ABSTRACT
Management accounting (MA) scholars generally accept that our subject matter requires a multidisciplinary approach. Broadly speaking, there are two main views from different base disciplines about experimental deception: “deception if necessary” (social psychology) and “deception should be banned” (experimental economics). We aim to develop a common understanding within the MA research community about what constitutes deceptive research practice. We review arguments supporting the two main views and analyze the transfer of their norms into MA research. We develop a framework that evaluates the need for and potential consequences of using deception. Our analysis implies careful consideration of the decision to employ deception and case-by-case editorial review of experiments employing deception are necessary. In the long run, the MA research community may consider if an explicit policy on the role of deception in MA research is warranted or whether a case-by-case approach, as advocated by us as an interim measure, is sufficient.
