Theoretical triangulation and pluralism in accounting research: a critical realist critique

Abstract

Purpose

This is a rejoinder to Hoque et al. (2013) previously published in this journal. The purpose of this paper is to further elucidate and extend some of their key arguments related to the use of theoretical triangulation in accounting research.

Design/methodology/approach

This is a conceptual discussion focusing on how the understanding of the notion of theoretical triangulation can be enhanced from a critical realist perspective.

Findings

The author draws attention to some ambiguities in Hoque et al.’s (2013) reasoning and advance a critique of their rather under-developed conceptions of the relationship between ontology and epistemology, the epistemic premises influencing the choice of theories and the role of theories in conditioning empirical observations and scholarly knowledge claims. To address these issues the author advances a critical realist approach and discusses its implications for theoretical triangulation in accounting research.

Originality/value

The paper contributes to the ongoing debate about theoretical pluralism in accounting research by explicating how critical realism may further such pluralism and the inter-disciplinary accounting research project more generally.

Citation

Modell, S. (2015), "Theoretical triangulation and pluralism in accounting research: a critical realist critique", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1138-1150. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2014-1841