Methodological themes Empirical research in accounting:alternative approaches and a case for“middle-range” thinking [6]
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:29934
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
oice element at one level it is not independent of the chosen theoretical perspective. In fact it is possible to go further and to suggest that those choosing to pursue high levels of change in current configurations of the phenomena under investigation are likely to be those who have chosen to bring high levels of prior theorization to the research site. Likewise those who have a low change emphasis are more likely to be those who also believe in the need for low levels of prior theorization. While these are likely norms it is not certain that these connections follow in all cases. Thus, for instance, it is not impossible that the very nature and type of a sophisticated and detailed prior theory may deliberately exclude any “normative” critique of the focus of the theory. It is for this reason that the change dimension purposefully straddles the theory and methodology dimensions but is likely to follow from the nature of the theoretical perspective adopted. Alternative approaches to empirical research in accounting The growing interest in empirical research in understanding the nature of accounting within organizations and society has generated a range of intellectual “borrowing” from social and political thought. Various definable schools of thought exist now in accounting research. These include the quasi- science of the accounting economists (cf. Watts and Zimmerman, 1986), symbolic interactionism (for example, Colville, 1981; Tomkins and Colville, 1985) ethnomethodology (for example, Berry et al., 1985) structuration (for example, Macintosh and Scapens, 1990; Roberts and Scapens, 1985), Marxism and labour process theory (for example, Armstrong, 1987; Hopper and Armstrong, 1991; Tinker, 1985), German critical theory (for example, Arrington and Puxty, 1991; Broadbent et al., 1991; Laughlin, 1987) and French critical theory and post-structuralism (for example, Arrington and Francis, 1989; Miller and O’Leary, 1987). While these schools of thought and the literature cited are not intended to be exhaustive they broadly define major schools of thought which have been used to explore the nature of accounting in organizations and society in the last ten to 15 years. Taken together these broad streams of thought, given that each covers multiple proponents and nuances of thought only some of which have been explored to date, cover most of the significant schools of social and political thought in the social sciences. This claim is clearly debatable but rather than be drawn into this discussion the following highlights the nature of these and allied approaches according to the three-way choice criteria described in the previous section. This issummarized in Figure 2. Each approach is depicted in the cell referring to its implicit theoretical and methodological chosen position with the change element marked as L, M or H (referring to low, medium and high, respectively). The empty cells are theoretical possibilities but do not currently appear to be occupied. The positioning for each approach, which is only indicative, could be justified individually. However, a rather more rigorous and meaningful method for arriving at the same justification is via a brief historical profile of the “father figures” behind these approaches. This allows us to note “family resemblances” as well as “relatives” both those owned and disowned. Figures 3 to 5 trace, in diagrammatic form, these key individuals with their linkage (via dotted lines to indicate intended an
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。