Project Topics
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This chapter addresses the research design used in this study. Contemporary Management Accounting research often requires that researchers make an inquiry in order to understand and evaluate participants’ perception of their experiences of the phenomenon being investigated, by providing participants with the opportunity to tell their story. The in-depth interview and case study methods were chosen for this study and were supported by direct observation from the researcher. This chapter provides justification for the choice of these methods.
Goal of this chapter
The goal of the chapter is to discuss the research methods that were employed in this study. The two main research methods used were particularly described and discussed.
Layout of the chapter
The previous chapter provided discussions on MFCA. This chapter sets out to outline the research methodology used for this study as provided in a visual representation in Figure 4.1. It begins with the research paradigm in Section 4.2, research design in Section 4.3, and justifying the adoption of qualitative research in Section 4.4. It explains the use of the case study, and in-depth interview approaches as the research strategy in Section 4.5. The use of in-depth interviews as the main data collection method is discussed in Section 4.7. It provides a discussion on the research design hierarchy in Section 4.8 by introducing the research objectives in Section 4.6, research questions in Section 4.9, and addressing the in-depth interview questions and use of direct observation for the study in Section 4.10. The research method is discussed in Section 4.11 while explanations are provided for sampling in Section 4.12, data collection in Section 4.13 and transcribing data in Section 4.14. An explanation on how the research was conducted and data were analysed are discussed in Section 4.15. Section 4.16 presents the justification for using only two cases and the research limitations are presented in Section 4.17. The validity and reliability checks for the study are discussed in Section 4.18. The chapter concludes with a summary in Section 4.19.
THE RESEARCH PARADIGM
Rossman and Rallis (2003:37) define paradigm “as shared understandings of reality”. In addition, Weaver and Olson (2006:460) reveal how research could be affected and guided by a certain paradigm by stating that “paradigms are patterns of beliefs and practices that regulate inquiry within a discipline by providing lenses, frames and processes through which investigation is accomplished”. To clarify the researcher’s structure of inquiry and methodological choices, an explanation of the paradigm adopted for this study is discussed in the next sections.
THE RESEARCH DESIGN
Maykut and Morehouse (1994:64) state that the design of a research study includes the overall approach to be taken and detailed information about how the study will be carried out, with whom and where. The study adopted a qualitative research method. Denzin and Lincoln (1994:1) define qualitative research as a multi-method in focus, involving and interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This study adopted the emergent research approach. Maykut and Morehouse (1994:174) indicate that an emergent research design means that data collection and analysis are simultaneous and on-going activities that allow for important understandings to be discovered along the way and then pursued in additional data collection efforts.
The focus of inquiry in this study is to understand and evaluate how brewery managers have been using information provided by the conventional MASs for brewery process waste-reduction decisions. This qualitative approach to inquiry uses a case study approach, whereby participants and the brewery settings were explored in depth and described in detail in the study. It is believed that the case study approach will help to evaluate and understand how the conventional accounting systems have assisted brewery managers in process waste-reduction decisions. The following sections provide justification for adopting a qualitative research method; discussed some case studies relevant to the studies albeit not within the South Africa context since research output related to MFCA was found scarce during the literature survey that was conducted; provide a comprehensive discussion on the research strategy – case study as well as justification for the adoption of the case study research method in this study; a discussion of the main data collection method – in-depth interview approach was provided; a description of the research objectives is represented along with the research questions.
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Some countries such as Japan, Austria and Germany have been practising the use of MFCA as a support tool for process waste-reduction decisions for over a decade (Jasch 2003; Nakajima 2003). A review of literature reveals that the South African brewery industry in particular, fails to be the focus of any MFCA-related research and case studies. Furthermore, research on the use of MFCA as a framework to support process waste-reduction decisions is scarce in South Africa (see Table 4.1). Due to the low level of research in this area, little may be known about the circumstances in which MFCA should be applied.
Churchill and Iacobucci (2009:61) emphasise that the strengths of using an exploratory research approach is that it is appropriate for any problem about which little is known and a foundation for a good study. Merriam (2009:5) agrees that qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences. Hence, a qualitative research is appropriate for this study using the exploratory method to evaluate and understand participants’ experiences about their process waste-reduction efforts and the potential benefits from adopting MFCA.
