Search results

This paper examines the influence of the normal science tradition, epitomized by the notion that “theory is king”, on contemporary accounting research and the epistemological tensions that may emerge as this idea is applied to particular ways of studying accounting. For illustrative purposes, the authors focus on research informed by actor-network theory (ANT) which can be seen as an “extreme case” in the sense that it is, in principle, difficult to reconcile with the normal science aspirations.

The paper offers an analysis based on a close reading of how accounting scholars, using ANT, theorize, and if they do engage in explicit theorizing, how they deal with the tensions that might emerge from the need to reconcile its epistemological underpinnings with those of the normal science tradition.

The findings of this paper show that the tensions between normal science thinking and the epistemological principles of ANT have, in a few cases, been avoided, as researchers stay relatively faithful to ANT and largely refrain from further theory development. However, in most cases, the tensions have ostensibly been ignored as researchers blend the epistemology of ANT and that of normal science without reflecting on the implications of doing so.

The paper contributes to emerging debates on the role of the normal science tradition in contemporary accounting research, and also extends recent discussions on the role of theory in accounting research inspired by ANT. The paper proposes three reasons for the observed blending of epistemologies: unawareness of tensions, epistemological eclecticism and various political considerations.

This study investigates the extent to which, and in what ways and capacities, the incidence of adverse economic conditions burdening the masses, on the macro-level, increases the propensity for the generation of political instability/violence.

Drawing on data from a cross-section of 25 Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries for the period 2005–2019, fixed effects (FE) and generalized method of moments (GMM) estimations are used to determine the nature and significance of the independent variable (economic condition), complemented by three control variables, on the dependent WGI-defined variable political stability scored on the basis of a continuum from −2.5 (most unstable) to +2.5 (most stable). For the link between political instability and socioeconomic conditions, the study employs a construct derived from frustration-aggression and relative deprivation theory.

The study links socioeconomic adversity to political instability in the context of SSA. In addition, larger populated countries exhibit a greater propensity to political instability than smaller populated countries. In contrast, foreign direct investment (FDI) appears to have no real effect, positive or negative, on political stability.

Poor living conditions seem to be strongly associated with a high risk of political violence in SSA. To buoy socioeconomic status, poverty alleviation needs be elevated into a key initiative in the decision-making agenda, at all levels of governance, with real targeted strides achieved in terms of enhancement of the standard of living of the masses. In addition, policies that control population need to be inaugurated hand-in-hand with welfare measures and a more equitable balancing of the distribution of resources in the society.

Given the high regional incidence of civil strife and violence, combined with a dearth of research of an empirical nature on political risk in SSA, this study provides a largely ignored and useful context on SSA apart from studies on the incidence of violence that consider the developing countries as a monolithic whole.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to compare and contrast the leadership major in identified programs from universities in the United States. This was done in an attempt to develop a foundation for the leadership discipline. Utilizing interviews, surveys, websites, and evaluation of school materials as data sources, an initial list of 70 schools was narrowed to 15 upon examination of their academic curricula. A thorough evaluation of these 15 leadership degree programs was then conducted. Noticeable differences included varied school sizes, host departments, and credit hour requirements. Other inconsistencies included the focus of the program, the major scholars evident within the curricula, and the disparity between theory versus skill development. Recommendations include further study of other leadership programs across the nation, examination of leadership graduates in the workforce, and collaboration among leadership programs nationwide.

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework of ideation pathways that organically extend the current stock of knowledge to generate new and useful knowledge. Although detailed, granular guidance is available in the strategy literature on all aspects of empirically testing theory, the other key aspect of theory development – theory generation – remains relatively neglected. The framework developed in this paper addresses this gap by proposing pathways for how new theory can be generated.

Grounded in two foundational principles in epistemology, the Genetic Argument and the open-endedness of knowledge, I offer a framework of distinct pathways that systematically lead to the creation of new knowledge.

Existing knowledge can be deepened (through introspection), broadened (through leverage) and rejuvenated (through innovation). These ideation pathways can unlock the vast, hidden potential of current knowledge in strategy.

The novelty and doability of the framework can potentially inspire research on a broad, community-wide basis, engaging PhD students and management faculty, improving knowledge, democratizing scholarship and deepening the societal footprint of strategy research.

Knowledge is open-ended. The more we know, the more we appreciate how much we don’t know. But the lack of clear guidance on rigorous pathways along which new knowledge that advances both theory and practice can be created from prior knowledge has stymied strategy research. The paper’s framework systematically pulls together for the first time the disparate elements of transforming past learning into new knowledge in a coherent epistemological whole.