Week 2 - Academic Gaps and Genres

I have been reading the different qualitative research genres and I think that my qualitative study based on 'coopetition' within inter-firm alliances, taken from a network perspective is a type of interpretive research.  This means that many of the underlying philosophical assumptions that I am used to will be challenged because I have been used to working with economic models that focus of dyadic relations with assumptions, such as utility maximisation and rational economic behaviour.

At first when I used to read interpretive research I was a little surprised because it was not what I expected.  For example, instead of designing the ideal or 'optimal' management control system (MCS), the researchers would write about how MCS emerge and are enacted, how they simultaneously influence and are influenced by actors (both human and non-human), how accounting numbers are effects and generate effects, how accounting can be used to generate order and disorder, how actors assign shared meanings to accounting symbols.  I would think this does not make any sense because this is not what is usually taught in pure technical accounting courses or written in textbooks.

Now I get it and I have to say I find it a refreshing alternative to studying the positivist stream of accounting research because we know that theory is one thing and reality is another and the two are not often the same.

In terms of the 3 paper literature review I have selected papers that seem to overlap thereby creating a 'gap' in the academic literature - they fit really well together.  I have discovered that when you write your paper you don't explicitly say there is a gap, but rather, you write in a way that conveys this message to your readers so that they come to understand that there is a gap.

In terms of finding a research gap, it helps to look at review papers that summarise the relevant literature on a particular topic and suggest directions for future research.  However, in this way you may end up addressing a call in the literature.  Additionally, you can try to find a gap and 'problematise' an important issue, highlighting how there is a problem that needs to solved.  Otherwise, you may end up relying too much on issues raised in existing literature.  In my case, I am focusing on the role of MCS when coopetition exists.  I think it is important to stress the risk created by coopetition and high failure rate of inter-form alliances and that the role of MCS is to manage risk both within and across organisational boundaries.  Why is it that many inter-firm alliances fail? Is it because MCS break down and fail in this situation? How do MCS emerge and enact in circumstances of coopetition?