In this regard, the study adopted a qualitative research method using an exploratory approach that assists to address the research problem from reality. A typical exploratory research is less structured with the objective to develop an understanding of some phenomenon, relationships, clarify concepts, and provide new insights (Zikmund & Babin 2009:93). To conduct this qualitative exploratory research, a case study approach is adopted and it uses in-depth interviews as the main data collection method to test the applicability of the MFCA framework at Hope Brewery.
Some case studies of MFCA and EMA on breweries around the world
In a study that utilises the case study approach, the MFCA framework was adapted in a large Austrian brewery; Jasch (2009) notes that conventional accounting systems have provided insufficient waste cost information to managers to make informed waste-reduction decisions. Jasch (2009) analysed data from Brewery Murau using the MFCA framework that provides highlights to areas within the brewery that requires improvements. In the study, the brewery saved the sum of $186 000 in 2006 after adopting MFCA in its waste-reduction drive. In another study, Schaltegger et al. (2012) did a case study whereby they focused on the use of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) tool for generating information to improve cleaner production decisions on a medium-sized brewery in Vietnam. They found that a specific measurement is required to establish and determine the magnitude of environmental costs beyond compliance, for cost savings and improved decision-making. Both these studies are significantly different from the current study which focuses on a micro-brewery and a large brewery (SAB Ltd) in South Africa in terms of size, annual turnover, production volumes and location. The Austrian brewery is a large-sized brewery and the Vietnam brewery, a medium-sized brewery. However, the current study is meant to demonstrate the adoption of the MFCA approach in both small and large-sized organisations.
THE RESEARCH STRATEGY – A CASE STUDY
Hopper and Powell (1985) believe that Management Accounting and control research can be executed through three theoretical perspectives: positivist, interpretative or critical. The positivist research perspective objectively addresses society, takes individual behaviour as deterministic, and resorts to positivist methodology to deploy research (Hopper & Powell 1985; Ryan, Scapens, & Theobold 2002). When using the interpretative research methodology, the researcher assumes that social practice, including Management Accounting and control are social phenomenon, and not a natural phenomenon (Ryan et al. 2002). Researchers using the interpretative methodology usually develop their research based on social theories such as the institutional theory (Wickramasinghe & Alawattage 2007). Otley and Berry (1994) argue that the researcher use these theories to explain Management Accounting practice and also to explain and modify existing theory. Wickramasinghe and Alawattage (2007) posit that the critical persperctive emerges due to the limitations of both the positivist and interpretative perspectives. The proponents of the critical perspective considers the relationship between the organisation and the social-economic context (Baker & Bettner 1997).
According to Ryan et al. (2002), Management Accounting research is based on ontological assumptions that social practices can be changed by current participants and reality which results from a process of social construction. As a consequence of these ontological assumptions, Ryan et al. (2002) argue that these researchers believe that knowledge of reality is obtained through its interpretation, that is, episemological perspective. These researchers favoured the use of the qualitative and interpretative research methodlogy since qualitative research is based on direct data collection in the field through interviews or observation (Ahrens & Chapman 2006), by direct and sometimes long contact with the study reality (Miles & Huberman 1994), or by detailed description of events, situations and interactions among people and objects (Patton 1987). Ahrens and Chapman (2006) state that the distinguishing factor in a qualitative research is the unique approach to understand and study reality. In addition, the researcher that uses the qualitative methodology need to understand social reality as an emerging methodology, one that is built on subjectivity, and objectified through human interaction (Chua 1986). As such, Ryan et al. (2002) suggest that the researcher must have a holistic vision that includes an integrated, systemic, and global context of where the research will be conducted. The implication of this for a qualitative researcher is the ability to make judgement on the collected data and relating this to theory to answer research questions and to develop new research questions as well (Ahrens & Chapman 2006).
In contrast, Chua (1986); Ryan et al. (2002); and Ahrens and Chapman (2006) observe that the positivist research methodology addresses reality as objective and as something that is independent from the researcher (Berry & Otley 2004). Hence, from an epistomological approach, positivists research perspectives assumes that knowledge results from observation and generalisation of observed phenomena (Ryan et al. 2002). This is the reason a significant set of positivist studies resort to quantitative approaches that relate both dependent and independent variables to test predefined hypothesis (Ahrens & Chapman 2006), and mostly based on a hypothetical-deductive process to explain perceived casual relationships (Chua 1986; Ryan et al. 2002; Scapens 2004). On the contrary, Mason (2002) argues that the qualitative research method usually defines research questions to be explored and developed during the research process; since a significant feature of this approach is that it provides contribution to the theorisation process (Ryan et al. 2002; Berry & Otley 2004; Ahrens & Chapman 2006; Vaivio 2008). As such, the interpretative resarch approach does not seek generalisation, it is based on the explicitly or implicitly rule to structure and shape social behaviour (Ryan et al. 2002; Scapens 2004).
