Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting

Abstract This paper analyses interpretive research in management accounting from the perspective of naturalistic philosophy of science. We focus on the relation of interpretive research to the subjective/objective dichotomy appearing in the methodological literature of the social sciences. In management accounting research, it is often routinely assumed that interpretive studies, following the reasoning by Burrell and Morgan [Burrell, G., & Morgan. G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann], are based on subjectivism only. The major purpose of this paper is to give flesh to the existing debates around the nature of interpretive research with the help of in depth analysis of one example of such research in management accounting. Since abstract and general philosophical arguments are often used merely to cloud more relevant case specific issues concerning the focus of explanation and the nature of empirical evidence offered, our analysis aims at providing conceptual tools for articulating with greater precision what is being asserted in a given study. The specific target of the examination is the interpretive study by Dent [Dent, J. F. (1991). Accounting and organisational cultures: A field study of the emergence of a new organisational reality. Accounting, Organisations and Society , 16 , 693–703], which is one of the highly appreciated and extensively quoted pieces of research picked from the interpretive management accounting literature. Our analysis indicates that though there certainly are, and needs to be, unique subjectivist features in interpretive studies as compared to more ‘objectivist’ approaches, there are also important similarities, and that the view of sociological paradigms as necessarily mutually exclusive does not hold water. Hence interpretive research straddles between paradigms. As we argue that interpretive studies, in addition to including subjectivist elements, also encompass objectivist features, we invert the typical social theory critique of ‘scientific’ (management) accounting research that it cannot be an objective ‘mirror of reality’ by claiming that interpretive studies cannot be exclusively subjectivist and still they remain theoretically relevant. Our philosophically tuned analysis explicates how concepts from different paradigms, such as interpretations, understanding meanings, and causality, can successfully co-exist and co-operate within a single study.

[1]  Martyn Hammersley,et al.  Ethnography : Principles in Practice , 1983 .

[2]  T. Hopper,et al.  MAKING SENSE OF RESEARCH INTO THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING: A REVIEW OF ITS UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS [1] , 1985 .

[3]  Paul Rabinow,et al.  Interpretive Social Science: A Reader , 1979 .

[4]  Routledge,et al.  Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 1998 .

[5]  E. Lowe,et al.  A Critical Analysis of Accounting Thought: Prognosis and Prospects for Understanding and Changing Accounting Systems Design , 1990 .

[6]  Markus Granlund,et al.  Towards explaining stability in and around management accounting systems , 2001 .

[7]  Richard Laughlin,et al.  Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for “middle‐range” thinking , 1995 .

[8]  A. Macintyre,et al.  After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. , 1981 .

[9]  Alan Barnard,et al.  Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate , 1990 .

[10]  W. Gibb Dyer,et al.  Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, To Generate Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt , 1991 .

[11]  B. Fay.  Phenomenology and Social Inquiry: From Consciousness to Culture and Critique , 2008 .

[12]  T. Ahrens,et al.  Doing Qualitative Field Research in Management Accounting: Positioning Data to Contribute to Theory , 2005 .

[13]  T. Ahrens.  Talking Accounting: An Ethnography Of Management Knowledge In British And German Brewers , 1997 .

[14]  C. Glymour,et al.  Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation , 2004 .

[15]  Marianne W. Lewis,et al.  Metatriangulation: Building Theory from Multiple Paradigms , 1999 .

[16]  J. Alexander,et al.  Images of Organization , 1988 .

[17]  Thomas Ahrens,et al.  Styles of Accountability , 1996 .

[18]  P. Achinstein.  The Nature Of Explanation , 1983 .

[19]  C. Geertz,et al.  The Interpretation of Cultures , 1973 .

[20]  David J. Cooper,et al.  Tidiness, muddle and things: Commonalities and divergencies in two approaches to management accounting research , 1983 .

[21]  B. Latour.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[22]  Mark W. Dirsmith,et al.  The budgetary process of power and politics , 1986 .

[23]  Miklos A. Vasarhelyi,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS OF ACCOUNTING, ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY, 1976-1984. , 1987 .

[24]  B. Barnes,et al.  Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis , 1974 .

[25]  Christopher Hitchcock,et al.  Explanatory generalizations, part II: Plumbing explanatory depth , 2003 .

[26]  Mark W. Dirsmith,et al.  Budgeting as a means for control and loose coupling , 1983 .

