Good Ethics

Good ethics equals good research.  I think that good ethical standards also contributes to generating good research.  High ethical standards are particularly important in qualitative research as qualitative data comes from the field, that is, from real organisations and people who work in organisations and are willing to share their time and private information for your study. 

Potential participants in interviews, case studies, focus groups and field sites need to trust you and have confidence that you will protect their identity and their confidential information.

Good ethics = good research.

The 'So What' Question

I just remembered the academics in accounting usually say that good research has to answer the 'so what?' question.  That is, Why is this research important/significant? Why do we care? What is its contribution?


If you can't answer this question than the research is not defensible.  That it, another characteristic of good research is that it is defensible.  You can defend it and justify it.

Philosophical Assumptions & Streams of Accounting Research

All research is based on some underlying philosophical assumptions which guides the research.  Chua (1986) suggests three paradigms for qualitative research, based on the underlying research epistemology and ontology: positivist, interpretive and critical.  


Epistemology - theory of knowledge - what is knowledge? how is knowledge acquired? how do we know what we know?


Ontology - study of the nature of being, existence and reality.


Depending on the underlying philosophical assumptions of the researcher, qualitative research can be positivist, interpretive and critical.  A worthwhile point to note is that the choice of a specific qualitative research method (for instance, case study) is independent of the underlying philosophical position adopted.

1.     1. Positivist research – Positivists generally assume that reality is objectively given which are independent of the observer (researcher).  Empirical reality is objective and external to the subject.  There is a concrete reality.  Humans are characterised as passive objects; not seen as makers of social reality. Positivistic studies generally attempt to test theory (we test theory, we do not prove theory), in an attempt to increase the predictive understanding of phenomena.  Research is focused on the technical properties of better or optimal systems. 

2.      2. Interpretive research – assumed that access to reality (given or socially constructed) is only through social constructions such as language, consciousness and shared meanings.  The philosophical base of interpretive research is hermeneutics and phenomenology.  Interpretive studies generally attempt to understand phenomena though the meanings that people assign to them.  Social reality is emergent, subjectively created, socially constructed and through human interaction - subjective realities via social interaction.  Interpretive research does not predefine dependent and independent variables, but focuses on the full complexity of human sense making as the context emerges. 

3.      3. Critical research – Critical researchers assume that social reality is historically constituted and that it is produced and reproduced by people.  Although it recognises the potentiality of the individual and that people can consciously act to change their social and economic circumstances, critical researchers recognise that their ability to do so is restricted and constrained as alienating conditions of the status quo are brought to light.  Critical research focuses on the oppositions, conflicts and contradictions in contemporary society, and seeks to be emancipatory, i.e. it should help to eliminate the causes of alienation and domination.  Fundamental conflict is endemic to society.  Focuses on struggles between those who are powerful and those that are not.

  

Thoughts on Readings

Chua (1986) Radical Developments in Accounting Thought, The Accounting Review

I first read this paper a few years ago and I must admit was confused at the time.  However, now reading this paper again and understanding how the the different streams of accounting research have differing underlying philosophical assumptions has made it a lot easier.

Mainstream accounting is grounded in a common set of philosophical assumptions about knowledge and reality and the relationship between theory and practice.  While this provides are useful perspective to engage in accounting research it has constrained the range of problems studied and the use of research methods. 

The emphasis of the paper is by changing the set of underlying philosophical assumptions, fundamentally different and potentially rich research insights can be undertaken.  Two alternative world-views and their underlying assumptions are presented – the interpretive and the critical.  The consequences of conducting research within these philosophical traditions are discussed. 

Therefore, by changing the underpinning philosophical assumptions (epistemology, ontology, etc) fundamentally different research problems are discovered, thereby creating a much larger pool of potential research opportunities.  

It seems that this relates to philosophy (love of wisdom) - that's why is called a Doctor of Philosophy.

Beliefs about knowledge

Beliefs about physical and social reality

Relationship between theory and practice

I have found this paper extremely useful in better understanding the different types of 'good' research in accounting.  Because I have noticed that there are so many accounting papers covering so may different issues and often they are contradictory.  For example, some papers are really technical and aim to find better, superior management control systems based on certain characteristics of the organisation and others show how management control systems emerge and are enacted based on collective meaning, shared understandings and social interaction. 

