Pesquisa Empírica Quantitativa em Contabilidade Gerencial: Uma Proposta de Tipologia e Implicações para Validade Interna versus Externa

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v16i3.3155

Palavras-chave:

Métodos empíricos quantitativos, Contabilidade gerencial, Grupo de controle, Representatividade da amostra, Tipos de validade

Resumo

Objetivo: São dois os objetivos deste estudo. Primeiramente, propomos uma tipologia de pesquisa empírica quantitativa em contabilidade gerencial baseada em duas características do desenho de pesquisa: grupo de controle e representatividade da amostra. Em segundo lugar, discutimos as implicações de cada método considerando as vantagens e desvantagens (trade offs) entre a validade interna e validade externa. Método: Com base em estudos metodológicos anteriores, desenvolvemos uma tipologia com oito métodos empíricos quantitativos.

Resultados: Propomos oito métodos empíricos quantitativos para estudos em contabilidade gerencial baseados em duas características do desenho de pesquisa: (1) experimento de laboratório, (2) experimento crowdsourcing, (3) experimento de campo, (4) experimento natural, (5) pesquisa de entidade única, (6) pesquisa documental exclusiva (proprietary archival study), (7) levantamento em larga escala e (8) pesquisa documental pré-estruturada (pre-structured archival study). Além disso, comparamos de forma crítica as vantagens e desvantagens e discutimos as implicações desses métodos para a validade interna e validade externa. Contribuições: Esse estudo apresenta duas contribuições. Primeiramente, a tipologia proposta pode ajudar o pesquisador júnior da área de contabilidade gerencial a se familiarizar com os métodos empíricos disponíveis, alguns dos quais ainda incipientes no Brasil. Em segundo lugar, se estudo mostra que a escolha de um método empírico normalmente implica benefícios para um tipo de validade (por ex.: validade interna) em detrimento de outro tipo de validade (por ex.: validade externa). Alegações de causalidade e a generalização dos resultados dependem de qual tipo de validade é priorizado e dos métodos usados para aumentar a validade geral dos resultados de um estudo.

Biografia do Autor

Andson Braga de Aguiar, Doutor

Doutorado em Contabilidade

Daniel Magalhães Mucci, Universidade de São Paulo

Professor do Departamento de Contabilidade e Atuária, Faculdade de Economia, Administração, Contabilidade e Atuária, Universidade de São Paulo.

Doutor em Controladoria e Contabilidade pela Universidade de São Paulo e Ph.D. em Economia Aplicada pela Universidade da Antuérpia (duplo diploma).

Mestre em Controladoria e Contabilidade pela Universidade de São Paulo

Myrna Modolon Lima, Universidade de São Paulo

Doutoranda em Contabilidade na Goizeta Business School, Emory University.

Doutora em Controladoria e Contabilidade da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo - FEA/USP, com estágio doutoral na University of Amsterdam - UvA .

Mestra em Contabilidade na Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - UFSC.

Referências

Aguiar, A. B. (2017). Pesquisa Experimental Em Contabilidade: Propósito, Desenho E Execução. Advances in Scientific and Applied Accounting, 10(2), 224–244. https://doi.org/10.14392/asaa.2017100206

Aguiar, A. B. (2018). O pequeno mundo da pesquisa em contabilidade gerencial no Brasil: discussão sobre desenhos alternativos de pesquisa. Revista de Contabilidade e Organizações, 12, e151933. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2018.151933

Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952

Aguinis, H., & Ramani, R. S. (2021). MTurk Research : Review and Recommendations. Journal of Management, 47(4), 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320969787

Asay, H. S., Guggenmos, R. D., Kadous, K., Koonce, L., & Libby, R. (2021). Theory Testing and Process Evidence in Accounting Experiments. The Accounting Review.

