Search results

Empirical research in accounting is of considerable importance to the academic community yet it is surprising to note that it is only since the early 1970s that this concern has gained centre stage. Since this time multiple studies have been undertaken from a variety of different theoretical and methodological perspectives. The literature is now replete with empirical studies from perspectives as far apart as the “positivism” of the Rochester School to the expanding Foucauldian studies of accounting practice. While this eclecticism is commendable at one level it is also confusing at another. Reduces some of this confusion by bringing an overview and much needed order into this variety highlighting the underlying features of these multiple approaches to accounting research. Points out the need for choices to be made on the perspective to be adopted along three continuums concerning “theory”, “methodology” and “change”. Presents a case for “middle‐range” thinking for empirical research in accounting. While the reader may not necessarily agree with the logic that leads to this perspective it is hoped that the article will demonstrate that no one perspective can provide a complete picture of accounting reality, that choices on perspective have to be, and can be, made and that these choices are, and should be, contestable.

Managerial cognition is a fundamental area informing all sub-fields in strategy, and therefore, a systematic review of the methodological choices of premier strategy publications aids cognition researchers in choosing methods. However, past studies have given little attention to the methods recently published in premier journals. This chapter both illustrates a common cognitive method – content analysis – and uses it to analyze the methodological content of 573 publications from two prominent management journals. Our findings provide cognition scholars with useful information about current methodological standards. Our findings also will help students choose methods courses and will spark a healthy debate about methodological expectations.

The chapter addresses the challenges of research into educational technology in the context of higher education and of theory-building in this field afforded by singular research methods and philosophies. Using an exemplar case study, the authors argue for the adoption of pluralism to facilitate deep exploration of complex social phenomena. Pluralism is conceptualized by distinguishing between methodological, analytical, and philosophical pluralism. In addition, arguments for and against pluralism are advanced. The chapter concludes with step-by-step proposals for engaging pluralism in higher education research studies.

Introduces diversity management as managing the increased diversity of issues that confront humankind in contemporary organizational and societal affairs. Defines triple loop learning as being about the increase in the fullness and deepness of learning about the diversity of issues and dilemmas faced. Presents the contours of diversity management and triple loop learning. Sees the latter as the dénouement of single loop learning and of double loop learning. Provides a “quickmap” of the contours of diversity management and triple loop learning.

The authors have systematically reviewed 534 corporate social responsibility communication (CSRC) papers, updating the current debate about the ontological and epistemological paradigms that characterize the field, and providing evidence of the interactions between these paradigms and the related methodological choices. The purpose of this paper is to provide theoretical and methodological implications for future research in the CSRC research domain.

The authors used the Scopus database to search for titles, abstracts and related keywords with two queries sets relating to corporate social responsibility (e.g. corporate ethical, corporate environmental, social responsibility, corporate accountability) and CSRC (e.g. reporting, disclosure, dialogue, sensemaking). The authors identified 534 empirical papers (2000–2016), which the authors coded manually to identify the research methods and research designs (Creswell, 2013). The authors then developed an ad hoc dictionary whose keywords relate to the three primary CSRC approaches (instrumental, normative and constitutive). Using the software Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, the authors undertook an automated content analysis in order to measure these approaches’ relative popularity and compare the methods employed in empirical research.

The authors found that the instrumental approach, which belongs to the functionalist paradigm, dominates the CSRC literature with its relative weight being constant over time. The normative approach also belongs to the functionalist paradigm, but plays a minor yet enduring role. The constitutive approach belongs to the interpretive paradigm and grew slightly over time, but still remains largely beyond the instrumental approach. In the instrumental approach, many papers report on descriptive empirical analyses. In the constitutive approach, theory-method relationships are in line with the various paradigmatic traits, while the normative approach presents critical issues. Regarding methodology, according to the findings, the literature review underlines three major limitations that characterize the existing empirical evidence and provides avenues for future research. While multi-paradigmatic research is promoted in the CRSC literature (Crane and Glozer, 2016; Morsing, 2017; Schoeneborn and Trittin, 2013), the authors found no empirical evidence.

