Chapter 8Research perspectives in accounting

Classification of accounting researchersThe typology of Jung seems to be the most useful in classifying scientists in general and accounting researchers in particularJung classified individuals by the way they receive information (either by sensation or intuition) and the way they reach decisions (either by thinking or feeling)

Jung and the classification of researchersThe components of the Jungian dimensions are, according to Jung:Sensation involves receiving information through the senses, focusing on detail, emphasizing the here and now and the practicalIntuition involves input of information through the imagination, emphasizing the whole or Gestalt, dwelling in idealism, in hypothetical possibilities, and taking an interest in the long term

Jung and the classification of researchers (contd)Thinking is concerned with the use of reasoning which is impersonal and formal to develop explanations in scientific, technical and theoretical termsFeeling relates to the reaching of decisions on the basis of highly valued judgements and focusing on human values, moral and ethical issues

Jung and the classification of researchers (contd)According to Jung, four personality types result from combinations of Jungs dimensions:sensing-thinkingsensing-feelingfeeling-intuitionthinking-intuition

Jung and the classification of researchers (contd)Jungs typology was used by Mitroff and Kilman to produce a classification of different types of researchers:Abstract ScientistConceptual TheoristConceptual HumanistParticular Humanist

Mitroff and Kilmans classification of researchersThe Abstract Scientist, a sensing-thinking person, is motivated by the conduct of enquiry along a precise methodology and logic, with a focus on certainty, accuracy and reliability, and a reliance on a simple, well-defined and consistent paradigmThe Conceptual Theorist, a thinking-intuition person, attempts to generate multiple explanations or hypotheses for phenomena, with a focus on discovery rather than testing

Mitroff and Kilmans classification of researchers (contd)The Particular Humanist, a sensing-feeling person, is concerned with the uniqueness of particular human beingsThe Conceptual Humanist, an intuition-feeling person, focuses on human welfare, directing his or her personal conceptual enquiry towards the general human good

Accounting methodology perspectivesThe widely accepted view of the role of accounting research is that it functions to establish general laws covering the behavior of empirical events or objects with which the science is concerned, and thereby enables us to connect our knowledge of separately known eventsThe natural-science model, which includes careful sampling, accurate measurement, and good design and analysis of theory-supported hypotheses, is generally adopted as the model supporting good researchThe natural-science model has met with objection, leading to the ideographic versus nomothetic methodology debate

Nomothesis versus ideographyThe nomothetic approach:seeks only laws and employs only those procedures admitted by an exact sciencebases research on protocol and techniqueThe ideographic approach: endeavours to understand a particular event in nature or societyis based on the view that the social world can only be understood by obtaining first-hand knowledge of the subject under investigation

Nomothesis versus ideography (contd)The approaches nomothesis versus ideography, or enquiry from the outside versus enquiry from the inside differ in terms of the mode of enquiry, the type of organisational action, and the type and number of analytic dimensionsThe nomothetic method is interested in the development of universal knowledge theoryThe ideographic method is interested in the knowledge of a condition for praxis, which is a knowledge of how to act appropriately in a variety of particular situations

Behlings five key objectionsOrlando Behling raised five key objections to the natural science model that is used in social science research and that is applicable to accounting research, namely:Uniqueness: Each organisation, group and person differs to some degree from all others the development of precise general laws in organisational behaviour and organisation theory is therefore impossibleInstability: The phenomena of interest to researchers in organisational behaviour and organisation theory are transitory

Behlings five key objections (contd)Sensitivity: Unlike chemical compounds and other things of interest to natural science researchers, the people who make up organisations, and thus organisations themselves, may behave differently if they become aware of research hypotheses abut themLack of realism: Manipulating and controlling variables in organisational research changes the phenomena under study

Behlings five key objections (contd)Epistemological differences: Although understanding cause and effect through natural science research is an appropriate way of knowing about physical phenomena, a different kind of knowledge not tapped by this approach is more important in organisational behaviour and organisational theory

Convergent methodologyThere is an established school of thought that recommends the use of multiple methodsIt is generally described as one of convergent methodology, multi-method/ multi-trait, convergent validation, or what has been called triangulationAccording to Allport, the ideographic and nomothetic methods were overlapping and contributing to one another

Convergent methodology (contd)Use of both methods can:lead to more confidence in resultshelp uncover the deviant or off-quadrant dimension of a phenomenonlead to a synthesis or integration of theoriesserve as a critical test

Three optionsWhat convergent methodology implies for research practice is an eventual choice between three options:pursue both nomothetic and ideographic research and the aggregatealternate between both nomothetic and ideographic research, running back and forth between the two methods to capitalise on the strengths of one method in certain cases and overcome the deficiencies of the other method in other cases