Bedford, D. S., Spekle, R. F., & Widener, S. K. (2022). Accounting , Organizations and Society Budgeting and employee stress in times of crisis : Evidence from the Covid-19 pandemic. Accounting, Organizations and Society, (xxxx). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2022.101346

Bentley, J. W. (2021). Improving the Statistical Power and Reliability of Research Using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Accounting Horizons, 35(4), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.2308/HORIZONS-18-052

Bloomfield, R., Nelson, M. W., & Soltes, E. (2016). Gathering Data for Archival, Field, Survey, and Experimental Accounting Research. Journal of Accountig Research, 54(2), 341–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12104

Bol, J. C., Braga de Aguiar, A., & Lill, J. B. (2020). Peer-Level Calibration of Performance Evaluation Ratings : Are There Winners or Losers ?

Brüggen, A., Grabner, I., & Sedatole, K. L. (2021). The Folly of Forecasting: The Effects of a Disaggregated Demand Forecasting System on Forecast Error, Forecast Positive Bias, and Inventory Levels. The Accounting Review, 96(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2018-0559

Carpenter, J. P., Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2005), Field experiments in economics: An introduction. In: Harrison, G. W., Carpenter, J., & List, J. A. (Eds.) Field Experiments in Economics (Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 10), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-2306(04)10001-X

Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020). An MTurk Crisis ? Shifts in Data Quality and the Impact on Study Results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149

Cronin, M., Erkens, D. H., Schloetzer, J. D., & Tinsley, C. H. (2021). How controlling failure perceptions affects performance: Evidence from a field experiment. Accounting Review, 96(2), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2018-0146

Das, R., Jain, K. K., & Mishra, S. K. (2016). Archival Research: A Neglected Method in Organization Studies. Benchmarking: An International Journal. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2016-0123

Dyckman, T. R., & Zeff, S. A. (2014). Some methodological deficiencies in empirical research articles in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 28(3), 695-712. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50818

Flammer, C., & Kacperczyk, A. (2016). The impact of stakeholder orientation on innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment. Management Science, 62(7), 1982–2001. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2229

Floyd, E., & List, J. A. (2016). Using Field Experiments in Accounting and Finance. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(2), 437–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12113

Forker, E., Grabner, I., & Sedatole, K. (2020). Does learning by disaggregating accelerate learning by doing? The effect of forecast disaggregation on the rate of improvement in demand forecast accuracy.

Frezatti, F., Aguiar, A. B., Wanderley, C. A., & Malagueño, R. (2015). A pesquisa em contabilidade gerencial no Brasil: desenvolvimento, dificuldades e oportunidades. Revista Universo Contábil, 11(1), 47-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.4270/ruc.2015147-68

Gassen, J. (2014). Causal inference in empirical archival financial accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(7), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.10.004

Haesebrouck, K. (2021). The Effects of Information Acquisition Effort, Psychological Ownership, and Reporting Context on Opportunistic Managerial Reporting*. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(4), 3085–3112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12712

Harrison, G. W. (2005), Field experiments and control. In: Harrison, G. W., Carpenter, J., & List, J. A. (Eds.) Field Experiments in Economics (Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 10), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 17-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-2306(04)10002-1

Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.

Hesford, J. W., Lee, S. H., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, S. M. (2006). Management Accounting: A Bibliographic Study. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 1, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(06)01001-7

Hiebl, M. R. W., & Richter, J. F. (2018). Response Rates in Management Accounting Survey Research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(2), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-52073

Ikäheimo, S., Kallunki, J.-P., University, S. M., & Schiehll, E. (2018). Do White-Collar Employee Incentives Improve Firm. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(3), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51902

Kinney, W. R. (2019). The Kinney Three Paragraphs (and More) for Accounting Ph.D. Students. Accounting Horizons, 33(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-52451

Laviers, L., Sandvik, J., & Xu, D. (2021). CEO Pay Ratio Voluntary Disclosures and Investor Reactions.

