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).