Purpose – A recent stream of literature identifies the arising of a third stage in Intellectual Capital Accounting Research, which addresses the praxis of IC as it is implemented in organisations, rather than re-creating a static analysis of IC, as it is represented by contemporary measurement frameworks and their associated theory or theories. To such a development is also associated the necessity to abandon Grand Theory in favour of the analysis of what really happens inside the firm. Despite of the importance of deeply analysing IC in the way it is managed and valued by specific firms, some perplexities nevertheless arise in the dualism between theory and practice. The paper focuses on the ambiguities that the metaphorical use of the concept of capital can generate on both theoretical and practice-oriented research. Ambiguities here analysed refer to: 1) the understanding of IC as composed by apparently homogenous and separable units; 2) whose elements are assets; 3) which of are expected to be under the proprietorship of someone IC elements as assets; and 4) expressible in monetary terms in the balance sheet. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is a conceptual paper. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the extant literature by contributing at clarifying some of the differences between the traditional concept of capital and IC that the use of metaphor has covered. Since practice-oriented research cannot be completely theory-free, this goal is of course useful also for this kind of research.
Ambiguities, dualities and metaphors in intellectual capital research and practice. Some open questions.
MARZO, Giuseppe
2012
Abstract
Purpose – A recent stream of literature identifies the arising of a third stage in Intellectual Capital Accounting Research, which addresses the praxis of IC as it is implemented in organisations, rather than re-creating a static analysis of IC, as it is represented by contemporary measurement frameworks and their associated theory or theories. To such a development is also associated the necessity to abandon Grand Theory in favour of the analysis of what really happens inside the firm. Despite of the importance of deeply analysing IC in the way it is managed and valued by specific firms, some perplexities nevertheless arise in the dualism between theory and practice. The paper focuses on the ambiguities that the metaphorical use of the concept of capital can generate on both theoretical and practice-oriented research. Ambiguities here analysed refer to: 1) the understanding of IC as composed by apparently homogenous and separable units; 2) whose elements are assets; 3) which of are expected to be under the proprietorship of someone IC elements as assets; and 4) expressible in monetary terms in the balance sheet. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is a conceptual paper. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the extant literature by contributing at clarifying some of the differences between the traditional concept of capital and IC that the use of metaphor has covered. Since practice-oriented research cannot be completely theory-free, this goal is of course useful also for this kind of research.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