Three options (contd)Develop a new science described eloquently as follows:The new science that is gradually emerging is likely to be more actor based, experimentally rooted, praxis-oriented, and self-reflective than the current image of (positivistic, objective) science

Stephen Peppers world hypothesesKnowledge is the result of a constant cognitive refinement: the criticism and improvement of common-sense claims, referring to common-sense knowledge as dubitianda claims to be doubtedThe cognitive refinement is accomplished by:multiplicative corroboration a confirmation of phenomena by various subjects, andstructural corroboration the use of theories and hypotheses about the world and their confirmation by empirical data

Stephen Peppers world hypotheses (contd)Pepper distinguishes four world hypotheses as adequate structural hypothesis. These are: formism, which includes analytic and dispersive theoriesmechanism, which includes analytic and integrative theoriescontextualism, which includes synthetic and dispersive theoriesorganicism, which includes synthetic and integrative theories

FormismRelates philosophically to realism and platonic idealism, with exponents like Plato and AristotleIts root metaphor is similarityIt includes both analytic and dispersive theoriesThe central activity is description on the basis of similarities, without concern for the sources of the similaritiesThe description in formism rests on three categories: characters, particulars and participationWhat appears in formism is that truth is the degree of similarity of a description to its object of reference

MechanismRelates philosophically to the naturalism or materialism of Democrites, Lucretius, Galileo, Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Berkely, Hu and ReichenbachIncludes both analytic and integrative theoriesIts root metaphor is a machineLike formism, mechanism is an analytical theory focusing on discrete elements rather than complexes or contextsUnlike formism, mechanism is integrative in the sense that its world is well-ordered: the facts occur in a determinate order and, were enough known, they could be predicted or at least described as being necessarily just what they are

Mechanism (contd)Six features characterise the mechanistic type of knowledge:like a machine, the object of study is composed of parts having specified locationsthe parts can be expressed in a quantitative form, corresponding to the primary qualities of the machinea lawful relationship between the parts of a study object can be described by functional equations or statistical correlations this is the statement of the interrelationships among the parts of the machine

Mechanism (contd)In addition to the primary qualities, there are other characteristics that can be expressed quantitatively, although they are not directly relevant to the object of study these are secondary qualitiesThe secondary qualities are also related by some principle to the object of study because if there were to be a complete description of the machine we should want to find out and describe just what the principle was which kept certain secondary qualities attached to certain parts of the machine

Mechanism (contd)Secondary laws characterise the stable relationship between the secondary qualitiesThe truth theory of mechanism is whether the machine works, which is measured by workability, which comes down to whether or not ones knowledge allows predictions of the outcomes of any casual adjustments made in the system

Contextualism Relates to the pragmatism of Pierce, James, Bergson, Dewey and MeadIt includes both synthetic and dispersive theoriesIts root metaphor is the historic event or the act in contextUnlike formism, contextualism is synthetic, in that it forcuses on a pattern (a Gestalt) as the object of study rather than on disparate facts

Contextualism (contd)Like formism, contextualism is dispersive, in that the focus is on the interpretation of facts retrieved one by one from a universe of factsThese facts are characterised by continuously changing patterns, making change and novelty the fundamental contextualistic categories

Formism in accountingFormism in accounting consists of searching for similarities and differences between different objects of study without any concern for potential relationships among themIt may be argued that all of the technical knowledge in accounting that is used in the teaching of accounting and included in standard textbooks is to a great extent inescapably formisticFormism fits well in accounting practice, where categorisation is tantamount to reaching solutions

Mechanism in accountingMechanism in accounting consists of not only looking for similarities and differences between objects of study but also and mainly for quantitative relationships that allow both description and predictionMechanism in accounting is also the search for empirical regularities among different phenomena through various forms of statistical correlation

Mechanism in accounting (contd)Most empirical research in accounting, or so called mainstream research, is to a great extent inescapably mechanisticMechanism in accounting focuses on obtaining an ever-more exhaustive description and finer representation in order to delineate an abbreviated representation of the logic linking the parts of the accounting research object

Contextualism in accountingContextualism in accounting focuses on the interpretation of independent facts drawn from a universe of facts in a specific context that would create a pattern or GestaltIt may be argued that any new accounting technical knowledge that is accumulated for specific contexts constitutes a good example of contextualism in accounting

Contextualism in accounting (contd)Contextualism appears to be more helpful to the practice of accounting than formism, by working for specific Gestalt in accounting where it can pinpoint what is useful and what is not useful, and identify the working of specific organisational cultures in accountingContextualism in accounting research relies on an analysis of only facts of direct verification facts that are specific to a given situation, such as a given industry

Organicism in accountingThose who adopt organicism in accounting are focusing on specific Gestalt as objects of study, which are composed of well-ordered and integrated facts that can be described as well as predictedLike mechanism in accounting, organicism seeks the determination of empirical regularities between different phenomena through various forms of statistical analysis

Organicism in accounting (contd)Organicism avoids most of the limitations of mechanism in accounting by integrating the research and findings around a specific contextOrganicism in accounting is viewed as an important factor of future accounting research

Perspectives on accounting researchAccounting research is elective and diverseLike every other social science, accounting bases its research upon assumptions about the nature of social science and the nature of societyAn approach applied by Burrel and Morgan to organisational analysis can be used to differentiate between four visions of research in accounting:functionalist interpretiveradical humanistradical structuralist

The nature of social scienceFour assumptions about the nature of social science relate to ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology OntologyThe ontological assumption, concerning the very essence of the accounting phenomenon, involves nominalismrealism differences The debate concerns whether the social world external to individual cognition is a compound of pure names, concepts and labels that give a structure to reality (as in nominalism) or whether it is a compound of real, factual and tangible structures (as in realism)

The nature of social science (contd)EpistemologyThe epistemological debate, concerning the grounds of knowledge and the nature of knowledge, involves the antipositivismpositivism debateThis debate focuses on the utility of a search for laws or underlying regularities in the field of social affairsHuman natureThe human-nature debate, concerning the relationship between human beings and their environment, involves the voluntarismdeterminism debateThis debate focuses on whether humans and their activities are determined by their situation or environment (as as in determinism) or are the result of free will (as in voluntarism)

The nature of social science (contd)Methdology The methodology debate, concerning the methods used to investigate and learn about the social world, involves the ideographicnomothetic debateThis debate focuses on whether the methodology involves the analysis of the subjective accounts obtained by participating or getting inside the situation (as in the ideographic method) or whether it involves a rigorous and scientific testing of hypotheses (as in the nomothetic method)

The framework for analysis of research Any social science discipline, including accounting, can be analysed through metatheoretical assumptions about the nature of science (the subjectiveobjective dimension), and about the nature of society (the dimension of regulationradical change)Using these two dimensions, Burrel and Morgan were able to develop a coherent scheme for the analysis of social theory in general and organisational analysis in particular

The framework for analysis of research (contd)The scheme consists of four distinct paradigms, being:radical humanist, characterised by the radical change and subjective dimensionsradical struturalist, characterised by the radical change and objective dimensionsinterpretive, characterised by the subjective and regulation dimensionsfunctionalist, characterised by the objective and regulation dimensions

The functionalist view in accountingThe functionalist view in accounting focuses on explaining the social order, in which accounting plays a role, from a realist, positivist, determinist and nomothetic standpointIt is effective regulation on the basis of objective evidenceThe functionalist paradigm in accounting views accounting phenomena as concrete real-world relations possessing regularities and causal relationships that are amenable to scientific explanation

The functionalist view in accounting (contd)As in structural functionalism, the functionalist paradigm in accounting focuses on establishing the functions of accounting needed for the efficient operation of organisationsAs in system theory, the functionalist paradigm in accounting focuses on both the search for analogical representation of the accounting system and a system analysis

The interpretive view in accountingThe interpretive view in accounting would focus on explaining the social order from a normalist, antipositivist, voluntarist and ideological standpointIn accounting it would aim to understand the subjective experience of individuals involved in the preparation, communication, verification or use of accounting informationTo the interpretists, accounting is no more than names, concepts and labels used to construct social reality

The interpretive view in accounting (contd)Although the interpretive paradigm is not predominant in accounting, it suffers from three major limitations:it assumes that a quasidivine observer can understand social action through sheer subjectivity and without interferenceit creates the illusion of pure theory by using a monological line of reasoningit fails to be an enquiry of change

The radical humanist view in accounting The radical humanist view in accounting would focus on explaining the social order from a nominalist, voluntarist and ideographic perspective, and place emphasis on forms of radical methodologyIt would respect any research that reduced philosophical critique to some normative methodologyCritical theory in accounting assumes that theories, bodies of knowledg and facts are mere reflections of a realistic worldview

The radical humanist view in accounting (contd)It would view accountants, accountors and accountees as prisoners of a mode of consciousness that is shaped and controlled through ideological processesIn short, accounting would be viewed as creating a psychic prison where organisational realities become confirming and dominating

The radical structuralist view in accountingThe radical structuralist view in accounting would challenge the social order from a realist, positivist, deterministic and nomothetic standpointIt would seek radical change, emancipation, contradiction and deprivationThis paradigm would generate accounting theories based upon metaphors such as the instrument of domination, schismatic system and catastropheFrom the point of view of radical structuralists, organisations are instruments of social forces concerned with maintaining the division of labour and the distribution of wealth and power in society