Since the interpretative research perspective seeks to structure and shape social behaviour, it allows the research to interpret Management Accounting and control studies as a social practice based on an inductive research process rather than an hypothetical-deductive research process (Ryan et al. 2002; Scapens 2004). The interpretative research perspective is based on the assumption that theory is used to explain the actions of study participants and to understand how social organisation is created and replicated (Chua 1986; Ryan et al. 2002). Within the Management Accounting research context, the main objective of the interpretative research perspective is to build a theory, criticise existing theories, or understand the processes and practices of Management Accounting (Ryan et al. 2002; Wickramasinghe & Alawattage 2007; Vaivio 2008).
Therefore, Vaivio (2008) explains that in choosing the qualitative research methodlogy, the researcher need to be aware of additional complications that may include:
- Identification of the relevant theory;
- Formulation of the research questions;
- Access to the field work, to relevant people and documents;
- Processing of large amounts of data;
- Conflict resolution among several interpretations;
- Identification of theoretical direction; and
- Formulation of credible reasoning.
In addition, Patton and Appelbaum (2003) point that the main criticism to the choice of a qualitative research is the lack of objectivity as compared to the quantitative research methodology.
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY
Yin (2003) contends that the type of research questions raised in the study defines the research method; this in turn, defines the specific research techniques to be adopted (Silverman 2013). Yin (2003:13) defines a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.” The justification for the case study research method is based on three conditions:
- The research questions are of the how and why type;
- The phenomenon being analysed is contemporary; and
- The researcher assumes the visitor role by not holding any control over the phenomenon under study nor over the behaviour of the main participants (Yin 2003; Blaikie 2007).
Berry and Otley (2004) and Berry, Coad, Harris, Otley and Stringer (2009) present the case study research method has a good research method in Management Accounting research since it provides a better understanding and content theorisation of processes and the context in which Management Accounting practice takes place. However, Scapens (2004) argues that depending on the research objectives, the case studies research method in Management Accounting may take several forms without being able to clearly identify the boundaries between each of them. Scapens (2004) notes that it is the intention of the researcher that determines the classification of case studies as used in accounting research as exploratory, explanatory, experimental, illustrative or descriptive. An exploratory case study research represents a preliminary investigation intending to generate ideas or hypothesis for rigorous empirical testing at a later stage. Explanatory case study research focuses on the specific case and uses theory to explain and understand the specifics rather than provide generalisation.
It is convenient in an exploratory research to use case studies as a research technique because of its qualitative in approach (Chetty 1996:73). Although, a case study is appropriate in exploratory research, it can be used in other research types. Yin (1981:97) explains that case studies can be used for exploratory purposes and the approach also may be used for either descriptive or explanatory purposes as well, that is, to describe a situation for example, a case history, or to test explanations for why specific events have occurred. In the explanatory function, the case study can therefore be used to make causal inferences.
While reviewing the case study research approach, Scapens (2004: 258) reiterates that case study research remain a controversial subject which raises both methodological and practical questions especially of its use in accounting research. He contends that most often, case studies are sometimes thought as an easier alternative when compared to quantitative accounting research that requires mathematical expertise and statistical knowledge. Scapens (2004) agrees with the submission of Yin (1984: 26) that: “Case study research is remarkably hard, even though case studies have traditionally been considered to be ‘soft’ research. Paradoxically, the ‘softer’ a research technique, the harder it is to do.” The case study research approach has often been criticised as a proper scientific method of inquiry (Dubois and Gadde 2002). The main argument against it is that it provides little basis for generalisation (Yin 1994) since a case study approach is too situation-specific. In contrast, Otley and Berry (1994) state that the case study method can be useful in a wide variety of contexts, however greater clarity is needed in the way such work is written-up so that maximum benefit is gained. They argue that it is incumbent upon researchers using case-based methods to be clear about their initial theoretical positions, and to interpret their results in a way which indicates the theoretical modification which the empirical observations have triggered.
