IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Validation in interpretive management accounting research

  • Lukka, Kari
  • Modell, Sven
Registered author(s):

    This paper extends and contributes to emerging debates on the validation of interpretive research (IR) in management accounting. We argue that IR has the potential to produce not only subjectivist, emic understandings of actors' meanings, but also explanations, characterised by a certain degree of "thickness". Mobilising the key tenets of the modern philosophical theory of explanation and the notion of abduction, grounded in pragmatist epistemology, we explicate how explanations may be developed and validated, yet remaining true to the core premises of IR. We focus on the intricate relationship between two arguably central aspects of validation in IR, namely authenticity and plausibility. Working on the assumption that validation is an important, but potentially problematic concern in all serious scholarly research, we explore whether and how validation efforts are manifest in IR using two case studies as illustrative examples. Validation is seen as an issue of convincing readers of the authenticity of research findings whilst simultaneously ensuring that explanations are deemed plausible. Whilst the former is largely a matter of preserving the emic qualities of research accounts, the latter is intimately linked to the process of abductive reasoning, whereby different theories are applied to advance thick explanations. This underscores the view of validation as a process, not easily separated from the ongoing efforts of researchers to develop explanations as research projects unfold and far from reducible to mere technicalities of following pre-specified criteria presumably minimising various biases. These properties detract from a view of validation as conforming to pre-specified, stable, and uniform criteria and allow IR to move beyond the "crisis of validity" arguably prevailing in the social sciences.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCK-4XSK7S0-1/2/3d8c9ffbe8acc07136b70fee160e4d4a
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Accounting, Organizations and Society.

    Volume (Year): 35 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 4 (May)
    Pages: 462-477

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:35:y:2010:i:4:p:462-477
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Marja-Liisa & Lukka, Kari & Kuorikoski, Jaakko, 2008. "Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 267-291.
    2. Ahrens, T., 1996. "Styles of Accountability," Papers 96-119, University of Southampton - Department of Accounting and Management Science.
    3. Mats Alvesson & Cynthia Hardy & Bill Harley, 2008. "Reflecting on Reflexivity: Reflexive Textual Practices in Organization and Management Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 480-501, 05.
    4. Jonsson, Sten & Macintosh, Norman B., 1997. "CATS, RATS, AND EARS: Making the case for ethnographic accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(3-4), pages 367-386.
    5. Covaleski, Mark A. & Dirsmith, Mark W., 1986. "The budgetary process of power and politics," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 193-214, May.
    6. Rihab Khalifa & Paolo Quattrone, 2008. "The Governance of Accounting Academia: Issues for a Debate," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 65-86.
    7. Ahrens, Thomas, 2008. "Overcoming the subjective-objective divide in interpretive management accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 292-297.
    8. Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Marja-Liisa & Lukka, Kari & Kuorikoski, Jaakko, 2008. "No premature closures of debates, please: A response to Ahrens," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 298-301.
    9. Ahrens, Thomas & Chapman, Christopher S., 2006. "Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 819-841, November.
    10. Jonsson, S., 1998. "Relate management accounting research to managerial work!," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 411-434, May.
    11. Tomkins, Cyril & Groves, Roger, 1983. ""The everyday accountant and researching his reality": Further thoughts," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 407-415, October.
    12. Lowe, Alan & Locke, Joanne, 2005. "Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: results of a web-based survey of British accounting academics," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 81-98, January.
    13. Dubois, Anna & Gadde, Lars-Erik, 2002. "Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 553-560, July.
    14. Anthony Onwuegbuzie & Nancy Leech, 2007. "Validity and Qualitative Research: An Oxymoron?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 233-249, April.
    15. Joanne Locke & Alan Lowe, 2008. "Evidence and Implications of Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 161-191.
    16. Cooper, David J. & Hayes, David & Wolf, Frank, 1981. "Accounting in organized anarchies: Understanding and designing accounting systems in ambiguous situations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 175-191, July.
    17. Covaleski, Mark A. & Dirsmith, Mark W., 1990. "Dialectic tension, double reflexivity and the everyday accounting researcher: On using qualitative methods," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 543-573.
    18. Tomkins, Cyril & Groves, Roger, 1983. "The everyday accountant and researching his reality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 361-374, October.
    19. Ali M. Elharidy & Brian Nicholson & Robert W. Scapens, 2008. "Using grounded theory in interpretive management accounting research," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 139-155, July.
    20. McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
    21. Anthony Hopwood, 2008. "Changing Pressures on the Research Process: On Trying to Research in an Age when Curiosity is not Enough," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 87-96.
    22. Ahrens, Thomas, 1996. "Styles of accountability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 139-173.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:35:y:2010:i:4:p:462-477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.