A Critical Realist Exploration of Accountancy as a Social Phenomenon
1
Abstract
A Critical Realist Exploration of Accountancy as a Social Phenomenon
Accounting research has made limited insights into the existence of Accountancy as a social
phenomenon in its organisational context; Accounting discourses have been limited to a large
extent to measurement approaches and systems of evaluation. As a consequence, accounting
research has been limited to studies that reproduce a hegemonic set of cultural values and
conceptions of reality. Interdisciplinary Accounting Research has emerged as an alternative
to mainstream accounting research however attempts to define it have been problematic it has
been criticised for its lack of a coherent methodological approach and it’s potential to
genereate theory. In order for this research to progress, additional philosophical and reflexive
considerations must be made. Thomas Kuhn suggested that a paradigm enabled a scientific
community to create avenues of inquiry and formulate questions. For this purpose, critical
realism is presented as a point of reference for further dialogue about the role of a paradigm in
interpretive accounting research and to question the dichotomous nature of accounting
research as a discipline.
Keywords: Research Paradigms, Critical Realism, Interpretive Accounting, Critical
Accounting Research,
2
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to present Critical Realism as an appropriate paradigm for
accounting research. In particular this paper is concerned with research that explores
accounting as a social phenomenon and understands the lived experiences, social settings and
behaviours of accountants (Tomkins and Groves, 1983; Parker, 2012) using interpretive
research methods to elucidate the experiences of the “natives” (Ahrens, 2008; Ahrens et al,
2008, Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Lukka, and Kuorikoski 2008b).
As such this paper is rooted in the polyphonic debate about the future of interpretive research
(Ahrens et al, 2008) and contributes to the dialogue surrounding the roles and effects of
paradigms in interpretive accounting research (IAR1). Modell (2009, 2010) suggested that
Critical Realism could be mobilised as a philosophically informed foundation for research in
this area, this paper contributes to the discourse in this field (Lukka, 2010, Malmi, 2010,
Vaivio and Siren, 2010) highlighting the need for ongoing reflexive considerations of the
personal, philosophical and methodological commitments.
Background:
Accounting research has made limited insights into the existence of Accountancy as a social
phenomenon in its organisational context (Hopwood, 1983, 2008). The most influential
journals in academic accounting are concerned with auditing, financial accounting, and tax
(Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede & Young, 2006). These research interests have established
themselves as the mainstream favouring positivist based methodologies (Tomkins and
Groves, 1983; Aherns et al, 2008; Hopwood, 2008; Malmi, 2010). The scope of research has
also narrowed (Lukka, 2010); Merchant (2010)’s analysis of the top 6 accounting journals
1
IAR will be used to avoid confusion with similar terms like interdisciplinary accounting research to be
introduced later
3
found that 150 articles published between 1999 and 2009 contained the word compensation in
the abstract. This increasingly homogenous body of work is actively redefining what is
considered to be acceptable research to include studies based on empirical methods and
effectively marginalising alternatives (Dillard, 2008). As a consequence, accounting research
has been limited by these dominant paradigms (Burchell, Clubb, Hopwood, Hughes and
Nahapiet, 1980; Hopwood, 2007) reproducing a hegemonic set of cultural values and
conceptions of reality (Hines, 1992).
Interdisciplinary Accounting Project:
Since the mid 1970’s authors began to systematically question the philosophical assumptions
underlying mainstream accounting and employing interdisciplinary approaches to address
problems ignored by the mainstream (Young and Preston, 1996, Gallhofer and Haslam, 1997,
Lodh and Gaffikin, 1997),this interdisciplinary accounting project sought a more complete
understanding of accounting theory and practice and of the broader social institution of
accountancy Roslender and Dillard (2003). This paper recognises IAR as part of the
interdisciplinary accounting project which by their nature are prone to using qualitative
methods (Parker, 2012).
Critical Accounting:
Roslender and Dillard’s (2003) define Critical Accounting as interdisciplinary accounting
research that is concerned with creating change through a radical political agenda, thus all
interdisciplinary accounting research has the potential to be Critical. Critical Accounting
Research is a variably defined catchall term to define a number of anti-objectivist tendencies
(Moore, 1991), the term Critical Accounting exists in the vocabulary of academics (Lehman,
2006), though many avoid trying to define it (Merino, 1998; Laughlin, 1999; Neu, Cooper
and Everett, 2001).
