Search results

The purpose of this paper is to extend the knowledge claim of management accounting research using qualitative research methods, in particular, the interpretive case study, and its evaluation using “convincingness” criteria demonstrating the textual authenticity, plausibility and criticality of case study findings.

Qualitative research in the management accounting field considers both context and function (Burchell et al., 1980). This study sets out the rationale for adopting qualitative methodologies such as interpretive case studies in which rich, contextual and detailed data were collected and analyzed (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Mason, 2002). Methodological issues related to research design, analysis and evaluation are discussed by drawing on frameworks of social science research design. The paper sets out the procedures of an interpretive case study essential to ensuring the procedural validity of research which can be evaluated more accurately using the criteria of “convincingness” rather than positivist measures of the reliability, validity of data and the generalization of results. Textual authenticity, plausibility and critical interpretation, and how these hallmarks of “convincingness” can reflect the procedural validity of accounting research are described.

Qualitative research strategies such as the interpretive case study, which consider the complex settings of accounting change and practice, are found to offer deep understandings and convincing explanations of accounting change. Affirming that accounting is firmly established as a social science, the paper finds that the authenticity, plausibility and criticality of research in this field.

The relevance of qualitative research to contemporary accounting research is considered as an effective method to explicate theory and inform practice, which suggests that new measures to evaluate related research are required to develop the potential of selected qualitative research methodologies in accounting domains.

Qualitative research in management accounting focuses on the interpretation of meanings found in people and organizations that are subject to the influence of contextual variables. Human attributes underpin accounting conventions and change resulting from continuous technological and regulatory advances. This paper’s comprehensive account of interpretive case study research emphasizes the significance of evaluative criteria that relate, beyond reliability, to the richness of the text. This, thus, encourages and supports new and emerging researchers to seek qualitatively coherent and critical interpretations in management accounting research.

This study aims to investigate how, through text-based classroom talk, youth collaboratively draw on and remix discourses and practices from multiple socially indexed traditions.

Drawing on data from a year-long social design experiment, this study uses qualitative coding and traces discoursal markers of indexicality.

The youth sustained, remixed and evaluated interpretive communities in their navigation across disciplinary and fandom discourses to construct a hybrid classroom interpretive community.

This research contributes to scholarship that supports using popular texts in classrooms as the focus of a scholarly inquiry by demonstrating how youth in one high school English classroom discursively index interpretive communities aligned with popular fandoms and literary scholarship. This study adds to understandings about the social nature of literary reading, interpretive whole-class text-based talk and literary literacies with multimodal texts in diverse, high school classrooms.

The starting point for this paper is that the researcher is intimately bound up in all aspects of the research process. This idea of what is a critical aspect of much interpretive methodology has been challenged by some proponents of the interpretive accounting research (IAR) project. The authors suggest that adopting some of the views expounded in the IAR project may lead to the accounting research community becoming isolated from other interpretive methodology inspired disciplines. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Currently popular views on IAR are informed by selective theoretical insights from interpretive sociology. The authors argue that these insights cannot provide a general frame with which to encapsulate accounting research that may be reasonably termed “interpretive.”

The authors’ reading of the literature suggests that the some of the IAR literature exhibits: a tendency to routinely make overly specific claims for what it is possible for interpretive research to achieve; the promotion of a somewhat reductionist view of what the bounds of interpretive research are. The authors suggest that these tendencies detract from the strengths of (adopting a broad view of) IAR.

In expressing the authors’ concerns, the authors do not wish to make an exclusive argument for what IAR is and is not. This would not be in line with writing an interpretive paper. While the authors do not eschew the possibility of a limited building of knowledge by applying interpretive methodological stances neither do the authors see such activity as a central plank of interpretive research.

The authors believe that positivistic commentaries on qualitative enquiry should not be taken as exemplary of interpretive research (in accounting – or elsewhere). The authors feel that IAR needs to be more open to an array of subjectivist motivations, if it is to provide useful critique of the nature of day-to-day accounting practice.

The authors seek to go beyond the rather unhelpful debate about whether IAR should be seen to possess both objective and subjective elements. The authors argue that IAR suffers more from a lack of engagement and debate than it faces dangers from areas of interpretive methodology that adopt positions considered to be too subjectivist.

In recent years, there has been a growing desire to more fully integrate informants into the overall research process. In response to this trend, the purpose of this paper is to scrutinize the usage and outcomes of the member checking technique for enabling more participatory interpretive research practices. Information systems (IS) research has utilized this technique, but it has not yet undergone a thorough analysis in this context. Additionally, interpretive IS research is in need of means and tools for engaging with informants during the data analysis and interpretation process.

The data for this study originated from an inquiry into the position of usability work within its cultural context, and this study has adopted a hermeneutic lens to make sense of the member checking technique, which positions informants as co-analysts and co-interpreters to make sense of both their organizational realities and researchers’ interpretations of those realities.

The analysis shows that during the research process, the informants reproduced, questioned, and cultivated the researcher-crafted texts that they were given to interpret, both individually and collaboratively. The study shows that member checking contributes to fulfilling the criteria set for interpretive IS research in a variety of ways.

The study contributes to interpretive IS research method practice by offering IS researchers insights into and guidelines on the usage and potential outcomes of the member checking technique.

The examination of the member checking technique through a hermeneutic lens is a novel approach. For IS research, the study explicates the usages and outcomes of member checking in more participatory interpretive research practice. Also novel in this study is that member checking is examined as a collective endeavor.

This paper aims to address the reporting of validation and evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies, which is a topic of critical debate in qualitative social science research. The objective of this study is to investigate the ways researchers have reported the use of evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies and whether they are associated with certain paradigmatic affiliations.

