“[T]here are known knowns … things we know that we know”: Some reflections on the nature and practice of interpretive accounting research
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
ISSN: 0951-3574
Article publication date: 16 October 2017
Abstract
Purpose
The 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/approach
Currently 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.”
Findings
The 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/implications
In 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 implications
The 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/value
The 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.
Keywords
Acknowledgements
The authors have tried hard to reduce confusion in the paper but the authors must admit the inherent difficulty in maintaining a balance in the use of the terms “qualitative” and “interpretive.” What the authors have tried to do is retain where possible the term as used by the original author. Often the authors do this by quoting them. The outcome is nevertheless problematic. In itself this is, however, part of the authors’ argument. Most authors, with whom the authors are familiar, use the term “qualitative” as an umbrella descriptor to refer to the deployment of qualitative methods. As stated in the paper, “interpretive” is a more restrictive label, which the authors believe to refer to a philosophical perspective.
Citation
de Loo, I. and Lowe, A. (2017), "“[T]here are known knowns … things we know that we know”: Some reflections on the nature and practice of interpretive accounting research", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 1796-1819. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2015-2164
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited