Accountability, Representation and Control

School of Business Semester 2 – 2022/2023
Accountability, Representation and Control – MN7262
1
Module’s Assessment Question
Prepare an essay to discuss the following questions:
1. Various studies have pointed out to the inherent incompleteness and ambiguity of
accounting representations (Busco and Quattronne, 2018; Jordan and Messner 2012,
Quattronne and Hopper, 2005). In light of these arguments, explain why accounting
representations may fail to develop a neutral representation of reality?
(25 marks)
2. Implementing the concept of “Accountability” in organisations has always been seen as
theoretically simple and uncontested. Yet, most organisations still struggle with identifying
accountable parties. Provide a discussion of different obstacles faced by organisations in
their attempt to practically implement the concept of accountability.
(25 marks)
3. What do we mean by “Scientific Management”, and how has it affected the development
of management control systems from 1970s till now?
(25 marks)
4. According to Otley (2016); “A major deficiency of much prior work has been the lack of
attention paid to the conceptualization of the overall Management Control System MCS”
(p. 55). Explain how can future research and practice contribute to the development of a
better conceptualization of organizations’ management control systems?
(25 marks)
References
Busco, C. and Quattrone, P., 2018. Performing business and social innovation through accounting
inscriptions: An introduction. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 67, pp.15-19.
Jordan, S. and Messner, M., 2012. Enabling control and the problem of incomplete performance
indicators. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), pp.544-564.
Otley, D. (2016), “The contingency theory of management accounting and control: 1980–2014”,
Management Accounting Research, 31, pp. 45-62
Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T., 2005. A ‘time–space odyssey’: management control systems in two
multinational organisations. Accounting, organizations and society, 30(7-8), pp.735-764.
School of Business Semester 2 – 2022/2023
Accountability, Representation and Control – MN7262
2
Important Notes:
§ Please answer all four questions, as they are intended to cover the module’s material and
are equally important. Marks will be deducted for omitting any from your answer.
§ Answers to questions should essentially be driven from your understanding of the module’s
material and your critical analysis of key readings discussed in both the module’s lectures
and seminars. You can also use some of the academic articles available on the
‘recommended readings’ list available on blackboard.
§ Please note that; an intensive discussion of the module’s essential readings is a
requirement for passing the module.
§ Please give examples from various real-life case studies discussed in the module.
§ Please avoid any superficial use of essential or recommended readings. Your discussion
and use of the readings should contribute to your arguments. Additionally, it should show
your true understanding of the readings, as well as your own critical and analytical
thinking.
§ Discussion of additional relevant academic articles can further improve your response. A
list of additional recommended readings is available on Blackboard.
Word limit: 2,500 words (+/- 10%).
Format: Report in an essay format. Please submit one text, not separate answers to each
of the questions. You are advised to use section titles in your essay if you would like to
signify which question you intend to address. However, pay some attention to the flow of
your discussion.
Text formatting: written in a word-processing programme, 12-point font, 1.5 line spacing.
Grading: for marks’ intervals and expectations at each grade level, please see the list of
grade descriptors attached to this assignment.
Submission deadline: Thursday, 4th of May 2023 at 3 PM
Submission on Blackboard only.
School of Business Semester 2 – 2022/2023
Accountability, Representation and Control – MN7262
3
Grade Descriptors

Mark	Postgraduate Grade Descriptor
85-100%	Scholarship: Excellent application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; perceptive; demonstrates a critical appreciation of subject and extensive and detailed critical analysis of the key issues; displays independence of thought and/ or a novel and relevant approach to the subject; reveals both breadth and depth of understanding, showing insight and appreciation of argument. Independent learning: Work draws on a wide range of relevant literature and is not confined to reading lists, textbooks or lecture notes; arguments are well supported by a variety of means. Writing skills: Writing skills are excellent; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well-structured and sustained, and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are reasoned and justified by evidence. Analysis: Work demonstrates a robust approach to analysis that is evident of a deep understanding of relevant concepts, theories, principles and techniques. For quantitative modules analysis is complete and entirely relevant to the problem.
70-84%	Scholarship: Very good application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; demonstrates a critical appreciation of subject; displays detailed thought and consideration of the subject; reveals very good breadth and depth of understanding. Independent learning: Work draws on a range of relevant literature and is not confined to reading lists, textbooks or lecture notes. Writing skills: Writing skills are well-developed; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well structured and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are justified by evidence. Analysis: Analytical steps carried out carefully and correctly demonstrating that it is based on a sound understanding. Analysis is relevant to the problem and is complete and is placed in a clear context.
60-69%	Scholarship: Good, broad-based understanding of subject manner; makes effective use of understanding to provide an informative, balanced argument that is focused on the topic; reveals some attempt at creative, independent thinking; main points well covered, displaying breadth or depth but not necessarily both; broadly complete and relevant argument; Independent learning: Sources range beyond textbooks and lecture material and are used effectively to illustrate points and justify arguments. Writing skills: Arguments are presented logically and coherently within a clear structure and are justified with appropriate supporting evidence; capably written with good use of English throughout; free from major errors; complex ideas are expressed clearly and fluently using specialist technical terminology where appropriate. Analysis: Some minor slips in the steps of the analysis and some minor gaps in understanding of underlying principles. Analysis is relevant to the problem and mostly complete. A good interpretation which conveys most of its meaning.
50-59%	Scholarship: Some but limited engagement with, and understanding of, relevant material but may lack focus, organisation, breadth, and/or depth; relatively straightforward ideas are expressed clearly and fluently though there may be little or no attempt to synthesise or evaluate more complex ideas; exhibits limited independent creative thought; adequate analysis but some key points only mentioned in passing; arguments satisfactory but some errors and perhaps lacking completeness and relevance in parts. Independent learning: Sources restricted to core lecture material with limited or no evidence of wider reading. Writing skills: The question is addressed in a reasonably clear, coherent and structured manner but some sections may be poorly written making the essay difficult to follow, obscuring key points or leading to over generalisation; competently written with a good use of English throughout (few, if any, errors of spelling,

School of Business Semester 2 – 2022/2023
Accountability, Representation and Control – MN7262
4

Mark	Postgraduate Grade Descriptor
grammar and punctuation). Answers that have merit class qualities may fall into this category if they are too short, unfinished or badly organised. Analysis: Minor slips and occasional basic errors in analysis. Underlying principles are mostly understood, but clear gaps are apparent. Analysis falls short of completeness and is a little irrelevant in place but a reasonable interpretation which goes some way to convey its meaning
45-49%	Minimum requirements have not been met. Scholarship: Inadequate understanding of key issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately; uninspired and unoriginal; relies on limited knowledge; analysis poor or obscure, superficial or inconsistent in places; arguments incomplete, partly irrelevant or naive. Independent learning: Restricted to a basic awareness of course material and textbooks; meagre use of material to support assertions. Writing skills: Poor use of English exhibiting errors. Answer may be poorly focused on the question, lack rigour and/or consist of a series of repetitive, poorly organised points or unsubstantiated assertions that do not relate well to one another or to the question, although some structure discernible. Analysis: Inadequate knowledge of the analysis to be followed, with frequent errors. Some attention paid to underlying principles, but lacking in understanding and frequently irrelevant. Some interpretation is given, but it does not place the analysis in any real context
40-44%	Scholarship: Poor knowledge of relevant material; omission of key ideas/material; significant parts may be irrelevant, superficial or factually incorrect; inappropriate use of some material; mere paraphrasing of course texts or lecture notes; key points barely mentioned; very weak grasp or complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material; does not address the topic or question. Independent learning: Restricted to a basic awareness or no awareness of course material and textbooks; very meagre use of supporting material or unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material. Writing skills: Unacceptable use of English (i.e. comprehension obscured by significant and intrusive errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar); poor and unclear, or totally incoherent, structure. Answers that ‘run out of time’ or miss the point of the question may fall into this (or a lower) class. Analysis: Erroneous analysis with mistakes. Very little attention paid to the underlying principles of the analysis. Far from complete with little relevance to the problem. Limited interpretation that reveals little, if anything, about the meaning
20-39%	Scholarship: Displays a superficial appreciation of the demands and broad context of the question but is largely irrelevant, fundamentally flawed, or factually incorrect; inappropriate use of material; mere paraphrasing of course texts or lecture notes; key points barely mentioned; complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material. Independent learning: Restricted to a limited awareness of basic course material; unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material. Writing skills: Minimal structure, though may only list key themes or ideas with limited comment or explanation. Analysis: Analysis has very significant omissions demonstrating little understanding of problem or underlying principles. Analysis may be ill suited to problem. Very little interpretation of meaning of the analysis.
0-19%	Scholarship: No recognition of the demands or scope of the question and no serious attempt to answer it. Complete misunderstanding of the issues; inclusion of irrelevant material. May have simply failed to address the question/topic set. Independent learning: No evidence that the most basic course material has been understood; unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material. Writing skills: Without structure; comprehension may be completely obscured by poor grammar, spelling, punctuation.

School of Business Semester 2 – 2022/2023
Accountability, Representation and Control – MN7262
5

Mark	Postgraduate Grade Descriptor
Analysis: Virtually complete failure to carry out analysis. No evidence of understanding of underlying principles and bears no relevance to the problem. No attempt to interpret or explain the meaning of the analysis.