Building on the work of Eriksson and Kovalainen [Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London, Sage], the following three approaches are examined: the adoption of classic concepts of validity and reliability, the use of alternative concepts and the abandonment of general evaluation criteria. Content analysis of 212 case and field studies published during 2006 to February 2015 was conducted to be able to offer an analysis of the most recent frontiers of knowledge.

The key empirical results of this study provide partial support for the theoretical expectations. They specify and refine Eriksson and Kovalainen’s (2008) classification system, first, by identifying a new approach to evaluation and validation and, second, by showing mixed results on the paradigmatic consistency in the use of evaluation criteria.

This paper is not necessarily exhaustive or representative of all the evaluation criteria developed; the authors focused on the explicit reporting of criteria only and the findings cannot be generalized. Somewhat different results might have been obtained if other journals, other fields of research or a longer period were considered.

The findings of this study enhance the knowledge of alternative approaches and criteria to validation and evaluation. The findings can aid both in the evaluation of management accounting research and in the selection of appropriate evaluation approaches and criteria.

This paper presents a synthesis of the literature (Table I) and new empirical findings that are potentially useful for both academic scholars and practitioners.

The discipline's most common uses for literature reviews—identifying gaps, developing research agendas, and categorizing the literature—too often fail to challenge, change or advance theoretical perspectives. The authors offer guidance to theorization through literature reviews. The key to theory advancement is consistency between the state of theory and the chosen review type.

A conceptual approach is taken. The authors identify shortcomings in literature reviews of logistics and supply chain management (L&SCM) research and develop a framework to aid theorization from literature.

Literature review types are categorized as inductive theory building, contextualized explanations, theory testing and interpretive sensemaking. The authors argue that the effectiveness of a review type depends on the prior state of theory, which ranges from nascent, to intermediate, to mature. The authors propose the interpretive sensemaking review as a novel review type rooted in the interpretive paradigm.

This study should be of immediate interest and value to logistics and supply chain management scholars—as well as scholars in other fields—because it offers a pathway to theory development through literature reviews. Appropriate applications of the proposed review types will result in more comprehensive theories.

This article lays down arguments for the need to change the way L&SCM scholars use literature reviews. It extends earlier work from the authors (Durach et al., 2017; A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management) by outlining four review types, and offering further insights to theorization, as is typically the goal in the synthesis step of literature reviews.

The paper reviews some basic themes in postmodernism and argues for a moderate incorporation of these themes in organization studies and methodology. This approach, named interpretive unpacking, takes issues of multiple and fluid meanings, ambiguities and fragmentation seriously without the a priori privileging of these qualities over assumptions of stable meanings and coherence in social phenomena. The suggested position is illustrated in the fields of identity and image in organization studies through a critical reading of a key text. Assumptions around identities, identification, beliefs, perceptions and images are here problematized and seen as themes for critical exploration and careful interpretive inquiry rather than as robust starting points for the formulation of hypothesis for testing.

While qualitative work has a long tradition in the strategy field and has recently regained popularity, we have not paused to take stock of how such work offers contributions. We address this oversight with a review of qualitative studies of strategy published in five top-tier journals over an extended period of 15 years (2003–2017). In an attempt to organize the field, we develop an empirically grounded organizing framework. We identify 12 designs that are evident in the literature, or “designs-in-use” as we call them. Acknowledging important similarities and differences between the various approaches to qualitative strategy research (QSR), we group these designs into three “families” based on their philosophical orientation. We use these designs and families to identify trends in QSR. We then engage those trends to orient the future development of qualitative methods in the strategy field.

The purpose of this research is to present the results of a recent interpretive study of 11 small Central Vancouver Island firms in British Columbia, Canada, which yield new interpretations of the nature of problem‐solving processes within the wider context of managerial capability as a critical contributor to small business survival.

The methodological approach taken is positioned within an emergent body of research in the field of small business and entrepreneurship that applies an interpretive paradigm to uncover the complex facets of how individuals develop their capabilities and management practices with a particular emphasis on the small business owner‐manager. More specifically, the critical incident technique method, along with an approach to data analysis and coding that draws from grounded theory, is combined and applied as a qualitative research strategy to yield new understandings of problem solving in small firms.

Research findings reveal the intuitive, improvised and non‐linear nature of how problems are actually solved in the sample of small firms studied, in contrast with a number of well‐known theoretical research frameworks that propose well‐defined and delineated steps in the problem‐solving process.

The small sample size and the methods chosen to conduct the research do not allow for the generalization of findings to all firms, yet do allow for the emergence of themes among the businesses that participated in the study. Research could be expanded by applying a similar research design to small firms in other regions of Canada to determine whether significant differences or similarities exist and to identify the implications for research in the area of problem solving in small firms.

The identification of problems as critical incidents represents a primary focus of the research and provides a more explanatory account of problem solving from the perspective of small firm owner‐managers involved in the process. The analysis of these highly subjective interpretations represents valuable research findings that provide a basis for the development of theory on problem solving in small firms.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a personal, reflective account of applying grounded theory, in particular Glaser's approach, in accounting research. It seeks to reduce barriers to adopting the grounded theory approach.

The approach taken is providing an overview of Glaser's grounded theory and discussing the authors' application of it, thus discussing their personal experiences.

The paper seeks to provide a greater insight into using the grounded theory approach, through illustrating the authors' personal experiences with its application. It seeks to highlight the merits and pitfalls, including any attempts to overcome these, as these are perceived from a subjective viewpoint.

The paper provides an individual account of how a grounded theory study was undertaken. The subjectivity of such undertaking has to be taken into consideration.

The application of the grounded theory approach is discussed retrospectively, in a bid to provide an insight to interpretive research projects in general and grounded theory in particular. It is still rarely used in accounting research, but has potential to contribute at all levels of accounting research. The paper provides an individual account of using this approach.