This is the first paper to systematically review empirical research in the CSRC field and is also the first to address the relationship between research paradigms, theoretical approaches, and methods. Further, the authors suggest a novel way to develop systematic reviews (i.e. via quantitative, automated content analysis), which can now also be applied in other literature streams and in other contexts.

There has been an increasing realisation within government circles that gaining insight into how and why an intervention works or does not is as important as measuring any change that it brings about. Without understanding the mechanisms for change, ensuring that the intervention is effective when transposed to different contexts can be highly challenging. However, while the need for high-quality, robust qualitative research is recognised, the theoretical and methodological tools available to researchers within the field have not kept up. Government-commissioned evaluation requires a methodology that provides genuine insight into how policy and interventions work on the ground and findings that can be generalised beyond the specific samples upon which they are based. In order to fill this conceptual gap, NatCen Social Research has developed an approach to qualitative research that draws on a wide range of existing traditions but that is robust and coherent enough to meet the needs of CJS evaluations. Recent work has led to a new articulation of this approach and a new moniker, ‘critical qualitative theory’ or CQT. This chapter describes the key tenets of CQT and draws on three of published studies of interventions that are focused on or relate to the criminal justice system to illustrate the methodological advantages the approach brings. In particular, the chapter explores the different approaches taken by the authors to the issues of generalisability, the balance between inductive and deductive procedures and how they have approached analysing the data at a case and a theme level. The implication of the different theoretical and methodological choices made by the authors is then discussed in terms of the nature and quality of the authors’ analysis.

Although the process of fieldwork is often characterised by disorder, the requirement to adhere to a tightly defined methodology and produce timely research outputs often leads the authors to present the findings as though the research has been the product of a linear process. The purpose of this paper is to unmask this paradox, by documenting the disorder and development of a research project 15 years (so far) in duration.

The approach used in this paper is one of auto-ethnographic reflection, drawing on aspects of Boje’s living story approach, incorporating not only the “linear” narrative of the research process, but also fragments of ante-narrative, themes running above and below the dominant. Within the study, the authors are reflecting on, a range of qualitative methods, including interview, focus groups, memory-work, and living story (ante-narrative) methods, which are employed within a critical management research methodology.

The authors’ experiences show that although “messiness” may be an inherent part of qualitative research, it is this very disorder, and the consequent opportunities for time and space, that allows the research, and the researcher, “time to breathe”. This reflexivity allows for methodological development and refinement, and ultimately rigorous and participative research, which also honours the participants. The authors argue that although this approach may not align with the current need for prolific (and rapid) publication, in allowing the disorder to “be” in the research, and allowing the time to reassess theoretical and methodological lenses, the resultant stories may be more authentic – both the stories gathered from participants and the stories of research.

The paper highlights the intertwining of stories of participants and stories from research, which is a significant addition to understandings of the “messiness” of qualitative research. This paper adds to the growing call for the inclusion of “chaos” and authenticity in qualitative research, acknowledging and valuing the humanity of the researcher, and giving voice to the paradox between the time to methodologically develop, and the requirement for timely research.

In this chapter, the authors analyze the academic field of comparative education in Spanish speaking Latin America as a contested construction both in epistemological and political dimensions. First, the authors provide a brief historical account of the origin and development of comparative education in the region since the nineteenth century. Next, they focus on the current state of the field by addressing three aspects: (1) the institutional basis, specially the development of comparative education societies; (2) an account of the contributions of international organizations, both in terms of studies that have been recently conducted and of the development of data bases; and (3) an analysis of prevailing topics as well as theoretical and methodological approaches in a sample of articles published during the 2010-2017 period. The authors conclude by summarizing the main aspects of the current situation, and pointing to future epistemological and political challenges for the field in the region.

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.

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

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a response to a comment written by Richard Laughlin on a previous paper by the authors, which appeared in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume 23 Number 6.

The paper addresses three issues central to the analysis of the comment on their past paper.

In addressing each of the issues in turn the authors clarify their analysis.

The paper provides an argument for the development of a paradigm for accounting practice derived from the use of pragmatic constructivism.