Lonati, S., Quiroga, B. F., Zehnder, C., & Antonakis, J. (2018). On doing relevant and rigorous experiments: Review and recommendations. Journal of Operations Management, 64(April), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.10.003

Lourenço, S. M. (2019). Field Experiments in Managerial Accounting Research. Foundations and Trends® in Accounting, 14(1), 1–72. https://doi.org/10.1561/1400000059

Luft, J., & Shields, M. (2002). Zimmerman’s Contentious Conjectures: Describing the Present and Prescribing the Future of Empirical Management Accounting Research. European Accounting Review, 11(4), 795–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818022000047091

Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2014). Subjectivity in developing and validating causal explanations in positivist accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(7), 550-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.09.001

Mcvay, S. E. (2011). Discussion of Do Control Effectiveness Disclosures Require SOX 404(b) Internal Control Audits? A Natural Experiment with Small U.S. Public Companies. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(2), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00403.x

Moers, F. (2006). Doing Archival Research in Management Accounting. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 1, 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(06)01016-9

Mortensen, T., Fisher, R., & Wines, G. (2012). Students as surrogates for practicing accountants: Further evidence. Accounting Forum, 36(4), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.06.003

Mucci, D. M., Frezatti, F., & Bido, D. de S. (2021). Enabling design characteristics and budget usefulness. RAUSP Management Journal, 56, 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-04-2019-0058

Murphy, P. R., Wynes, M., Hahn, T.-A., & Devine, P. G. (2019). Why are People Honest? Internal and External Motivations to Report Honestly. Contemporary Accounting Research, 53(9), 1689–1699. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Nascimento, A. R., Junqueira, E., & Martins, G. A. (2010). Pesquisa Acadêmica em Contabilidade Gerencial no Brasil: Análise e Reflexões sobre Teorias, Metododologias e Paradigmas. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 14(6), 1113–1133.

Oehlert, G. W. (2003). A First Course in Design and Analysis of Experiments. In The American Statistician (Vol. 57). https://doi.org/10.1198/tas.2003.s210

Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk : Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006

Roe, B. E., & Just, D. R. (2009). Internal and external validity in economics research: Tradeoffs between experiments, field experiments, natural experiments, and field data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5), 1266-1271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.l467-8276.2009.01295.

Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students. In Pearson (8th ed., Vol. 3). https://doi.org/10.1108/qmr.2000.3.4.215.2

Shadish, W. R. ., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. In Houghton Mifflin Company. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.01.006

Smith, M. (2022). Research Methods in Accounting (6th ed.). SAGE.

Spekle, R. F., & Widener, S. K. (2018). Challenging Issues in Survey Research: Discussion and Suggestions. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(2), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51860

Sprinkle, G. B., & Williamson, M. G. (2006). Experimental research in managerial accounting. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 1, 415-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(06)01017-0

Swieringa, R. J., & Weick, K. E. (1982). An Assessment of Laboratory Experiments in Accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 20, 56–101.

Trochim, W. M., Donnelly, J. P., & Arora, K. (2016). Research Methods - The essential knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.

Trottier, K., & Gordon, I. M. (2018). Students as surrogates for managers: Evidence from a replicated experiment. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 35(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1377

Van der Stede, W. A., Young, S. M., & Chen, C. X. (2006). Doing Management Accounting Survey Research. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 1, 445–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(06)01018-2

Van der Stede, W. A. (2014). A manipulationist view of causality in cross-sectional survey research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(7), 567-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.12.001

Wouters, M., & Wilderom, C. (2008). Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics department. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 488–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.002

Publicado

14-10-2022

Como Citar

Aguiar, Doutor, A. B. de, Magalhães Mucci, D., & Modolon Lima, M. (2022). Pesquisa Empírica Quantitativa em Contabilidade Gerencial: Uma Proposta de Tipologia e Implicações para Validade Interna versus Externa. Revista De Educação E Pesquisa Em Contabilidade (REPeC), 16(3). https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v16i3.3155

Edição

Seção

Artigos