4
Laughlin (1999) explains that Critical Accounting is always contextual, having social,
economic and political influences and consequences; this makes it necessary to make
intellectual borrowings from other disciplines to provide the theoretical and methodological
perspectives to engage this complex arena. Furthermore it seeks to develop “A critical
understanding of the role of accounting processes and practices and the accounting profession
in the functioning of society and organisations with an intention to use that understanding to
engage (where appropriate) in changing these processes, practices and the profession.” This
definition does not mandate social change as suggested by Roslender and Dillard (2003) but
accommodates it.
Contemporary Debates:
Indeed the debate about Critical Accounting is one of several self reflecting exercises that
interdisciplinary accounting research has experienced of which the polyphonic debate (Ahrens
et al, 2008) is one of the latest. Dillard (2008) suggests these are requisite citing the MarxistFoucault debates (Armstrong, 1994, Grey 1994) and Critical Accounting vs. everyone else
(Roslender and Dillard, 2003). Baxter et al (2008) give a sense that the issues raised in the
debate are not new even though it has found an enthusiastic audience (Cooper 2008,Parker,
2008).
Defining interpretive accounting research has been problematic; Wilmott (2008) proclaims it
to be an empty signifier, not due to a lack of meaning but to accommodate numerous
competing theories with the potential for multiple futures. Ahrens et al (2008) considered this
heterogeneity a strength of the field, in contrast Armstrong (2008) describes much of the
debate surrounding the identity of IAR as clumsy, a crisis experienced by mid career
academics. This may due in part to attempts by scholars to describe it begin by identifying
what it is not with little agreement about the methodologies to be employed.
5
Philosophical considerations:
Modell (2009) suggests that this discourse is limited to technical points instead of deeper
philosophical questions regarding the dichotomy of existing research paradigms. This paper
appreciates that many researchers in this field have been unclear about their methodological
assumptions or failed to declare them (Burrowes, Kastantin & Novcevic, 2004) and presents
Critical Realism as an opportunity for researchers to engage the philosophical considerations
necessary for development of this field of research. There is a need for research in this field to
be explicit regarding its theoretical underpinnings (Burrowes et al, 2004), when undertaking
empirical research there is an inevitable temptation to launch into data collection assuming
that any theoretical and methodological problems will sort themselves out (Laughlin 1995).
Trigg (2001) argued that philosophy in social sciences cannot be an optional activity;
advocating that the philosophical groundwork should be undertaken before the ‘doing’ phase
of any research. Critical Realism in this context provides an opportunity for interpretive
accounting researchers to make these philosophical considerations explicit, avoiding
‘ontological drift’ where ontological and epistemological commitments drift out of alignment
or becoming incompatible (Thompson, 2011).
This paper is organised into three parts; the first discusses the role of a paradigm in
accounting research, this is followed by an introduction to Critical Realism as a paradigm a
discussion of its ontological and epistemological features, the implications for the relationship
between structure and agency what this means for it’s model for change. Finally, a discussion
of the inter paradigmatic discourse considers the reflexivity of researchers and implications
for future research. This paper is self consciously attentive to understand the social character
of accounting (Morgan and Wilmott, 1993).
6
SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM
Kuhn (1962) explained the central role of a paradigm to scientific enquiry and argued that sets
of beliefs are necessary for any activity by a scientific community. A paradigm was defined as
an unprecedented scientific achievement that not only attracted other scientists from
competing modes of scientific activity but also open ended enough to leave unsolved
problems for future research. It therefore enables the scientific community to create avenues
of inquiry, formulate questions and to select methods with which to answer these questions.
With regard to the polyphonic debate (Ahrens et al, 2008), a paradigm will allow IAR to
progress by enabling researchers to define what is relevant and to establish meaning from
what they have learnt in order to develop coherent avenues of enquiry.
