Insights into method triangulation and "paradigms" in interpretive management accounting research

Management Accounting Research

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 130-141

  Vaivio, Juhani ^a   Sirén, Anna ^a  

^a HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Finland)

Author keywords

Interpretive management accounting research; Methodology; Paradigm; Research methods; Triangulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952829669     PISSN: 10445005     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mar.2010.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abdel-Khalik A., Ajinkya B. An evaluation of " the everyday accountant and researching his reality" Accounting, Organizations and Society 1983, 8(4):375-384.
2. Abernethy M., Chua W.F., Luckett P., Selto F. Research in managerial accounting: learning from others' experiences. Accounting and Finance 1999, 39:1-27.
3. Ahrens T. Overcoming the subjective-objective divide in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2008, 33(2/3):292-297.
4. Ahrens T., Chapman C. Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2006, 31:819-841.
5. 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. The future of interpretive accounting research-a polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2008, 19(6):840-866.
6. Armstrong P. Calling out for more: comment on the future of interpretive accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2008, 19(6):867-879.
7. Arnold V. Behavioral research opportunities: understanding the impact of enterprise systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2006, 7:7-17.
8. Arrington C.E., Schweiker W. The rhetoric and rationality of accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1992, 17(6):511-533.
9. Astley W. Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly 1985, 30:497-513.
10. Baxter J., Boedker C., Chua W.F. The future(s) of interpretive accounting research-a polyphonic response from beyond the metropolis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2008, 19(6):880-886.
11. Birnberg J., Shields M., Young S. The case for multiple methods in empirical management accounting research (with an illustration from budget setting). Journal of Management Accounting Research 1990, 2(Fall):33-66.
12. Brown R., Brignall S. Reflections on the use of a dual-methodology research design to evaluate accounting and management practice in UK university central administrative services. Management Accounting Research 2007, 18:32-48.
13. Brunsson N. Ideas and actions: justification and hypocricy as alternatives to control. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1993, 18(6):489-506.
14. Bryman A. Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2006, 9(2):111-126.
15. Burrell G., Morgan G. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis 1979, Heinemann, London.
16. Caldwell B. Beyond Positivism-Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century 1982, George Allen & Unwin, London.
17. Cooper D. Tidiness, muddle and things: commonalities and divergencies in two approaches to management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1983, 8(2/3):269-286.
18. Davila T., Oyon D. Cross-paradigm collaboration and the advancement of management accounting knowledge. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2008, 19(6):887-893.
19. Dent J. Accounting and organizational cultures: a field study of the emergence of a new organizational reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1991, 16:693-703.
20. Erzberg C., Prein G. Triangulation: validity and empirically based hypotheses construction. Quality & Quantity 1997, 31:141-154.
21. Fleetwood S. An ontology for organisation and management studies. Critical Realist Applications in Organisation and Management Studies 2004, Routledge, London. S. Fleetwood, S. Ackroyd (Eds.).
22. Ferreira L., Merchant K. Field research in management accounting and control: a review and evaluation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 1992, 5(4):3-34.
23. Gendron Y. Constituting the academic performer: the spectre of superficiality and stagnation in academia. European Accounting Review 2008, 17(1):97-127.
24. Hopper T., Hoque Z. Triangulation approaches to accounting research. Methodological Issues in Accounting Research-Theories, Methods and Issues 2006, Spiramus, London.
25. Hopwood A. Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an age when curiosity is not enough. European Accounting Review 2008, 17(1):87-96.
26. Jick T. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 1979, 24:602-611.
27. Kakkuri-Knuuttila M.-L., Lukka K., Kuorikoski J. Straddling between paradigms: a naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2008, 33(2/3):267-291.
28. Kakkuri-Knuuttila M.-L., Lukka K., Kuorikoski J. No premature closure of debates, please: a response to Ahrens. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2008, 33(2/3):298-301.
29. Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 1970, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. second ed.
30. Lamont M., Molnár V. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 2002, 28:167-195.
31. Locke J., Lowe A. Evidence and implications of multiple paradigms in accounting knowledge production. European Accounting Review 2008, 17(1):161-191.
32. Modell S. In defence of triangulation: a critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research 2009, 20:208-221.
33. Modell S. Mixed methods research in management accounting: opportunities and obstacles. Total Quality in Academic Accounting-Essays in Honour of Kari Lukka 2007, Turku School of Economics, pp. 195-213 (Series C 3).
34. Modell S. Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research: an assessment of validity implications. Management Accounting Research 2005, 16:231-254.
35. Morgan G. Social science and accounting research: a commentary on Tomkins and Groves. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1983, 8(4):385-388.
36. Patton M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods 1990, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. second ed.
37. Panozzo F. The making of the good academic accountant. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1997, 22(5):447-480.
38. Pfeffer J. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review 1993, 18(4):599-620.
39. Scapens R. Seeking the relevance of interpretive research: a contribution to the polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2008, 19(6):915-919.
40. Tomkins C., Groves R. The everyday accountant and researching his reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1983, 8(4):361-374.
41. Vaivio J. Qualitative management accounting research: rationale, pitfalls and potential. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 2008, 5(1):64-86.
42. Vollmer H. Management accounting as normal science. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2009, 34:141-150.
43. Willmott H. Paradigms for accounting research: critical reflections on Tomkins and Groves' " everyday accountant and researching his reality" Accounting, Organizations and Society 1983, 8(4):389-405.