Methodological themes Empirical research in accounting:alternative approaches and a case for“middle-range” thinking [4]
论文作者:PAT SUCHER论文属性:短文 essay登出时间:2008-06-10编辑:点击率:30065
论文字数:3600论文编号:org200806101038079925语种:英语 English地区:英国价格:免费论文
关键词:Methodological themesEmpirical researchaccountingalternative approaches
ty as well as its generality of representation through previous theoretical endeavours. High levels of prior theorizing are indicative of an assumed material world (which exists distinct from the observers’ projections and bias) which, despite empirical variety, has high levels of generality and order and has been well researched through previous studies. The current investigation becomes little more than an additional incremental study in the great general theoretical design which has been unfolding over maybe centuries of time. As such the detail and diversity of the empirical focus is not as important in comparison with the question as to whether the observations continue to confirm the well-developed theory which is brought to the investigation. Low levels of prior theorizing, at the far extreme, assume that the world is not material – it is a projection of our minds – and since such projections differ, generalities are impossible. Equally, learning from or relyingon previous theoretical studies and insights is both inappropriate and potentially corrupting of the diversity and detail of the present study. In this position the empirical detail is not mere confirmable or refutable “data” for some prior theory but becomes important in its own right. This detail becomes the theory for this particular phenomena but cannot be transferred to another study for the reasons that other theories could not be used in the context of this study – both are separate and distinct and should be approached as such. The “methodology” dimension can have more or less of a theoretical definition for the “set of spectacles” that forms the nature of the methods for the empirical investigation which also has implicit implications for the role of the human agent in the process. By this is meant the idea that the actual way of conducting the investigation can either be defined according to some theoretical model of how the observer should see or is more reliant on the implicit perceptual powers of the individual observer. This links to the role of the observer as well as the assumptions concerning human nature. Where there is a high theoretical definition for the resulting methods then there is an implicit assumption that the observer is largely irrelevant to the process and his or her subjectivity or bias, which at the far extreme are assumed not to exist, plays no part in the process. At the “low” end of this continuum, on the other hand, the individual observer is permitted and encouraged to be free to be involved in the observation process completely uncluttered by theoretical rules and regulations on what is to be seen and how the “seeing” should be undertaken. This is taken on board with the clear assumption that the observer is free-thinking and variable in his or her perceptual skills and rather than seeing this as a problem it is built on as a strength. This does not mean that no rules and/or constraints are exerted over the observer in his or her observation process. However, these are defined in such a way that they attempt to avoid theoretical and rational closure (i.e. the characteristics of those on the high end of the continuum in this methodology dimension) but rather preserves the subjectivity and variability of the perceptual differences of the observer. While these rules may not be formalized as some written code, for fear of shifting the emphasis into a more “theoretical”, “rational” mode of operating and thus obliterating subjectivity and v
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。