Interpretive Accounting Research Research Articles

Understanding Data Collection Methods in Qualitative Research: The Perspective Of Interpretive Accounting Research

In general, in qualitative research there are several methods of data collection, namely documentation, interviews, surveys, focus group discussions, observation, participatory arrangements and qualitative audio-visual material. The aim of this paper discusses about the method of data collection in qualitative research, especially in accounting research interpretive. After going through the literature review process, it can be seen that the quality of data in interpretive accounting research is strongly influenced by the ability of the researcher to carry out its role as a research instrument. Researchers should be able to ' merge' with the object of research so as to choose or combine the data collection method that is appropriate to be able to understand and interpret the research object corresponding subject's perspective or the communities studied in depth according interpretive characteristics.

Methodological reflections on historical case study and interpretive accounting research

Commenting on our study “Accountability and ideology: The case of a German university under the Nazi regime", published in 2020 in Accounting History, Fülbier recently outlined a research agenda on the manifold ways in which the Nazi doctrine affected institutions of higher education, going beyond the scope of our original article. With this reply, we seek to reflect on research considerations emanating from such an agenda, relating to (i) conducting historical case-based research, (ii) questions of ontology and epistemology in interpretive accounting research, and (iii) the notion of what constitutes accounting in a specific research context. We hope that our reply, along with Fülbier’s commentary, inspires further research on accounting’s role in totalitarian regimes.

Reality and Accounting: The Case of Accounting Research with Interpretive Approaches

Economic reality plays an important role in accounting practice and standard setting process. The positivism paradigm view reality as independently existing, and interpretive paradigm view reality as socially constructed. It is argued in this paper that utilizing interpretive view in accounting research is better able to capture the economic reality that is socially constructed and much affected by our account. This is because accounting is a social science and is better understood by gaining the views of different parties involved, which is largely done by utilizing interpretive accounting research.

A review of Gadamerian and Ricoeurian hermeneutics and its application to interpretive accounting research

PurposeThe study seeks to address the research question: “How can Gadamerian and Ricoeurian hermeneutics be operationalized in an interpretive accounting research project”? The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to review the key hermeneutic concepts of philosophers Gadamer and Ricoeur; and second, to share insights from the researcher’s experience of applying Gadamerian and Ricoeurian hermeneutics to an interpretive accounting research project.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on the extant literature and the researcher’s own experience using hermeneutics theory in an interpretive accounting research project involving in-depth interviews with organisational managers.FindingsThe process of interpretation is described using the core concept of the hermeneutic circle where the reader and the text engage in dialogue. The readers’ pre-understandings play a key role in this dialogue and assist in drawing meaning from the text. However, it is necessary for the reader to adopt a critically reflexive approach remaining alert for both unproductive pre-understandings and hidden power structures and ideologies in the text being interpreted. Each reading of a text involves the completion of one cycle of the hermeneutic circle in which the reader transitions from pre-configuration to configuration and ultimately re-configuration concluding with the reader acquiring new horizons of understanding. The researcher’s experience of applying hermeneutic theory to an interpretive accounting research project are reflected on and nine lessons are offered.Originality/valueThese insights will prove valuable to interpretive researchers within the social sciences, including accounting and management studies, as well as those working in the natural sciences.

The manufacture of the academic accountant

This paper uses observation and semi-structured interviews, informed by limited auto-ethnography, to examine the experiences of accounting doctoral students at a North American business school. Analyzing the findings with a theoretical approach to understanding scientific activity (Knorr-Cetina, 1981), this study investigates the influence of networks of academic supervisors, colloquia facilitators, and other doctoral students on the socialization of developing accounting academics as they learn the research process. The paper demonstrates that these resource-relationships play a key role in the formation of the doctoral student in relation to their respective field. The paper also demonstrates the influence of the particular methodology they are learning, as part of the socialization process. The degree of the field-specific methods’ indeterminacy influences the students’ perception of limits to their freedom and innovation. Building on previous research, the paper challenges the opposition of interpretive accounting research to a positivist/functionalist mainstream: the paper shows that despite the potential provided by the Inter-disciplinary stream’s indeterminacy of what constitutes “good research”, such opposition limits innovation and freedom.