DECLARATION
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1. INTRODUCTION
1.2. BACKGROUND
1.3. THE BREWERY INDUSTRY
1.4. PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.6. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.7. SCOPE AND DELINEATION
1.8. IMPORTANCE OF THE RESEARCH
1.9. RESEARCH METHOD
1.10. ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS
1.11. DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.12. LAYOUT OF THE THESIS CHAPTERS
1.13. SUMMARY
CHAPTER TWO MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
2.1. INTRODUCTION
2.2. A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
2.3. MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
2.4. WASTE MANAGEMENT
2.5. MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE BREWERY INDUSTRY
2.6. THE CHALLENGE OF ACCOUNTING FOR WASTE
2.7. MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
2.8. ENVIRONMENTAL COST APPROACHES UNDER EMA
2.9. SUMMARY
CHAPTER THREE. MATERIAL FLOW COST ACCOUNTING
3.1. INTRODUCTION
3.2. DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIAL FLOW COST ACCOUNTING.
3.3. TYPES OF COST INFORMATION IN MFCA
3.4. MFCA ADOPTION
3.5. MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS APPROACHES
3.6. THE TRUE COST OF WASTE
3.7. BENEFITS OF MFCA
3.8. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MFCA AND CONVENTIONAL MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS
3.9. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS IN THE LITERATURE
3.10. STEPS FOR INTRODUCING AND UTILISING MFCA
3.11. THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF MFCA FOR THE ORGANISATION AND ITS EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
3.12. THE INTEGRATION OF MFCA AND ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING
3.13. SUMMARY
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1. INTRODUCTION
4.2. THE RESEARCH PARADIGM
4.3. THE RESEARCH DESIGN
4.4. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
4.5. THE RESEARCH STRATEGY – A CASE STUDY
4.6. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY
4.7. MAIN DATA COLLECTION METHOD – IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
4.8. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
4.9. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
4.10. COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE: IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW AND OBSERVATION
4.11. RESEARCH METHOD
4.12. SAMPLING
4.13. DATA COLLECTION
4.14. TRANSCRIBING THE DATA
4.15. DATA ANALYSIS
4.16. JUSTIFICATION FOR USING THE TWO CASES
4.17. RESEARCH LIMITATION
4.18. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS
4.19. SUMMARY.
CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS – THE CASE OF HOPE BREWERY
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND OF HOPE BREWERY
5.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT AT HOPE BREWERY
5.4 FINDINGS AT HOPE BREWERY
5.5 PILOT STUDY OF MFCA AT HOPE BREWERY
5.6 SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED
5.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER SIX .FINDINGS –SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES LIMITED
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 BACKGROUND – SAB LTD
6.3 SAB LTD.’S SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH .
6.4 BARRIERS TO IMPROVE BREWERY PROCESS WASTE-REDUCTION DECISIONS
6.5 DRIVERS TO IMPROVE BREWERY PROCESS WASTE-REDUCTION DECISIONS IN SAB LTD
6.6 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF WASTE-REDUCTION TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERY INDUSTRY
6.7 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ON REACHING THE FIRST OBJECTIVE
6.8 FINDINGS FOR THE SECOND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
6.9 SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED
6.10 SUMMARY
CHAPTER SEVEN. AN ADJUSTED MFCA FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR THE BREWERY INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AFRICA.
7.1 INTRODUCTION.
7.2 THE MFCA APPROACH
7.3 A CRITIQUE OF MFCA
7.4 DEVELOPING AN ADJUSTED MFCA FRAMEWORK FOR THE BREWERY INDUSTRY
7.5 PURPOSE OF THE ADJUSTED MFCA FRAMEWORK FOR THE BREWERY INDUSTRY.
7.6 REASONS FOR ADJUSTING EXISTING MFCA FRAMEWORK FOR THE BREWERY INDUSTRY.
7.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER EIGHT SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 THE MOTIVATION
8.3 THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
8.4 RESEARCH METHODS
8.5 FINDINGS
8.6 LESSONS LEARNED
8.7 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
8.8 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION
8.9 THE RESEARCH JOURNEY
8.10 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE STUDY
8.11 CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
AN ADJUSTED MATERIAL FLOW COST ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORK FOR PROCESS WASTE-REDUCTION DECISIONS IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERY INDUSTRY
