英语论文网

al and methodological approaches from the writings and thinking of some notable social and political theorists and used these diverse approaches in developing our understanding of accounting practice. This increased diversity of approach has brought increased tension into the literature between different proponents of various approaches. The battles between the “economics” and “behavioural” wings have been present since the early 1980s (cf. Christenson, 1983; Lowe et al., 1983) although more recently cross-border talks have given way to the design of separate empires with their own respective partisan journals. However, in the last few years with the proliferation of more and more “behavioural” approaches to empirical research, battles are beginning to emerge within this broad boundary, with those relying on post-modernists, such as Foucault, being particularly in the firing line (cf. Armstrong, 1994; Neimark, 1990).Both the proliferation of alternatives and these public battles leave those starting out on the road to research, and even those well-grounded in one perspective, perplexed and confused as to the significance or otherwise of what all this means for undertaking research. It is for both these parties (i.e. those newly entering research and those well entrenched in their particular approach) that this article is particularly targeting. It is also hoped that its wide-ranging perspective will be of interest to those who are at the forefront of creating the battle lines between the various approaches.An inevitable temptation when undertaking any empirical research is to launch into data collection assuming that theoretical and methodological problems will naturally sort themselves out as the work proceeds. To some degree this may well be the case and there will be little damage caused through this approach. However, there is a certain advantage and importance of making deliberate choices on these matters priorto undertaking any study. The reason quite simply is that all empirical research will be partial, despite any truth claims to the contrary, and thus it would be better to be clear about the biases and exclusions before launching into the empirical detail. This underlying assumption guides the following. Building on this admittedly instrumentally rational assumption the choice process described below works on a two stage process. The first stage involves abstracting from the different schools of thought and indicating how all have characteristics which can be encapsulated on a range of key continuums, the position on which needs to be decided prior to undertaking any empirical investigation. The second stage involves a deliberate association with actual schools of thought expressing different positions on these continuums. In more detail the article has three substantive sections. The first section posits the continuums, the position on which arguably needs to be decided prior to undertaking any empirical study. The second section highlights a range of alternative approaches that are available, tracing some of the key social philosophers who have generated these alternatives. It also highlights the different positions they hold on the continuums highlighted in the first section. Third, in the final substantive section, a case is argued for what could be broadly described as “middle-range” thinking, a term borrowed, but somewhat distant, from the interpretation of Robert Merton (1968). The article as a whole is intended to add