Fundamentos para el estudio de las corrientes de investigación en contabilidad

La contabilidad como disciplina de conocimiento se alimenta de teorías e investigaciones que permiten ampliar sus postulados y argumentos en la vía de su fundamentación que a la vez impacta en su ejercicio práctico. Así mismo, la evolución del conocimiento contable presenta avances desde la corriente principal y la denominada contabilidad emergente representada por la investigación contable crítica y la investigación contable interpretativa.De lo anterior se desprende la necesidad de reflexionar sobre las categorías de las corrientes contables: principal (CP), interpretativa (CI) y crítica (CC), con el fin de dar respuesta a la pregunta ¿Cuáles son los fundamentos para el estudio de las corrientes de investigación en contabilidad? El diseño metodológico del artículo, adopta un enfoque descriptivo y reflexivo a partir de una revisión documental sobre avances interdisciplinarios de la contabilidad. Como conclusión principal se muestran diferencias en el andamiaje de las tres corrientes en estudio; así la contabilidad no es reflejo automático de asuntos económicos, por el contrario responde a condiciones históricas, e intereses ideológicos y políticos de distintos grupos empresariales, estatales, académicos y sociales.

“[T]here are known knowns … things we know that we know”

PurposeThe starting point for this paper is that the researcher is intimately bound up in all aspects of the research process. This idea of what is a critical aspect of much interpretive methodology has been challenged by some proponents of the interpretive accounting research (IAR) project. The authors suggest that adopting some of the views expounded in the IAR project may lead to the accounting research community becoming isolated from other interpretive methodology inspired disciplines. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approachCurrently popular views on IAR are informed by selective theoretical insights from interpretive sociology. The authors argue that these insights cannot provide a general frame with which to encapsulate accounting research that may be reasonably termed “interpretive.”FindingsThe authors’ reading of the literature suggests that the some of the IAR literature exhibits: a tendency to routinely make overly specific claims for what it is possible for interpretive research to achieve; the promotion of a somewhat reductionist view of what the bounds of interpretive research are. The authors suggest that these tendencies detract from the strengths of (adopting a broad view of) IAR.Research limitations/implicationsIn expressing the authors’ concerns, the authors do not wish to make an exclusive argument for what IAR is and is not. This would not be in line with writing an interpretive paper. While the authors do not eschew the possibility of a limited building of knowledge by applying interpretive methodological stances neither do the authors see such activity as a central plank of interpretive research.Practical implicationsThe authors believe that positivistic commentaries on qualitative enquiry should not be taken as exemplary of interpretive research (in accounting – or elsewhere). The authors feel that IAR needs to be more open to an array of subjectivist motivations, if it is to provide useful critique of the nature of day-to-day accounting practice.Originality/valueThe authors seek to go beyond the rather unhelpful debate about whether IAR should be seen to possess both objective and subjective elements. The authors argue that IAR suffers more from a lack of engagement and debate than it faces dangers from areas of interpretive methodology that adopt positions considered to be too subjectivist.

Accounting for the Bitcoin: accountability, neoliberalism and a correspondence analysis

Purpose Given its innovative characteristics and increasing popularity, the Bitcoin, and other virtual currencies, are expected to become mainstream, leading to the need for a generally accepted accounting treatment. Currently, however, there are no accounting standards which offer guidance on the recognition and measurement of these virtual currencies. To this end, the purpose of this paper is to determine a conceptual approach for accounting for the Bitcoin, grounded in the theories of neoliberalism and stewardship. Design/methodology/approach The research adopts an interpretive mixed-method approach. The relevant literature is analysed to identify key characteristics of the Bitcoin. These, as well as the elements of accounting policies inspired by neoliberalism and stewardship, form row and column headings in a correspondence matrix completed by 40 financial reporting experts. The correlations between rows and columns (developed using principal component analysis) are used to identify possible recognition and measurement requirements for the Bitcoin. Semi-structured interviews are used to complement the correspondence analysis. Findings The correspondence analysis and interviews reveal an emphasis on cost and fair value proposed by models grounded in stewardship and neoliberalism, respectively. The primary factor at work is the need to account for the underlying economics of the unit of account, something which is informed heavily by an organisation’s business model. Cost and fair value may be conceptual opposites, but in the eyes of respondents, these need to be used to achieve the single goal of communicating the economic rationale for holding the Bitcoin. Research limitations/implications The study is based on a purposefully selected sample of experts and lacks the exploratory potential of purely qualitative research. Nevertheless, it makes novel use of a correspondence analysis to provide an initial frame of reference for developing an accounting policy for unusual transactions and balances. Originality/value The paper is the first to provide a normative perspective on the accounting for this poorly understood “currency”. It also adds to the limited body of interpretive accounting research which dispenses with traditional finance paradigms and positivist models to provide practical recommendations. Finally, the paper offers an innovative approach, using a correspondence analysis and detailed interviews, for developing an accounting policy for transactions not specifically within the scope of existing accounting standards.