[27]  Alistair Preston,et al.  Interactions and arrangements in the process of informing , 1986 .

[28]  M. Reed.  Redirections in Organizational Analysis , 1985 .

[29]  Pekka Pihlanto,et al.  The role of the individual actor in different accounting research perspectives. The holistic individual image as a tool for analysis , 2003 .

[30]  J. Woodward,et al.  Saving the phenomena , 1988 .

[31]  P. Gross,et al.  Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science , 1994 .

[32]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  Handbook of organization studies , 1997 .

[33]  Mark W. Dirsmith,et al.  The use of budgetary symbols in the political arena: An historically informed field study , 1988 .

[34]  S. Shapin,et al.  Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life , 1987 .

[35]  Kari Lukka,et al.  Budgetary biasing in organizations: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence , 1988 .

[36]  A. Lowe.  Methodology choices and the construction of facts: some implications from the sociology of scientific knowledge , 2004 .

[37]  B. Flyvbjerg.  Making Social Science Matter , 2001 .

[38]  A. O'hear,et al.  Introduction to the Philosophy of Science , 1989 .

[39]  W. Salmon.  Four decades of scientific explanation , 1989 .

[40]  H. Gadamer,et al.  The Problem of Historical Consciousness , 1975 .

[41]  Juhani Vaivio,et al.  Exploring a `non-financial' management accounting change , 1999 .

[42]  Alan D. Sokal,et al.  Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity , 1996 .

[43]  John Hassard,et al.  The Theory and Philosophy of Organizations. , 1991 .

[44]  Gibson Burrell,et al.  Normal Science, Paradigms, Metaphors, Discourses and Genealogies of Analysis , 1999 .

[45]  L. Smircich,et al.  The Case for Qualitative Research , 1980 .

[46]  Christopher Hitchcock,et al.  Explanatory Generalizations, Part I: A Counterfactual Account , 2003 .

[47]  D. Davidson.  Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation , 1984 .

[48]  W. Chua.  Radical Developments in Accounting Thought , 1986 .

[49]  P. Roth.  Beyond Understanding: The Career of the Concept of Understanding in the Human Sciences , 2008 .

[50]  Dennis A. Gioia,et al.  Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building , 1990 .

[51]  A. Garfinkel,et al.  Forms of explanation : rethinking the questions in social theory , 1982 .

[52]  A. Giddens.  Central Problems In Social Theory , 1979 .

[53]  Bas C. van Fraassen,et al.  The Scientific Image , 1980 .

[54]  Bernard Barber,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1963 .

[55]  R. D. Hines,et al.  Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality , 1988 .

[56]  Pertti Alasuutari.  Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies , 1995 .

[57]  T. Ahrens.  Strategic interventions of management accountants: everyday practice of British and German brewers , 1997 .

[58]  F. Keil,et al.  Explanation and understanding , 2015 .

[59]  I. Hacking.  The Social Construction of What , 1999 .

[60]  Roger Groves,et al.  The everyday accountant and researching his reality , 1983 .

[61]  J. Baxter,et al.  Alternative management accounting research—whence and whither , 2003 .

[62]  John Roberts,et al.  Accounting and control: a case study of resistance to accounting change , 1993 .

[63]  P. Ylikoski.  Understanding Interests and Causal Explanation , 2001 .

[64]  John Roberts,et al.  Strategy and accounting in a U.K. conglomerate , 1990 .

[65]  Jeremy F. Dent.  Accounting and organizational cultures: A field study of the emergence of a new organizational reality , 1991 .

[66]  A. Giddens.  The Constitution of Society , 1985 .

[67]  H. Willmott.  Breaking the Paradigm Mentality , 1993 .

[68]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

[69]  James Woodward,et al.  Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences , 2000, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[70]  D. Morgan,et al.  Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. , 1983 .

[71]  J. Searle.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1997 .

[72]  D. Bloor.  Wittgenstein, Rules And Institutions , 1997 .

[73]  Kari Lukka,et al.  The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in accounting research , 1995 .

[74]  D. Davidson.  Actions, Reasons, And Causes , 1980 .

[75]  Alan S. Dunk,et al.  TASK UNCERTAINTY AND ITS INTERACTION WITH BUDGETARY PARTICIPATION AND BUDGET EMPHASIS: SOME... , 1991 .