Jacobs and Jones (2011) The Struggle for Legitimacy: The Paradox of Performance Auditing

This paper employs Bourdieu’s theory of practice to explore a case of open conflict.  Truths are not absolute but are themselves a site of struggle and can change.  I find it interesting how Bourdieu rejects notions of rules or laws but rather offers notions such as fields, habitus and capital as ‘theory of practice’ or praxeology.  Bourdieu’s own definition of habitus concerns the conscious and unconscious social programming encoded upon an individual. 

Interestingly, this social programming is also encoded upon a given social space (field).  According to Jacobs and Jones (2011, pg. 8) "Bourdieu argues instead that social space is an arena of conflict and competition and that it is warped to reflect the interests and dispositions of the dominant (and against the interests and dispositions of the dominated).  So in effect the individual is a product of the social which is a product of the individual".  I think this quote is really catchy.  Seems like it takes a critical perspective where there is a focus on power, domination, struggles and conflict. 

I think what makes this research paper really 'good' is that it grabs your attention because there is a problem, with some tension and you want to read on.  It also ends on a really good note and has that surprise factor.  For example, "notions of contestability also highlight the danger of prior conclusions as while it may be reasonable to bet on the favourite, there is no guarantee that the favourite will win" (Jacobs and Jones, 2011, pg. 27).

The Nature of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is typically;

• Enacted in naturalistic settings;
• Draws on  multiple methods that respect the humanity of the participants in the study;
• Focuses on context;
•  Is emergent and evolving;
• Is fundamentally interpretative.

Some themes in good qualitative inquiry include:

• Naturalistic inquiry
•  Emergent flexible design
• Purposeful sampling
• Qualitative data
• Personal experience and engagement
• Empathic neutrality and mindfulness
• Dynamic systems
• Unique case orientation
• Inductive analysis and creative synthesis
• Holistic perspective
• Context sensitivity
• Voice, perspective and reflexivity

Here are some of the attributes of qualitative research that got me thinking:

• Unwritten rules
• Nothing is what is seems, things are not that simple
• Cannot have preconceived ideas (never assume anything)
• No taken for granted assumptions 
• Discovery oriented, exploratory, no prior constraints on what the outcomes of the research will be
• No set assumptions that apply because we are dealing with humans and things are the result of social interaction.
• Research process is iterative, fluid and not linear.
• When you question the assumptions is what makes it interesting.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity emphases the importance of self-awareness, political/cultural consciousness and ownership of one’s perspective.  Being reflexive involves self-questioning and self-understanding.  To be reflexive is to undertake an ongoing examination of what I know and how I know it.  

Reflexivity reminds the qualitative inquirer to be attentive to and conscious of various issues that may impact on their research, such as the cultural, political, social, linguistic, and ideological origins of one’s own perspective.  

I think that reflexivity is particularly important in qualitative research because in qualitative research, unlike in quantitative research, the researcher is the instrument.  It is the researcher who interprets the qualitative data to reach findings and conclusions.  The credibility of qualitative methods, therefore, depends to a great extent on the skill, competence, and rigor of the researcher doing the fieldwork – as well as things going on in a person’s life that might prove a distraction.  

Reflexivity is important because your 'computer programming' may lead to prejudices and bias, thereby providing invalid research and research that is not good.      

You need to constantly ask yourself questions, such as what baggage to I have that may interfere in my research? 

Top Tier Accounting Journals

In order to better understand the ‘rules of the game’ in accounting, I have read some established standards in the field.  For example, I checked the guidelines for authors submitting to the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 

I have made a list of A* journals in accounting and I hope to explore the research published in these journals in the coming months in order to grasp what is ‘good research’ that gets published.  A* journals in accounting:

1.      Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal

2.      Accounting Review

3.      Accounting, Organizations and Society

4.      Contemporary Accounting Research

5.      Journal of Accounting and Economics

6.      Journal of Accounting Research

7.      Journal of Management Accounting Research

Different journals will probably have different rules of the game, however my focus is on the rules of the game of the top tier (A*) accounting journals that publish qualitative research.  