Reality and Accounting: The Case for Interpretive Accounting Research

Economic reality plays an important role in accounting practice and standard setting process. Different views exist on the nature of economic reality and how to approach it; while advocates of the positivism paradigm view reality as independently existing, advocates of interpretive paradigm view reality as socially constructed. It is argued in this paper that utilizing interpretive view to the world in accounting research is better able to capture the economic reality that is socially constructed and much affected by our account of it. This is because accounting is a social science and is better understood by gaining the views of different parties involved, which is largely done by utilizing interpretive accounting research.

Cash flow related indicators of business sustainability

The purpose of this research is to generate cash- and value-flow-related indicators of business sustainability. In order to facilitate a meaningful generation of such indicators, an understanding of business sustainability with reference to cash and value flow is articulated through a conceptual analysis. The research is conducted within an interpretive accounting research paradigm in which the social context of accounting is considered. A literature analysis demonstrates that business sustainability is found to encompass balanced stakeholder engagement, transparency, economic efficiency, creativity and adaptability to change. An analytical study is conducted on four sustainability and valuation models which are currently used by practitioners. The purpose of the analytical study is to explore and generate cash- and value-flow-related indicators of business sustainability within key business focus areas that are informed by fundamental financial and corporate governance principles. The research therefore makes a strong case for a holistic approach to achieving and measuring business sustainability.

Developing the relevance of the accounting academy

PurposeOne of the most important considerations in any research project is a compelling research question, the addressing of which will produce socially and/or economically relevant and beneficial insights based on high‐quality evidence. The purpose of this paper is to explain that each possible research question requires use of the particular research methods that will produce the high‐quality evidence relevant to that question, with the nature of the evidence and the methods required varying from research question to research question.Design/methodology/approachThis discussion paper explores and explains the role and function of interpretive accounting research advocates its adoption.FindingsAs the research method needs to be suited to the research question, any restriction imposed on the credible research methods that are considered acceptable severely limits the ability of the accounting academy to serve the needs of society and the economy by addressing the broadest possible range of research questions. From this perspective it is vital for academics to recognize that both positivist/quantitative and interpretive/qualitative methods produce high‐quality credible research evidence.Research limitations/implicationsAny preconceptions within a nation's accounting academy over the unacceptability of either positivist or interpretive research will damage the health and relevance of that academy in the longer term.Originality/valueThe paper argues that both positivist and interpretivist research are needed, drawing on notions of subjectivity, objectivity and inter‐subjectivity in the context of the social construction of both accounting information and research data, and in the context of the socially constructing nature of research evidence.

Interpretive accounting research

Recent accounting research has begun to utilise resources from the art of interpretation as developed in the recent social science literature. This area of research is gaining prominence, taking th...

The future of interpretive accounting research

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to contribute to the polyphonic debate on the future of interpretive accounting research (IAR) by addressing the issues of cumulative knowledge and embedment of IAR in wider literatures.Design/methodology/approachMcCracken's method of inquiry, adapted to incorporate meso‐level considerations, can be used to help resolve these issues. Accounting‐related phenomena can be studied by first identifying the cumulative knowledge contributed by different theoretical perspectives that provides broad skeletal categories to be investigated in the context of an interpretive study. In addition, micro‐ and macro‐level “external” theories are incorporated in a global meso‐level framework to provide a high‐level lens to guide data generation and analysis, fostering the embedment of IAR in wider literatures.FindingsMeso‐level research implies thinking organizationally and behaviourally, and thinking about linkage. By extension, it requires reflecting on the characteristics of the context in which the phenomenon occurs and the actors behave, the nature of the task or decision to perform, and possible links between macro‐ and micro‐factors that help identify “external” theories and frameworks that contribute to understanding the phenomenon.Research limitations/implicationsThe contribution of the suggested approach is highlighted in the context of financial accounting research. Reflexive accounts on the choice and use of a meso‐level approach are presented, and the issue of appropriate balance between theoretical and empirical material is addressed.Originality/valueCreativity is fostered when cumulative knowledge about a specific phenomenon is embedded in wider meso‐level theoretical perspectives, leading to the discovery of new insights about the topic under study and contributing to the advancement of knowledge.

