OK, time to start reading the article in an appropriate way. Stage 1. Look at the title. This often gives key information to indicate what the article discusses.
As the title puts the word 'theoretical' before the word 'empirical', it seems safe to assume that this indicates the ordering of material in the article. So we can produce, in our mind or drawn on paper (or computer), a model or diagram of how the article is constructed: |
theoretical discussion
|
followed by
presentation and discussion of empirical findings
|
Of course, an article needs to have an introduction and a conclusion. That's standard writing practice. In addition, academic articles normally have an abstract (short summary) at the beginning and a listing of the literature cited in the text (called 'bibliography', or 'references'). Together with the title and author's details, we have what we might call the 'skeleton' of the article: |
Title
|
Author details
|
Abstract
|
Introduction
|
Theoretical discussion
|
Presentation and discussion of empirical findings
|
Conclusion
|
Bibliography
|
So far, we have just read the title. But we can now identify the above elements in the article. Do so now with your own copy, which you should have downloaded and printed. (NB do not make marks on any texts you are reading that you do not own. I recommend you mark photocopies you have made of articles from journals, but do not make mark on the originals.) Stage 2: Read the Abstract Look at the first three words of that second sentence: Notice that we have two parts to the sentence: more...than.
Where you see a two-part sentence such as this, it is often useful
to reverse the order and make appropriate changes to keep the meaning.
So we know that the article will be presenting some discussion of conventional managerial accounting theory and argue that it is too simple to explain how control in organizations is actually carried out. Now read the next sentence: "It also argues that budgeting and even an accounting system cannot be viewed as a control system per se; rather, they must be seen as a part of a carefully designed total system of organizational control." OK, we get the 'it argues that ...' bit again, with just the word
'also' added in. So what does the article argue? So that's one part. Well if they can't be viewed [seen, regarded, treated]
in that way, then how should we view them?: The central pair, 'total system', is the central element. A total
system, ie not merely a set of parts. OK, so far we've just read the title and three sentences of the abstract.
But we already have a good idea of the likely structure of the article,
the main parts being a theoretical discussion, which is followed by presentation
and discussion of empirical studies. Also, we know the main argument: |
" conventional managerial accounting theory
has too simple a view of the way that control is carried out in organizations"
|
" budgeting and accounting systems cannot be
regarded as a control system in itself"
|
" they should be viewed as just part of a total system of organisational control that must be carefully designed" |
Let's read on. |