Lukka (2010) develops Kuhn’s (1962) use of the paradigm to argue that IAR is a multi
paradigmatic discipline where the majority of research takes place within a specific paradigm
with little care for what exists outside of it. This illustrates ‘paradigms in action’ where
researchers look to their own paradigm for solutions, often ignoring matters outside of their
paradigm (Malmi, 2010). The choice of paradigm by a researcher is a reflection of their
methodological identity exhibiting fundamental, paradigmatically anchored issues of ontology
and epistemology.
Vaivio and Siren (2008) suggest that paradigms are a socio-political device, researchers don’t
choose paradigms based on philosophical considerations but on personal experience,
affiliation and institutional norms.
This has career implications, (Hopwood, 2008, Parker, 2008) with hiring, tenure and
promotion criteria in favour of North American positivist approaches has frustrated
Interpretive researchers in both Europe (Ahrens et al, 2008) and North America (Dillard,
2008) and explains to some extent the difficulty that interpretive researchers have getting
published in mainstream journals (Malmi, 2010). It also provides a context for the efforts
7
made by to engage with mainstream researchers on their terms (Malmi, 2010) by attempting
to “straddle” the paradigms (Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Lukka, and Kuorikoski 2008b; Modell, 2009;
2010)
Burrell and Morgan (1979) argued all social theorists could be located within paradigms
represented in proximity to two key dimensions illustrated in Figure 1. The first is the
subjective - objective dimension, which reflects the assumptions about the nature of science.
The other is the regulation view - radical change dimension that reflects assumptions about
the nature of society. The authors developed a scheme based on the relationship between the
two dimensions shown, this provided four distinct paradigms with fundamentally different
perspectives for analysing social phenomena shown below
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
Realism is located to the right of Figure 1 with the objective assumption of social science,
postulating that the social world is external to the individual cognition, made from tangible,
immutable structures; this differs from the Constructionist view, located to the left of the
Figure 1 which has subjective assumptions suggesting that the social world is made of
concepts, names and labels that are constructed to make sense of the external world (Mir and
Watson, 2000).
Accounting researchers have not ignored this influential framework: Ahrens (2008) explains
how Tomkins and Groves (1983), Hopper and Powell (1985) and Chua, (1986) observed the
limitations of Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) dichotomous model. This paper also questions the
dichotomy something that the polyphonic debate failed to do (Cooper, 2008).
Despite claiming to avoid the abstractness of methodological debate and focuses on problems
arising from research, Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Lukka, and Kuorikoski (2008a) focus on the
8
philosophical distinction between subjective and objective research supporting a moderate
social constructionist position. Seeking a way to peacefully coexist because of their belief that
interpretive research has both subjective and objective elements that straddle the traditional
paradigms.
Modell’s (2009) focus on triangulation strategies and mixed methods exemplified this
approach. Critical Realism was nominated for its potential to address the incommensurability
implied by Kuhn (1962) and Burrell and Morgan (1979).
CRITICAL REALISM
The defining characteristic of Critical Realism that makes it suitable for the purpose intended
is its stratified ontology this distinguishes it from subjectivist and objectivist positions of
Burrell and Morgan (1979) and has implications for its corresponding epistemology that will
be discussed in turn. The use of Critical Realism in this context is meant as a form of
paradigm extension (Qiu, Donaldson, Luo, 2012). Interpretive Accountants are already
intellectually committed to the socially constructed reality in the context of their research. The
use of Critical Realism is deemed credible because interpretive researchers can employ this
epistemology in a new context doing little violence to their existing beliefs.
Ontology
Bhaskar supports the Realist position that the world contains real structures and mechanisms
that exist independently of our knowledge of them. Bhaskar goes further by suggesting that
these mechanisms are often out of temporal sequence with the actual events that they cause.
This may obscure the observation of the mechanisms from the events that they cause and has
important implications that make this realist ontology acceptable Interpretive Accounting
researchers.
9
The Critical Realist stratified ontology can be conceptualised as three distinct domains of
reality and is illustrated in Figure 2.
INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE
Bhaskar (1978) identified the domain of the real as the place where social mechanisms and
structures reside; Bhaskar described these as intransitive structures that exist and act
independently of any knowledge of their existence by actors or observers. They are real
because they have causal efficacy and affect behavior (Fleetwood, 2005).
