Abstract This paper identifies criteria for evaluating empirical research in management accounting. Using those criteria, the inherent strengths and weaknesses of field, laboratory and survey research methods are analyzed, and the potential for each method to contribute to the development of theories and policies regarding management accounting is compared. We conclude that since no research method dominates the others on all criteria, multiple research methods should be used to investigate management accounting phenomena. We advocate two variations of the multiple method approach. The first is to use more than one method to conduct a particular study. This allows researchers to assess the level of method variance in the results. The second occurs when individual researchers, each using different methods, perform a coordinated series of studies on a particular topic. Such collaboration can lead to more effective and efficient contributions to the literature. The history of empirical research on budget setting is presented to illustrate how the use of multiple methods has contributed to an increased understanding of this topic.
Birnberg et al. (Sat,) studied this question.