نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه حسابداری، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران.
2 دانشیار، گروه مالی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران.
3 استادیار، گروه حسابداری، دانشکده حسابداری، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Objective
This study aimed to identify and rank the challenges, key limitations, and maturity strategies of critical accounting and the quality of social benefits using a grounded theory approach. Accounting maintains a high level of accuracy and correctness in its professional services, and its ethical decision-making is necessary to obtain a fair, efficient capital market and optimal allocation of resources (Sepehri & Pak Maram, 2015). In the last twenty years, due to the phenomenon of globalization, the ever-increasing evolution of customer needs, and technological changes, the accounting literature has become highly specialized, and sometimes different parts of it have overlapped with each other, leading to the emergence of new concepts such as critical accounting (Ferri et al., 2016). Critical theory in accounting and its development in the modern era face numerous challenges and complexities. The fact that accountants have an inherent duty to respond to the general public is an inevitable issue and is one of the main principles of impartiality (Riahi-Belkaoui, 2002). In addition, the continuation of the life of any profession and the employment of its members depend on the quality of services, trust, accreditation level, and social and moral capital, each of which is essential to maintain (Rouzbakhsh et al., 2023). The maturity of critical accounting, while evolving democratic processes and institutions, encourages them to promote justice in areas related to the economy, society, and the environment through the focused development of accounting practices and equal accountability to all users of accounting (Sepasi & Ramzani, 2020). In the institutional sense, accounting is usually seen in the exclusive financial accounts of companies or the total national accounts of the government (Perkiss et al., 2022).
Providing social benefits is the main goal of most governments and organizations, and the quality of social benefits is one of the most important dilemmas of human society (Safarzadeh Bandari & Jodaki Chegini, 2021). Accounting information may not be easily thought of as a natural tool for social movements. Critical theory in accounting can best provide an understanding of individuals, organizations, and societies, so it is important to accept a critical perspective in accounting (Baker & Bettner, 1997). Based on this view, the practice of accounting tends to support the economic, social, and political structure, as well as reduce the unequal distribution of power and wealth in society. Scholars question the critical view of the objectivity or neutrality of accounting information, arguing that accounting serves to create or legitimize certain social structures (Mohseni et al., 2018). On the other hand, one of the main goals of financial reporting is to provide useful information for decision-making by stakeholders. For this purpose, it is very important to provide appropriate financial information and solve problems related to the relationship between costs and social benefits (Vafaeipour et al., 2021). Determining the factors affecting the maturity of critical theory in accounting and the quality of social benefits, considering the business environment of companies and their relations with the government and society, is very necessary and important to achieve an effective accounting system for the consolidation of power and wealth in society. Based on this, the current research was conducted to identify and rank the challenges, key limitations, and maturity strategies of critical accounting and the quality of social benefits.
Methods
The grounded theory method was used to provide a model in line with the maturity of critical theory in accounting and the quality of social benefits through interviews with experts, which included 33 participants. Causal conditions and background conditions were presented after evaluation and screening with the fuzzy Delphi method. The present research was conducted in 2023–2024 (corresponding to 1402–1403 in the Iranian calendar). The statistical population of this research comprised experts and specialists who had sufficient expertise and experience in the field related to this research. In this study, the purposeful sampling method was used to select the study subjects. Then, in-depth interviews were conducted in a semi-structured format. The sampling of experts in this study continued until the discovery and analysis process reached the point of theoretical saturation. The data collection tool in this study was an open-ended questionnaire in the form of a semi-structured interview with experts. To extract interview items, three coding processes—including open coding, axial coding, and selective coding—were used, following the paradigm model of Strauss and Corbin (1998). In the quantitative stage, triangular fuzzy numbers were used to fuzzify the experts' points of view. The survey of experts was based on the fuzzy Delphi method and employed a seven-point Likert scale to validate and screen the dimensions and indicators identified in the qualitative stage. In addition, through the grounded theory method, the data were analyzed to screen and obtain assurance of the importance of the identified indicators, and the fuzzy Delphi method was used to select the final indicators.
Results
Based on this, according to the analyses and coding of the conducted interviews, two categories, five main components, and forty conceptual codes were obtained from the analysis process of the interviews in the open coding stage. Then, the central codes were ranked using factor analysis. The results of this study showed that among the categories related to key challenges and limitations, the components related to higher education issues, with a factor loading of 0.896, and accounting system challenges, with a factor loading of 0.892, are in the first and second places in terms of importance, respectively. Also, among the categories related to research strategies, the results showed that the factor loading of the components related to knowledge enhancement (0.874), legal reforms (0.857), and reform of the accounting system (0.641) ranked first to third in order of importance. These indicators, in estimating the validity of the model presented in the research, had acceptable validity, and the results of other researchers were consistent concerning critical thinking. As Khajavi and Neamatollahi (2020) used the critical approach and its role in accounting to discover the underlying structures and layers of social inequality, and reported that accounting and auditing standards should be reviewed. Ghasemi and Raeeszadeh (2020), with a critical view in accounting, stated that accounting transparency promotes social progress and prosperity. Samimi (2023), with an emphasis on critical theory and using the grounded theory method, examined the effective and underlying factors of monopoly in auditing and the negative characteristics of auditors, including cultural, environmental, and social factors, structural and technical weaknesses, political governance, and legal inhibiting factors, and addressed issues of supervision. Mohseni et al. (2018) stated that critical accounting refers to an approach in accounting that raises a question beyond the use of a specific method in accounting. In general, each of the conducted studies separately examined the issues of critical theory in accounting and the quality of social benefits and identified and presented various variables in this connection.
Conclusion
Based on the obtained results, it is suggested to focus on identifying the current and future needs and goals of social stakeholders concerning reforming the accounting system in scientific and knowledge-raising affairs, improving the transparency and quality of financial reporting, and reforming accounting standards and certain legal provisions to ensure conformity with international accounting standards. These reforms should be implemented, and the necessary groundwork for the institutionalization of social benefits should be provided. Also, providing accounting standards under critical theory to improve the quality of social benefits in this field can be effective. At the same time, it is suggested that in providing accounting standards, in addition to a critical view of social benefits, the benefits of the accounting system, as well as the benefits of information that are practical and useful for addressing social issues, should be considered. Furthermore, the development of accounting standards that address the needs of critical stakeholders should be prioritized, and special attention should be paid to this matter.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)