The Domain of the Actual is the place where the effects of the social mechanisms are
recognised and experienced in the world.
Bhaskar’s (1978) stratified ontology locates the domain of the empirical as the place where
scientists try to understand the events in the domain of the actual using the mediated
knowledge of structures located in the domain of the real. Knowledge of the mechanisms is
necessary to make sense of the events observed (Bhaskar, 1978, 1979).
In short, the real is where mechanisms exist, the real is where they are enacted and the
empirical is where they are observed.
Using an example of a social phenomenon: racism can be considered to be a real mechanism
residing in the domain of the real, it has potential that needs to be triggered or activated in
order to induce an individual to engage in racist behaviour with another, this event once
triggered would take place in the domain of the actual. However if this event was being
analysed or discussed by a social scientist, that observation would exist in the domain of the
empirical and would take place by virtue of the social scientists knowledge of racism from the
domain of the real.
10
The mechanisms and structures of the social world operate in what Bhaskar (1978) describes
as an open system because there are no constant conjunctions, or empirical invariance, which
are necessary conditions for causal law. As a result Critical Realism analyses these laws and
mechanisms (such as racism) as tendencies that may be either unexercised or exercised and
unrealised.
To further illustrate this point I will use an example outside of accountancy: Porter (1993)
provides an account of how Critical Realism can be used to reveal a tendency that may
manifest in the workplace. Conceptualising racism and professionalism as generative
structures, Porter (1993) suggested that professionalism tempered the effects of racism in the
study: racism did not intrude into the workplace because of the greater value placed on
achievements and performance of individuals rather than their ethnic background, despite
finding that racism did manifest itself ‘behind the backs’ of racialised minorities. Racism can
be recognised as a tendency that is realized in some aspects or exercised and unrealised as
described in Porter (1993).
Rational confirmation and rejection of theories “cannot be predictive, and so must be
exclusively explanatory” (Bhaskar, 1978, p. 83). This means that there are potentially several
mechanisms, some of which may be countervailing the mechanisms observed in the
empirical. These mechanisms cause actual events to take place in the domain of the actual.
Applying the Critical Realist framework, the Accountancy profession is located within the
social world as one of many open systems with particular causal mechanisms and social
structures that researchers choose to study however the explanatory nature of the paradigm
means that Critical Realism does not make the unambiguous predictive claims of positivism
against an objective reality, albeit there is an acceptance of an objective reality (Bhaskar,
1978, 1979).
11
Epistemology
The stratified ontology separates the domain of the actual and the empirical (Figure 2);
Critical Realists acknowledge that information is conceptually mediated through the senses
(Fleetwood, 2005). As a result information is value laden, subjective and therefore may be
limited in its use. This approaches moderate forms of Constructionism (Kwan & Tsang, 2001,
Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Lukka, and Kuorikoski 2008a) and accommodates existing beliefs. The
Critical Realist approach allows interpretive accounting researchers to extend their paradigm
into a new context without compromising their methodological approach or the Realist
ontological commitment to an independent reality. This to some extent mitigates concern that
the Modell (2010) had regarding researchers using interdisciplinary approaches being
uncomfortable with a realist approach but requires further analysis.
Structure and Agency
Bhaskar (1989) refers to the agency literature regarding the spectrum between individualism
and voluntarism commenting on Weber’s argument that social objects were the results of
intentional meaning behavior by individuals. Collectivist, Reification and Functionalism are
at the other end of the spectrum, supported by Durkheim’s belief that social objects possess a
life of their own, external to the individual. The Agency - Structure debate is augmented for
Accounting in Figure 3:
INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE
12
Transformational Model of Social Activity
Critical Realism attempts to look beyond this polar debate, acknowledging that social systems
are ready made and pre-exist individuals (Bhaskar, 1978). The Accounting profession would
exist if accountants continued their activity but it is not true to say that those accountants
living today created the Profession, rather they reproduce and transform the existing
Profession. Critical Realists refer to this as the transformational model of social activity
illustrated in Figure 4.
Critical Realism points to the error of reification in suggesting that the Accountancy
profession exists independently of conscious human activity and also refers to the error of
voluntarism in arguing that the Profession is the product of human activity.
INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE
The Profession provides the conditions for necessary intentional human activity by
accountants. People in their conscious human activity for the most part unconsciously
reproduce or transform the structures that govern their substantive activities of production
(Bhaskar, 1989).
This is a synergy between Critical Realist who postulate that accountants reproduce and
occasionally transform the Accountancy profession that governs their activities, and Critical
Accountants who recognise that social Condition and social consequence are part of the same
reality (Roslender and Dillard, 2003)
The model generates a clear criterion for historically significant events, those that initiate or
constitute rupture, mutation or transformations in social forms (Bhaskar, 1989). This
emphasis on material continuity sustains a genuine concept of change and a historically
grounded social theory of the way societies and institutions have emerged and can be
13
understood in line with the Critical tradition (Laughlin, 1999). The purpose for researchers is
to understand how to create a desired transformation of society and its institutions. To this
extent Critical Realism is influenced by Marx, Kant and Hegel’s idea of human agency as an
active force in history (Laughlin, 1987). Critical Realism shares this influence.
Critical Realism has its origins in the socialist tradition; Bhaskar (1978) is explicit in
acknowledging the Marxist influence as part of a project for socialism to become the
enlightened common sense of our age. Critical Realism is considered to be a vehicle for a
project of “human self emancipation”. It is the emancipatory potential of Critical Realism
that makes it a suitable methodological framework (Wilson and Cormack, 2006) for IAR. A
sophisticated assessment of the contributions of Marxism to Critical Realism is too elaborate
for this paper. In this paper, I acknowledge the Marxist influence in Critical Realism; however
I wish to avoid the “Mickey Mouse caricature” of Marx that has limited Critical Accounting
research (Laughlin, 1999, p.74). This paper recognises the emancipatory aspirations of
Marxism and its required critique of the status quo as a fundamental benefit in attempting to
initiate change in the Critical Accounting Project (Laughlin, 1987; Chua, 1988)
acknowledging that further work is required to clarify what that means in Accountancy.
The intention here is not to subordinate non critical accounting interdisciplinary accounting
research but highlight the potential for Critical Realist Research
INTERPARADIGMATIC DISCOURSE
Further reflexive considerations are required for progress in this field; the polyphonic debate
and paradigmatic considerations featured a considerable amount that have enriched the
literature (Ahrens et al, 2008; Dillard, 2008;Malmi, 2010; Merchant, 2010) to the extent that
Roslender and Dillard (2003) definition of Critical accounting research may need to be
reconsidered in this context because Interpretive Accounting researchers are committed to
14
challenging the status quo (Ahrens et al, 2008) and creating change by advancing the
interdisciplinary accounting project from the margins of accounting towards greater
prominence (Miller, 1998).
Buchanan and Bell (2007) addressed the location of the researcher to the research subject;
they argued that the researcher’s identity influences the choice of methodological framework
of any study. This reflexive influence extends to the conduct, analysis and interpretation of
the data itself. Reflexive methodologies link politics, ontology and epistemology, to integrate
ethical judgments on the research process and accountability for the knowledge that is
produced (Haynes, 2008).
This is central to understanding why straddling paradigms is desirable outcome of interpretive
research. The reflexive considerations and personal opinions discussed gave an informed
context to interpret the opinions of the researchers. This must continue in order for IAR to
develop in particular to understand the motivations of researchers in seeking greater
congruence with the mainstream literature may assist in the assessment of Critical Realism for
IAR.
Ahrens (2008) rejects the mutually exclusive paradigms as illogical and superficial
interpreting, suggests that this been superseded by an acceptance of the blurred line between
them. This suggests that mainstream accounting research and interdisciplinary perspectives
are not mutually exclusive. Thus creating a potential for a dialogue by willing researchers.
In any event, the transformational model of social activity shown in Figure 4 can be applied to
academics as much as to the accountants they study. There is a clear desire to move IAR from
the margins towards the centre of accounting research; this will involve the transformation of
academia by a group of its members.