A response to Joannidès and Berland

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a rejoinder to Joannidès and Berland's comment on Gurd's paper on the use of grounded theory (GT) in interpretive accounting research, re‐establishing the basics of GT.Design/methodology/approachA refutation by argument.FindingsArgues that GT is definable and the term should be used only where appropriate.Practical implicationsResearchers in accounting should be careful when claiming to use GT. Credibility would be enhanced if there was a more careful explication of method in interpretive research.Originality/valueThis paper continues the debate on GT and should assist both new and experienced researchers to explore the basis of their approach.

Reactions to reading “Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in accounting”

Purpose: The present paper is a comment on Gurd’s paper published in QRAM on the use of grounded theory in interpretive accounting research. Methodology: Like Gurd, we conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings: We found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, we arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations: In our research, we did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. We took for granted that they had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method. Practical implications: The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his own techniques and procedures. Originality/Value of the paper: This paper stimulates debates on grounded theory based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.

Is there a future for interpretive accounting research?

I became aware of the discussions that were taking place among younger European accounting researchers when I was refused entry to one of their meetings (in Goteborg) because I was deemed to be too old and part of the establishment. Leaving aside my intellectual concerns about exclusion on the basis of age and my surprise at being seen as the part of the establishment by scholars, many of whom were employed by establishment European universities, it seemed intriguing that young scholars would seek to reinvigorate interpretive accounting research. What was it that caused the worries of the 15 authors (Ahrens et al., this issue) and whose polyphonic debate prompted this special issue of Critical Perspectives on Accounting?

The future of interpretive accounting research—A polyphonic debate

The future of interpretive accounting research—A polyphonic debate

The future(s) of interpretive accounting research—A polyphonic response from beyond the metropolis

Abstract This paper contains a brief response to the debate about the future of interpretive accounting research (IAR) contained in Ahrens et al. [Ahrens T, Becker A, Burns J, Chapman C, Granlund M, Habersam M, et al. The future of interpretive research—a polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting; in press]. Our response is structured in the polyphonic style of the Ahrens et al. debate but is positioned as a response which has its authorial roots emanating from beyond the ‘metropolis’ (the origins of the text being discussed). Drawing on our personal reactions to this text, we organise our response around two themes: first, difference and its connection to self/social worth; and, second, the relationship between IAR's forms of engagement and the construction of possible future(s). It is our conclusion that IAR is capable of sustaining a range of loosely aligned possible futures, cohered both by the enduring differences associated with IAR, as well as a stronger sense of identity formed through decentred and dispersed networks of connective knowledges about accounting practice.

Calling out for more: Comment on the future of interpretive accounting research

This essay is a response to the ‘polyphonic debate’ on interpretive accounting research (Ahrens et al., this issue). The debate is considered first as a case study of the limitations of collaborative circles [Farrell MP. Collaborative circles: friendship dynamics and creative work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2001.] as a means of developing a particular approach to research. Whilst they may serve to reassure the individual that s(h)e is part of a consequential community of practice, they tend to do so at the expense of suppressing the mutual criticism on which the development of clear and robust ideas depends. Further, because such circles aim to promote their approach as well as define it, intellectual development tends to become confused with, and possibly subsumed by, the politics of academic career-making. The paper then considers the case for interpretive accounting research as such. Because the polyphonic debate itself is uninformative in this respect, this consideration is based on a theoretical paper by Ahrens and Chapman [Ahrens T, Chapman C. Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 2006;31(8):819–41] and an ethnographic case study of organizational control by Ahrens and Mollona [Ahrens T, Mollona M. Organisational control as cultural practice—a shop floor ethnography of a sheffield steel mill. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 2007;32(4–5):305–496.] The burden of both papers is that interpretive research offers a radical alternative to ‘traditional’ positivist approaches and that it possesses a unique potential to contribute to theory. Neither of these contentions is borne out. The anti-positivism conventionally attributed to interpretive approaches is shown to be based on a misunderstanding whilst Ahrens and Mollona's illustrative case study turns out to be itself positivist and also to contribute very little to theories of organizational control. This last fault may lie as much with the expectation as with the ethnography itself. The kind of theory developed in the course of ethnographic interpretation is short-range and situation-specific rather than abstract and general. The paper concludes with a brief consideration of the manner in which the two levels of theorisation might relate to one another.

Listening, interpreting, commending: A commentary on the future of interpretive accounting research

Abstract This comment explores the identity and politics of interpretive accounting research (IAR) by reflecting upon its positioning between, and overlap with, ‘mainstream’ and ‘critical’ accounting scholarship. It draws attention to the political struggle to define and occupy a distinctive academic space by considering what self-styled IAR researchers report as their accomplishments and how the distinctive contribution of IAR might be more closely specified and developed.