Search results

This paper aims to describe the development of forms of advertising on radio and internet when they were new media and propose a model of periodization through which the two histories can be understood and appreciated.

Two narrative histories were constructed based on data collected from numerous public and private, historical and contemporary and primary and secondary materials. The methodology of New Historicism informed the research.

When the two histories are viewed through the model, many similarities in terms of milestones and markers become apparent.

Perhaps when the next new electronic mass medium is invented, a future researcher may look back on this model and consider whether it applies.

For practitioners who consider history a relevant source of knowledge and inspiration, this research offers a way of organizing and understanding the history of internet advertising.

Today’s consumers, especially Millennials, continue to seek to avoid advertising on the internet. The use of ad blockers poses a significant threat to the business models of online content providers. This research demonstrates that resistance to advertising is nothing new and that it may be, in the end, futile.

The model is an original creation, based on an original view of history, and offered as a lens through which to understand this history.

The purpose of this paper is to set the scene for this special issue by synthesising the vast array of literature to examine what constitutes mixed methods research, and the associated strengths and risks attributed to this approach.

This paper takes the form of a literature review. The authors draw on extensive methods research from a diverse range of social science disciplines to identify and explore key definitions, opportunities and risks in mixed methods studies. They review a number of accounting studies that adopt mixed methods research approaches. This allows the authors to analyse variance in how mixed methods research is conceptualised across these studies and evaluate the perceived strengths and limitations of specific mixed methods design choices.

The authors identify a range of opportunities and challenges in the conduct of mixed methods research and illustrate these by reference to both published studies and the other contributions to this special issue.

With the exception of Modell's work, there is sparse discussion of the application and potential of mixed methods research in the extant accounting literature.

This paper's purpose is to provide a commentary on “Qualitative management accounting research: rationale, pitfalls and potential,” a paper by Juhani Vaivio.

The approach is to draw on alternative research paradigms to expand the definition and discussion of qualitative research in management accounting.

The paper endorses many of the prescriptions in Vaivio but expands the definition and discussion of qualitative research in management accounting to recognize the blurred boundaries with field research more generally, and to be more inclusive of qualitative field research from a positivist/functionalist perspective. Similarly, the need for qualitative research to challenge textbook, economics and consulting representations of management accounting is acknowledged, but the range of catalysts is expanded to highlight the potential for qualitative research building on both qualitative and quantitative extant research. This paper also seeks to broaden the discussion of legitimate study design characteristics and data collection methods, and to stress the importance of matching research design with research question.

The paper stresses the value of pluralism and inclusiveness in both methodological and method choices.

References should follow the APA (American Psychological Association) standard. References should be indicated by giving (in parentheses) the author's name followed by the date of the journal or book; or with the date in parentheses, as in ‘suggested by Canada (2005).’