This does not make Critical Realism a suitable paradigm for research, however it does
provide a point of reference from which to proceed even though it’s use has been problematic
15
(Modell, 2009) and at times unclear, often descriptions are painfully abstract, (Bhaskar, 1989)
requiring a depth of philosophical knowledge that may deter researchers from further
investigation. The lack of clarity also relates to the phenomena being examined: it may
become problematic to recognise the effects of mechanisms such as racism or gendered
attitudes because Critical Realism acknowledges that there may be a temporal difference
between the cause and effect of a mechanism, this also implies that it may difficult for
researchers to identify any rank or primacy regarding these mechanisms. The problem of
recognition is amplified if there are several mechanisms in play, some of which are unknown.
This limits its application if interventions are required in an organisation because of the
difficulty in reproducing events and circumstances of a scientific observation. This highlights
the need for replication of scientific tests where possible and clarity regarding the methods
used. Replication is feasible but may not be possible; however failure to replicate the social
conditions of the study should not be considered a conclusive falsification of existing results
(Kwan & Tsang, 2001).
This issue of replication may present a considerable problem if trying to appeal to mainstream
researchers. Chua, (1986) acknowledged that the role of positivist researchers was to discover
and validate laws and principles so that they can be used to predict and influence events.
Davila and Oyon, (2008) suggest that this issue with validity underlies the concern of the
mainstream regarding IAR and other interdisciplinary accounting research not the
methodology used. The ability to reproduce results provides external validity for research;
something that IAR in a Critical Realist context does not provide explicitly.
Triangulation of research methods has been suggested as a method of mitigation and making
meaningful analysis of data and generating authentic results Modell (2009, 2010). Credibility,
dependability, transferability and confirmability are concepts analogous to validity and
reliability in quantitative research (Riege, 2003) and are more appropriate than
their
16
positivist counterparts for measuring the quality of IAR; researchers need to consider their
research design in order to develop internal coherence and where possible generalizability.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The majority of normal science takes place within an existing paradigm (Kuhn, 1962), this
allows relevant research questions to be formed and provides clarity for future research
(Scapen, 2008). There are considerable reasons not to change paradigm and evidently,
researchers like to use those that they are familiar with, changes to this undermines their
methodological identity which in turn may have an impact on their career (Malmi, 2010).
Researchers have been unclear about the paradigms they use, despite alluding to their
methodologies. Critical Realism has the potential to extend their muted paradigm allowing
IAR researchers to retain their methodological preferences. Qiu, Donaldson and Liu (2012)
suggest that methodologies sit in judgement on theories and are therefore superordinate to
them. Paradigm extension as suggested in this paper provides an opportunity for substantive
theory development because the superhardcore of a paradigm, in this case, a qualitative
interpretive methodology remains unchanged and is now fit for development of new theories
that share the same hardcore elements. This maintains the theoretical diversity celebrated in
the polyphonic debate (Ahrens et al, 2008) and creates opportunities for new theories to be
developed; moreover it prevents the need for a paradigm revolution (Kuhn, 1962).
Further discussion of Critical Realism is required; attempts to reconcile incommensurability
have been problematic and require detailed attention, as an early career researcher I hope to
make further contributions to this debate regarding the potential to straddle paradigms and the
benefits that this will bring to IAR. My intention here was to emancipate not to constrain,
Critical Realism was presented as part of a dialogue to further promote transparency and
deeper reflexive and philosophical considerations in order for interpretive accounting research
17
to progress. There is a huge opportunity for researchers to take a lead down a path less
travelled, developing relationships with disciplines like organisational behaviour who
normally think that accounting is outside of their concern (Morgan and Wilmott, 1993) in
order to create a dynamic future for interpretive accounting research.
18
REFERENCES
Ahrens, T., 2008. Overcoming the subjective–objective divide in interpretive management
accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33: 292-297
Ahrens, T., Becker, A., Burns, J., Chapman, C., Granlund, M., Habersam, M.,Hansen, A.,
Khalifa, R., Malmi, T., Mennicken, A., Mikes, A., Panozzo, F., Piber, M., Quattrone, P.,
Scheytt, T., 2008. The future of interpretive accounting research - a polyphonic debate.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19: 840–866.
