Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2007), “Management accounting as practice”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-27.
Angluin, D. and Scapens, R. (2000), “Transparency, accounting knowledge and perceived fairness in Jordanian
UK universities’ resource allocation: results from a survey of accounting and finance”, British
Accounting Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-42.
higher
Aula, H.-M. and Tienari, J. (2011), “Becoming world-class? Reputation building in a university merger”,
education
Critical Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 7-29. sector
Baxter, J. and Chua, W.F. (2008a), “Be(come)ing the chief financial officer of an organisation:
experimenting with Bourdieu’s practice theory”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 212-230. 449
Baxter, J. and Chua, W.F. (2008b), “The field researcher as Author-Writer”, Qualitative Research in
Accounting and Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 101-121.
Boedker, C. (2010), “Ostensive versus performative approaches for theorising accounting-strategy
reseach”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 595-625.
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, (tr. Richard Nice), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, Stanford University Press, Stanford, (English translation of
Le Sens Pratique. Paris: Taurus, 1980).
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C. (1990), Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture, Sage, London.
Broad, M. and Goddard, A. (2010), “Internal performance management with UK higher education: an
amorphous system?”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 60-66.
Broad, M., Goddard, A. and von Alberti, L. (2007), “Performance, strategy and accounting in local
government and higher education in the UK”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 119-126.
Bromwich, M. (1990), “The case for strategic management accounting: the role of accounting
information for strategy in competitive markets”, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 15Nos Nos 1/2, pp. 27-46.
Brown, R. and Brignall, T.J.S. (2007), “Reflections on the use of a Dual-Methodology research design to
evaluate accounting and management practice in UK university Central administrative
services”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 32-48.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann,
London.
Cadez, S. and Guilding, C. (2007), “Benchmarking the incidence of strategic management accounting in
Slovenia”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 126-146.
Carter, C., Clegg, S. and Kornberger, M. (2011), “Re-framing strategy: power, politics and accounting”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 573-594.
Chapman, C.S. (Ed.) (2005), “Controlling strategy”, Controlling Strategy – Management, Accounting,
and Performance Measurement, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1-9.
Chapman, C.S. (2008), “We are not alone: qualitative management accounting research – rationale, pitfalls
and potential”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 247-252.
Chua, W.F. (2007), “Accounting, measuring, reporting and strategizing – re-using verbs: a review
essay”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 4/5, pp. 487-494.
Covaleski, M.A. and Dirsmith, M.W. (1988), “An institutional perspective on the rise, tsocial
ransformation, and fall of a university budgets category”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 562-587.
Dearlove, J. (1998), “The deadly dull issue of university administration? Good governance,
managerialism and organising academic work”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 59-79.
Deem, R. (2004), “The knowledge worker, the manager-academic and the contemporary UK university:
new and old forms of public management?”, Financial Accountability and Management, No. 2,
pp. 107-128.
JAOC Denzin, N.K. (1978), The Research Act, 2d ed., McGraw-HI, New York, NY.
15,3 Glaser, B. (1978), Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory: Theoretical Sensitivity, Sociology
Press, Mill Valley.
Glaser, B. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Sociology Press, Mill Valley.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K. (1993), “Appealing work: an investigation of how ethnographic texts
450 convince”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 595-616.
Groves, R.E.V., Pendlebury, M.W. and Stiles, D.R. (1997), “A critical appreciation of the uses for
strategic management thinking, systems and techniques in British universities”, Financial
Accountability and Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 293-312.
Guilding, C. (1999), “Competitor-focused accounting: an exploratory note”, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 583-595.
Guilding, C. and McManus, L. (2002), “The incidence, perceived merit and antecedents of customer
accounting: an exploratory note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 45-59.
Guilding, C., Cravens, K.S. and Tayles, M. (2000), “An international comparison of strategic
management accounting practices”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 11335
Gurd, B. (2008), “Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in
accounting”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-138.
Hansen, A. and Mouritsen, J. (2005), “Strategies and organizational problems: constructing corporate
value and coherence in balanced scorecard processes”, in Chapman, C.S. (Ed.), Controlling
Strategy – Management, Accounting, and Performance Measurement, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 125-150.
Hopper, T., Northcott, D. and Scapens, R. (2007), Issues in Management Accounting, 3rd ed.,
FinancialTimes/Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Hurtado, P.S. (2010), “Assessing the use of bourdieu’s key concepts in the strategy-as-practice field”,
Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal Incorporating Journal of Global
Competitiveness, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 52-61.
Hutaibat, K., von Alberti-Alhtaybat, L. and Al-Htaybat, K. (2011), “Strategic management accounting
and the strategising mindset in an English higher education institutional context”, Journal of
Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 1-51.
Jacobs, K. (2011), “Enlightenment and emancipation: reflections for critical accounting research”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 510-515.
Jordan Times (2011), “State universities to receive increased government funding”, available at: www.
jordantimes.com/?news=40010 (accessed 13 October 2011).
Jørgensen, B. and Messner, M. (2010), “Accounting and strategising: a case study from new product
development”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 184-220.
