This paper is a critical analysis of the potential implications of adopting a highly established research paradigm in management accounting research. The analysis employs the notion of uncertainty as it is presently used in established contingency-based management accounting (CBMA) research practice. We argue that particular established constructs and measurement instruments dominate the research practice of that field in a paradigmatic manner. Consequently, the constructs and measurement instruments of uncertainty tend to be continuously reproduced in a similar, taken-for-granted manner that does not question their validity. Furthermore, as some of the findings regarding uncertainty in existing CBMA research are mixed, we suggest an alternate path for conducting contingency-based research in management accounting and illustrate this with a field study from the drug development business. The analysis presents an emic inclusive alternative for conducting CBMA research that could complement the currently prevailing etic dominated research, thus significantly widening the current scope of such research. The suggested alternate path for CBMA research is faithful to the original ideas of the early contingency scholars and argues for the opening up of institutionalised research practices in this field of management accounting research. Currently, the situation in CBMA research exemplifies the problem of an institutionalised paradigm actually hindering fruitful development within the research field. Hence, the paper is essentially a critique of the overly mechanistic employment of established research practices, such as those evident in CBMA research.