Abstract
A true “companion” for the qualitative accounting researcher, this volume’s scope is genuinely comprehensive. But, for that reason, undertaking a review was quite daunting – there are 29 chapters! Luckily for me (and helpful for other readers), the book is structured into five parts: an “Introduction,” seven chapters on “Worldviews and paradigms,” nine chapters on “Methodologies and strategies,” eight chapters on “Data collection and analysis,” and four chapters on “Experiencing qualitative field research: personal reflections.” I decided to focus on one chapter from each section.
In the “Introduction: Researching Everyday Accounting Practice,” Mark Covaleski, Kathryn Haynes, Zahirul Hoque, and Lee Parker articulate their aim of “providing a single repository on the current state of our qualitative methodological knowledge, current debates and relevant methodological literature.”
In the “Worldviews and paradigms” section, “Interpretive research in accounting: past, present and future,” Kari Lukka and Sven Modell present the core characteristics of interpretive accounting research (IAR) as “a conception of reality as a socially constructed space; the nurturing of a distinctly emic perspective including an interest in people’s subjective meanings and actions; and the employment of research methods that seek to make sense of socially embedded meanings and actions in their natural context.” They argue that these central IAR ideas are not breached through “thick explanations” which seek to uncover the causal mechanisms operating in any natural context.
Case or field studies are, often, the method of choice for interpretive researchers. In the “Methodologies and strategies” section, “Case studies in accounting research,” Bill Lee and Christopher Humphrey reflect on the traditional role of case studies in answering “how” and “why” questions. They note several frequent criticisms of case study evidence, for example, “anecdotal,” “unsubstantiated,” and “subjective.” In judging the answers case studies provide to “how” and “why” questions, they suggest that “authenticity and plausibility” are better criteria than “reliability and validity.”
In the “Data collection and analysis” section, “Analysing and interpreting qualitative data in management accounting research,” Mark Covaleski, Mark Dirsmith, and Sajal Samuel argue that qualitative research is a “profoundly theoretical activity” in that theory can find the “logic” in social systems. They urge researchers to take advantage of natural experiments which give rise to different logics offering opportunities to compare social systems.
In the “Experiencing qualitative field research: personal reflections” section, “A case study research project,” Sophia Ji, recounts her research into companies’ disclosure practices for contaminated sites – a project with obvious relevance for human health and the ecosystem. Having identified which Australian companies have contaminated sites, her “how” question focussed on disclosure in annual reports, followed by “why in this way?” Reflecting on her experiences, her advice can be summed up as “don’t embark on research without having contacts to facilitate access.”
Clearly, my selection of chapters accords with the theme of interpretive, theoretically informed case study research – my own main academic home. But this volume admits many other selections which link across sections: historical inquiries, critical analyses, social constructivist accounts, visual communications, narratologies, and ethnographies.
Reading through the chapters, most authors analyze the still prevalent “alternative” positioning of qualitative methods. Multiple, diverse factors still weigh against the approach: journal lists that rank positivist research more highly, the time-consuming nature of field research, the perception that qualitative methods are inferior as they do not test theory, and the view that their results are inadequate because they are not generalizable. Equally, censure can stem from within the alternative camp itself, as when explanations are ruled to be outside of the realm of qualitative methods.
Some of these issues are pragmatic. Some are political and tied to the interests of powerful players. But, for me, most can be countered through reasoned argument. Uncovering subjective meanings lies at the heart of qualitative methods. These are important, not least because people act on the basis of their understandings – even if their views are mistaken. Nevertheless, despite their significance in driving action, subjective meanings do not exhaust the arena of “what happens.” Causal factors are at play which can be outside of the comprehension of particular individuals. Research into the exercise of power, where access to undertake field research can be very difficult (if not impossible), is the natural territory for critical researchers – as is the incursion of the market into realms of activity previously held sacrosanct. In my view, interpretive researchers must also address objective or objectified issues, for example, the position that there is no alternative to the market in contemporary economies and societies. This is not to say that theory – “There is no alternative …” – can be tested in qualitative methods. Social action is pre-theorized – we understand what we do through theory. Social processes do not stand outside of theory. Nor should we expect that our results are always, or even usually, generalizable. Our case studies may uncover leading edge practice rather than common knowledge which is generalizable to other settings but lacking in useful information or food for thought. To conclude, we should not be brittle about our qualitative methods. We should celebrate their unique strengths in furthering knowledge of the social and the organizational processes which constitute the context for accounting research and can impinge on accounting techniques. This volume is an excellent contribution to this endeavor.