Langfield-Smith, K. (2008), “Strategic management accounting: how far have we come in 25 years?”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 204-228.
Lord, B.R. (1996), “Strategic management accounting: the emperor’s new clothes”, Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 347-366.
Lukka, K. and Granlund, M. (2002), “The fragmented communication structure with the accounting
academia: the case of activity-based costing research structures”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 165-190.
Ma, Y. and Tayles, M.E. (2009), “On the emergence of strategic management accounting; an
institutional perspective”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 473-495.
Malsch, B., Gendron, Y. and Grazzini, F. (2011), “Investigating interdisciplinary translations: the
influence of pierre bourdieu on the”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 194-228.
Miller, P.B. and O’Leary, T. (2005), “Capital budgeting, coordination, and strategy: a field study of Jordanian
interfirm and intrafirm mechanisms”, in Chapman, C.S. (Ed.), Controlling Strategy –
Management, Accounting, and Performance Measurement, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
higher
pp. 151-182. education
Moll, J. and Hoque, Z. (2011), “Budgeting for legitimacy: the case of an Australian university”, sector
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 86-101.
Nevries, P., Kornetzki, T. and Weide, G.K. (2006), “Characteristics of the strategic planning process and
the relevance of management accounting: evidence from German Dax30 companies”, AAA 2008 451
MAS Meeting Paper, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1004091
Otley, D. (2008), “Did Kaplan and Johnson get it right?”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 229-239.
Parker, L.D. (2002), “It’s been a pleasure doing business with you: a strategic analysis and critique of
university change management”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 13 Nos 5/6, pp. 603-619.
Parker, L.D. (2003), “Financial management strategy in a community welfare organisation: a welfare
perspective”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 341-374.
Parker, L.D. (2008), “Interpreting interpretive accounting research”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 909-914.
Parker, L.D., Guthrie, J. and Linacre, S. (2011), “The relationship between academic accounting research
and professional practice”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Pitcher, G.S. (2015), “Management accounting in support of the strategic management process”, CIMA
Executive Report Series, CIMA, London, Vol. 11, No. 1.
Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Roslender, R. (1995), “Accounting for strategic positioning: responding to the crisis in management
accounting”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 45-57.
Roslender, R. and Hart, S. (2003), “In search of strategic management accounting: theoretical and field
study perspectives”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 255-279.
Roslender, R. and Hart, S. (2010), “Strategic management accounting: lots in a name?”, working paper,
available at: www.sml.hw.ac.uk/documents/dp2010-aef05.pdf
Shank, J.K. (1989), “Strategic cost management: new wine, or just new bottles?”, Journal of Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 1, pp. 4765.
Shank, J.K. (2007), “Strategic cost management: upsizing, down sizing and right (?) Sizing”, in Bhimani,
A. (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Management Accounting, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Simmonds, K. (1981), “Strategic management accounting”, Management Accounting, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 26, pp. 29.
Simons, R. (1991), “Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 49-62.
Skærbæk, P. and Tryggestad, K. (2010), “The role of accounting devices in performing corporate
strategy”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 108-124.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tillmann, K. and Goddard, A. (2008), “Strategic management accounting and sense-making in a
multinational company”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 80-102.
Valderrama, T.G. and Del Rio Sanchez, R. (2006), “Development and implemenation of a university
costing model”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 251-255.
JAOC von Alberti-Alhtaybat, L. and Al-Htaybat, K. (2010), “Qualitative accounting research: an account of
Glaser’s grounded theory”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,
15,3 pp. 208-226.
Whittington, R. (1996), “Strategy as practice”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 731-735.
Whittington, R. (2004), “Strategy after modernism: recovering practice”, European Management
Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 62-68.
452 Whittington, R. (2006a), “Completing the practice turn in strategy research”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 613-634.
Whittington, R. (2006b), “Learning more from failure: practice and process”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 1903-1906.
Whittle, A. and Mueller, F. (2010), “Strategy, enrolment and accounting: the politics of strategic ideas”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 626-646.
Further reading
Chenhall, R.H. (2005), “Content and process approaches to studying strategy and management control
systems”, in Chapman, C.S. (Ed.), Controlling Strategy – Management, Accounting, and
Performance Measurement, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 10-36.
EACEA (2011), “Executive agency: education, audiovisual and culture, tempus partner country
Jordan”, available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus/participating_countries/jordan_en.php
(accessed 13 October 2011).
Hoque, Z. (2003), “Total quality management and the balanced scorecard: a critical review and
directions for future research”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 553-566.
Langfield-Smith, K. (2005), “What do we know about management control systems and strategy?”, in
Chapman, C.S. (Ed.), Controlling Strategy – Management, Accounting, and Performance
Measurement, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 62-85.
Shank, J.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1993), Strategic Cost Management – The New Tool for Competitive
Advantage, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Simons, R. (1990), “The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: new
perspectives”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 127-143.
Simons, R. (1994), “How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 169-189.
Corresponding author
Khaled Hutaibat can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]