The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research

Abstract This paper discusses the roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research in general, and management accounting research in particular. In addition, it forms an introduction to the Special Section of this issue of Management Accounting Research on “Paradigms in Accounting Research”. The paper takes an issue of the notable narrowness of accounting research of today, regarding it as forming a threat to scholarly developments in the field. It argues for the importance of keeping paradigm debates alive in order to foster multi-dimensional openness and true scholarship in accounting research.

[1]  Markus Granlund,et al.  The fragmented communication structure within the accounting academia: the case of activity-based costing research genres , 2002 .

[2]  A. Lowe,et al.  Evidence and Implications of Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production , 2008 .

[3]  Jere R. Francis,et al.  Letting the chat out of the bag: Deconstruction, privilege and accounting research , 1989 .

[4]  J. Zimmerman,et al.  Conjectures Regarding Empirical Managerial Accounting Research , 2001 .

[5]  Janne Tienari,et al.  Hegemonic Academic Practices: Experiences of Publishing from the Periphery , 2008 .

[6]  B. Berger,et al.  Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science , 1994 .

[7]  Ross L. Watts,et al.  Towards A Positive Theory of the Determination of Accounting Standards , 2006 .

[8]  A. Hopwood,et al.  Whither Accounting Research , 2007 .

[9]  S. Toulmin,et al.  Philosophy of Science , 1970, The British Journal for the History of Science.

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

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

[12]  D. Morgan.  Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis , 1980 .

[13]  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 .

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

[15]  Yves Gendron,et al.  Constituting the Academic Performer: The Spectre of Superficiality and Stagnation in Academia , 2008 .

[16]  Jaakko Kuorikoski,et al.  Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting , 2008 .

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

[18]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts , 1983 .

[19]  Hendrik Vollmer.  Management accounting as normal social science , 2009 .

[20]  鈴木 新,et al.  学際的会計研究の軌跡（１） : Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1976-1985 , 2008 .

[21]  S. Shapin.  Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts , 1981, Medical History.

[22]  J. V. Maanen,et al.  Crossroads Style as Theory , 1995 .

[23]  Statement of Accounting Theory and Theory Acceptance , 1978 .

[24]  David F. Larcker,et al.  Empirical managerial accounting research: are we just describing management consulting practice? , 2002 .

[25]  K. Lukka,et al.  Validation in interpretive management accounting research , 2010 .

[26]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[27]  Teemu Malmi,et al.  The future of interpretive accounting research-A polyphonic debate , 2008 .

[28]  A. Hopwood.  'If only there were simple solutions, but there aren't': some reflections on Zimmerman's critique of empirical management accounting research , 2002 .

[29]  I. M. Gordon,et al.  Criticizing positive accounting theory , 1992 .

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

[31]  Ross L. Watts,et al.  The Demand for and Supply of Accounting Theories: The Market for Excuses , 2006 .

[32]  Teemu Malmi,et al.  In Search of Management Accounting Theory , 2009 .

[33]  Thomas Ahrens,et al.  Overcoming the subjective–objective divide in interpretive management accounting research , 2008 .

[34]  Jan Mouritsen,et al.  Homogeneity or heterogeneity of research in management accounting? , 2002 .

[35]  Charles Christenson.  The Methodology of Positive Accounting , 2007 .

[36]  M. Granlund,et al.  In Search of Management Accounting Theory , 2009 .

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

[38]  Kenneth A. Merchant,et al.  Paradigms in accounting research: A view from North America , 2010 .

[39]  T. Tinker.  METAPHOR OR REIFICATION: ARE RADICAL HUMANISTS REALLY LIBERTARIAN ANARCHISTS? , 1986 .

[40]  Ross L. Watts,et al.  Positive Accounting Theory , 2006 .

[41]  T. Hopper,et al.  Critical Theorising in Management Accounting Research , 2006 .

[42]  Imre Lakatos,et al.  The methodology of scientific research programmes: Contents , 1978 .

[43]  Joan L. Luft,et al.  Zimmerman's contentious conjectures: describing the present and prescribing the future of empirical management accounting research , 2002 .

[44]  A. Hopwood,et al.  Management Accounting Research in a Changing World , 2008 .

[45]  A. Tinker,et al.  The normative origins of positive theories: Ideology and accounting thought , 1982 .

[46]  D. W. Hands,et al.  Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge , 1977 .

[47]  A. Sokal,et al.  Revelation: A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies , 2000 .

[48]  Michael D. Shields,et al.  Handbook of management accounting research , 2007 .

[49]  Imre Lakatos,et al.  Mathematics, science and epistemology: Indexes , 1978 .

[50]  Olivier. Ratle.  The never-ending ‘paradigm debate’ in Organisation Studies:Rhetorical practices that sustain scientific controversies , 2007 .

[51]  John Van Maanen,et al.  Style As Theory , 2006 .

[52]  Laura B. Cardinal,et al.  Making a life in the field of organization science , 2007 .

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

[54]  Jaakko Kuorikoski,et al.  No premature closures of debates, please: A response to Ahrens , 2008 .

[55]  Teemu Malmi,et al.  Reflections on paradigms in action in accounting research , 2010 .

[56]  Sven Modell,et al.  Bridging the paradigm divide in management accounting research: The role of mixed methods approaches , 2010 .