Identifying Research Gaps and Motivation

In terms of finding a research gap, I understand that for academic research you need to identify a gap within the extant literature so that you can situate your work.  Good research needs to address a gap in the existing literature as this provides a literature motivation and also, because your gap is based on prior literature you understand the contribution of your research in the context of other preceding studies.

I think that various ways of identifying a research gap include:

1.  Portraying the literature as incomplete (there are gaps that need to be filled);

2. Portraying it as inadequate (demonstrating that it excludes alternative perspectives);

3. Portraying it as incommensurate (showing that it is wrong or misguided in some way);

4. Presenting contradictory findings, mixed results/evidence that need reconciling;

5. Using the directions for future research in prior papers;

6. Limitations of prior work.

Based on academic papers I have read, I see that authors ‘problematise’.  In order words, you are constructing an argument that is embedded within the literature and clearly indicating that there is a problem that needs to be resolved.  Throughout the paper you are presenting your argument and you need to be persuasive and convincing.

I have also noticed that good research needs a clear thesis statement, which captures your argument and your position.  Basically, your research needs to further explain something that is not, as yet, understood, otherwise there would be no research.  I think it also helps is there is some tension, controversy or paradox.  This makes the research interesting.  

For example, the paper by Professor Jacobs on the struggle for legitimacy, highlights the paradox of performance auditing where performance auditing may simultaneously provide legitimacy to some actors while also challenging the legitimacy of others.  This tension grabs the attention of the target audience.

I think that qualitative and quantitative methods may complement and one another as one type of research method may lead to a study in the other research method, thereby providing a broader pool of potential research opportunities for a researcher.  For example, 

Quantitative research to qualitative research – explain unexpected results, anomalies  

Qualitative research to quantitative research – to get ideas for a research study

I was wondering if there are other ways to identify a gap in the literature?  

Use quantitative and experimental methods to generate and test hypothetical-deductive generalizations.

Use qualitative and naturalistic approaches to inductively and holistically understand human experience and constructed meanings in context-specific settings, which requires in-depth information-rich cases. 

Useful Quotes when Conducting Qualitative Research

I came across some useful quotes to think about when doing qualitative research.

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted” -          Albert Einstein

“Perception is strong and sight is weak.  In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things”.  -          Miyamoto Musashi (strategist)

“Don’t mistake a clear view for a short distance”.  -          Grand Canyon hiking advice

“There is nothing permanent except change”.  -          Ancient Greece

“Every thinker puts some portion of an apparently stable world in peril”.  -          John Dewey

Week 1 - Rules of the Game

BUSN 8018 Qualitative Research Methods with Professor Jacobs

Rules of the Game

This class was very interesting because it gave me a different perspective to look at my academic field.  There was a clear emphasis on this notion of the ‘rules of the game’.  It seems that the rules of the game are made by those in power.  If you want to play the game, you need to know the rules that apply to the game.  Otherwise, you don’t know what game you are playing and you cannot win.  I guess that these ‘rules’ are not made explicit but you need to figure them out for yourself. 

As the rules of the game are made by powerful players, they also have the ability to change/rewrite the rules as they have access to and control resources.  However, I think a very important point to note is that nothing is fixed.  That is, the rules of the game are not absolute, static or fixed, but rather, the rules are dynamic and change as they are subject to ever-changing societal expectations and values.  The rules of the game are socially constructed by powerful players.  Furthermore, the rules can also change and be rewritten if those in positions of power change.  For example, if the powerful players change, they will create a new set of rules and so the dynamics of the game changes.  This means that you need to keep up with these continuous changes. 

Beginnings

I have just set up my blog that will reflect upon salient attributes of good qualitative research.  I look forward to understanding what is good research and the characteristics of research that becomes published.  This blog will feature the 'rules of the game' for good research within my academic discipline of accounting.

Based on my thoughts, I see there are two important factors that make research 'good'.  First, you need to identify an interesting research problem that can make an original and significant contribution.  Second, you need to effectively articulate this original idea.  In other words, you need to convey your message to your target audience.  These two steps may involve a certain 'politics of writing'.

I am gradually realising how the nature of the research problems and the research process itself differs between qualitative and quantitative research.

Feel free to comment on my blog, share ideas or raise any questions.  The course will be a learning process as I explore qualitative research.        

Catherine