Armstrong, P., 2008. Calling out for more: Comment on the future of interpretive accounting
research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19:867-879
Baxter, J., Boedker, C., Chua, W.F., 2008. The future(s) of interpretive accounting research—
a polyphonic response from beyond the metropolis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19
(6), 880–886.
Bhaskar R. 1978. A Realist Theory of Science, 2nd edn. Brighton. Harvester Press.
Bhaskar, R. 1979. Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy,
London. Verso.
Bhaskar R., 1989 The Possibility of Naturalism, 2nd edn. Harvester Press, Brighton.
Bonner, S. E., Hesford, J.W., Van der Stede, W.A. & Young, S.M., 2006. The most
influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 31: 663685
Buchanan, D.A. and Bell, B., 2007. ‘Contextualising Methods in Organizational
Research’ Organisational Research Methods, 10 (3): 483-501.
Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., Hughes, J., and Nahapiet, J. 1980. The Roles of
Accounting in Organisations and Society’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(1): 521.
19
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London. Heinemann
Burrowes, A.W., Kastantin, J. and Novcevic, M. M., 2004. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
as
a hologram of post-Enron disclosure: a critical realist commentary. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 15:797-811.
Chua, W. F., 1986. Radical Developments in Accounting Thought, The Accounting Review
61:601-632.
Chua, W.F., 1988. Interpretive Sociology and Management Accounting Research - A Critical
Review. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1 (2): 59-79.
Cooper, D., 2008. Is there a future for interpretive accounting research? Critical Perspectives
on Accounting 19 pp 837–839
Davila T, Oyon D. 2008. Cross-paradigm collaboration and the advancement of management
accounting knowledge. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19(6):887–93.
Dent, J.F., 1991 Accounting and Organizational Cultures: A Field Study of the Emergence of
a New Organizational Reality. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 16 (8):705-732.
Dillard, J., 2008. A political base of a polyphonic debate Critical Perspectives on Accounting
19 894–900
Fleetwood, S., 2005. Ontology in Organisation and Management Studies: A
Critical Realist Perspective. Organisation. 12 (2):197-222.
Gallhofer, S., Haslam, J., 1997. Beyond Accounting : The Possibilities of Accounting and
‘‘Critical ’ Accounting Research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 8 , 71 – 95
20
Haynes, K. 2008. ‘Transforming identities: Accounting professionals and the
transition to
motherhood’. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19, . 620 – 642
Hines, R., 1992.Accounting: Filling the negative space. Accounting Organizations
and Society, (3/4): 313 – 341.
Hopwood, A., 1983. On Trying to Understand Accounting in the contexts in which it
operates. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8, (213):287-305.
Hopwood, A. G., 2007. Whither accounting research, The Accounting Review, 82(5): 13651374.
Hopwood, A.G., 2008. "Changing Pressures on the Research Process: On Trying to Research
in an Age when Curiosity is not Enough". The European Accounting Review, 17 (1), p. 8796
Hopper , T . & Powell , A ., 1985. ‘‘Making Sense of Research in the Organisational and
Social Aspects of Management Accounting : A Review of its Underlying Assumptions’’ ,
Journal of Management Studies , Vol . 22 , No . 3 , . 429 – 65 .
Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., & Kuorikoski, J. 2008a. Straddling between paradigms:
A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33: (2–3): 267–291.
Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., & Kuorikoski, J. 2008b No premature closures of
debates, please: A response to Ahrens. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33: 298-301.
Kuhn, T., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kwan K.-M. & Tsang E.W.K., 2001. Realism and constructivism in strategy research: a
critical realist response to Mir and Watson. Strategic Management Journal 22 (12): 11631168.
21
Laughlin, R., 1987. Accounting Systems in Organisational Contexts: A Case for
Critical Theory. Accounting Organizations and Society, 12(5): 479 -502.
Laughlin, R., 1995. Methodological themes Empirical research in accounting:
alternative approaches and a case for “middle range” thinking, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability, 8 (1):63-87.
Laughlin, R., 1999 Critical accounting: nature, progress and prognosis. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12 (1):73 -78
Lehman, G., 2006. Perspectives on language, accountability and critical
accounting: An interpretative perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17:755-779.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverley Hills, California: Sage
Lodh, S., Gaffikin, M., 1997. “Critical Studies in Accounting Research, Rationality and
Habermas: a Methodological Reflection”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, . 433–478.
Lukka, 2010. The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research. Management
Accounting Research. 21: 110 -115
Malmi, T. 2010. Reflections on paradigms in action in accounting research. Management
Accounting Research 21 121–123
Merchant, K.A.,2010 Paradigms in accounting research: A view from North America
Management Accounting Research. 21: 116 -120
Merino, B., 1998. Critical Theory and Accounting History: Challenges and
Opportunities Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9: 603-616.
Miller, P., 1998. The margins of accounting, European Accounting Review, 7:4, 605-621
Mir, R., & Watson, A., 2000. Strategic management and the philosophy of science: The case
for a constructivist methodology. Strategic Management Journal 21/9: 941-953.
Modell, S., 2009. In defence of triangulation: a critical realist approach to mixed methods
research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research 20: 208–221.
22
Modell, S., 2010, Bridging the paradigm divide in management accounting research: the role
of mixed methods approaches’, Management Accounting Research, vol.21, 2:124-129.
Moore, D.C., 1991. Accounting on trial: The Critical Legal Studies Movement and its lessons
for radical accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society.16. (8):763-791.
Morgan, G., Willmott, H., 1993. "The "New" Accounting Research: On Making Accounting
More Visible", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 Iss: 4 . 3 - 33
Neu, D., Cooper D.J. and Everett, J., 2001.Critical Accounting Interventions.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 0:1–28
Parker L. D., 2008. Interpreting interpretive accounting research. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting 19(6): 909–14.
Parker L. D., 2012. Qualitative management accounting research: Assessing deliverables and
relevance Critical Perspectives on Accounting 23 54– 70
Porter, S., 1993. Critical Realist Ethnography: The case of Racism and Professionalism in a
Medical Setting. Sociology, 27: 591-609.
Qiu. J., Donaldson. L., Luo. B.N., 2012. The Benefits of Persisting With Paradigms in
Organizational Research, The Academy of Management Perspectives Vol 6 (1) 93 - 104
Riege, A.M. 2003. Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review
with “hands-on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal. 6 (2):75-86.
Roslender R, Dillard J., 2003. Reflections on the interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting
project. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 14(3): 325–52.
Scapens, R., 2008. Seeking the relevance of interpretive research: a contribution to the
polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19 (6), 915–919.
23
Thompson, M., 2011. Ontological Shift or Ontological Drift? Reality Claims, Epistemological
Frameworks, and Theory Generation in Organization Studies. Academy of Management
Review. 36 (4): 754-773
Tomkins, C. & Grove, R., 1983. The Everyday Accountant and Researching His Reality.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8 (4): 361-374.
Trigg, R., 2001. Understanding Social Science: A Philosophical Introduction to the Social
Sciences, 2nd edn. , Malden, MA. Blackwell.
Vaivio, J., Sirén, J., 2010. Insights into method triangulation and “paradigms” in interpretive
management accounting research, Management Accounting Research 21 130–141
Wilmott, H., 2008. Listening, interpreting, commending: A commentary on the future of
interpretive accounting research Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19 920–925
Wilson, V., & McCormack, B. 2006. Critical realism as emancipatory action: the case for
realistic evaluation in practice development, Nursing Philosophy, 7: 45 – 57.
Young, J., Preston, A., 1996. Commentaries: Are accounting researchers under the tyranny of
single theory perspectives? , Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 Iss: 4 .
107 – 111
24
FIGURES
Figure 1: Four Paradigms for the analysis of Social Theory
Source: Burrell and Morgan (1979), p. 22.
Figure 2: Critical Realist Domains of Reality
Domain of Real
Domain of Actual
Mechanisms

Events


Experiences


Domain of Empirical

Source: Bhaskar (1978), p. 13.
25
Figure 3: Traditional Agency Models using Accounting
Source: Adapted from Bhaskar (1989), p. 74.
Figure 4: Transformational Model of Social Activity
Source: Adapted from Bhaskar (1989), p. 77.
26