Wednesday 13 April 2011

Ahrens and Chapman (2006)

I found a really useful academic paper in my disciplinary field of management accounting and I thought and should write a few notes.  The paper is by Ahrens and Chapman (2006) and it is called "Doing Qualitative Field Research in Management Accounting: Positioning Data to Contribute to Theory".  I think that this paper will help me to understand the implicit 'rules of the game' in my disciplinary area and help me to conduct 'good' qualitative research in order to contribute to management accounting scholarship. 

This paper is useful for my studies in qualitative research because unlike quantitative research where you may have some established research instruments and and established benchmarks for validity, reliability, etc, in qualitative research I wonder what benchmarks, if any, can we use to compare our research to established standards in our field.  For example, how do I know if I am interpreting the data correctly?  How do I link the data to my research questions.  This paper provides these answers.

The paper shows the interlacing of data, theory and research problems by providing examples of specific individual research projects. 

Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 819) argue that theory, method, methodology and knowledge gains in qualitative field studies are intertwined through the ongoing hypothesis development in the field".  They emphasise the distinguishing role of theory in qualitative research which is related to "the expression of a subjective reality more than clarification of an objective one" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 819). 

Moreover, this paper allows researchers to assess the trustworthiness of their accounts as according to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 819) the "intention is to develop a more appropriate basis for judging the plausibility of qualitative field studies than notions borrowed from positivist methodology".  This is a noteworthy contribution to my field as there is a need to develop some kind of framework to assess the quality of qualitative interpretive research.  The paper distinguishes interpretivism from positivism.  This work also explains the difference between theory, domain, methodology, hypothesis and method in terms of their meaning, relevance and examples.  Many leading qualitative research papers published in top tier accounting journals are provided. 
 
Below are some key points that will help me to conduct 'good' qualitative research in management accounting:

- Doing qualitative field studies in management accounting is about methodology, not method, where they delineate the notion of the field as a research domain;
- What differentiates the qualitative field researcher is a particular way of knowing the field;
- In particular, qualitative field researchers in management accounting agree that "social reality is emergent, subjectively created, and objectified through human interaction" (Chua, 1986, pg. 615, in Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 819) - understand the intricacies of social interaction, such as the ways meanings are derived;
- Doing qualitative field studies is not merely empirical but a profoundly theoretical activity;
- The field is not just a part of of the empirical world but it is shaped by the theoretical viewpoints of the researcher;
- According to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 820) the "practice of doing qualitative field studies involves an ongoing reflection of data and its positioning against different theories such that the data can contribute to and develop further the chosen research questions".  This is where there needs to be a good 'fit' between the theory, research questions and data;
- Data are not pure parts of objective reality but rather are aspects of a recorded activity that a researchers considers significant for theoretical reasons;
- Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 821) outline "how qualitative field studies can make theoretical contributions by giving insight into how images of specific social realities may infuse action and relate this to the ability of qualitative field studies to express the processual character of accounting";
- These theoretical discussions provide the basis to develop a re-assessment of validity and reliability for qualitative field research and provide the sources of discipline for the researcher.  Hence, theory plays a crucial role in qualitative research in making sense of your data as well as linking data to the research questions and theorising.  Also, theoretical discussions help to discipline the researcher through the exercise of reflexivity;
- "Qualitative field studies collect data in the domain 'field' and employ 'qualitative' methodology (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 821);
- Qualitative approaches may be referred to as naturalistic, holistic, interpretive and phenomenological;
- The principles that guide qualitative work, include a forucs on meaning, the use of analytical induction, have a close proximity to the data, attempts to link agency to structure;
- Qualitative and qualitative research has different ontological and episotemological assumptions;
- "The conflation of method with methodology means that ontological assumptions remain unrecognised as assumptions.  We see the distinction between method and methodology and the theoretical potential that it affords for defining research questions and notions of research trustworthiness as central to much of the miscommunication between qualitative and quantitative researchers" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 822);
- The interview may be mobilised towards interpretive or positivist ends contingent on the view of reality to be explored.  Either expressing a social reality or clarifying an objective reality;
- Objective realities versus context dependent constructs;
- According to Ahrens and Chapman (2006, pg. 823) "qualitative methodology seeks to explore aspects of social order that are not objectively real but are instead subjectively created through the interaction of actors, rarely mentioning the words hypothesis or testing at all";
- Qualitative field studies study "situations and questions in which the uses and meanings of management accounting are fluid" (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 823);
- A characteristic of qualitative field studies is the potential for linking structured and unstructured data;
- As stated by Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 826) "it would be wrong to simply associate positivism with prediction and qualitative methodology with explanation.  Prediction without explanation is the hope that past correlations hold in future"..."Prediction and explanation are not opposites, but are complexly intertwined in both qualitative and positivistic management accounting research";
- "Qualitative field studies must achieve 'fit' between theory, methodology, hypothesis, method and domain in order to contribute to the literature.  Fit indicates the successful conclusion of that process" (Silverman, 1993, pg. 1-2, in Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 826-827);
- According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 831) "images infuse action insofar as wider organisational and social meanings are connected with accounting through process because actors in the field refer to those meanings in the processes of creating and practicing accounting";
- Qualitative field studies have been associated with a quest for meaning;
- A reminder for field researchers is not to take for granted stability in management accounting systems, their uses, and organisational roles;
- Doing qualitative field studies is a disciplined process which therefore requires the application of reflexivity.  The research must constantly question their own ideas.

Re-assessing Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Field Studies
According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 833) "notions of validity that were developed to evaluate positivistic studies of objective reality are unsuitable for qualitative field studies".  For qualitative studies "valid and reliable accounts of the role of accounting in social reality cannot pretend to study this reality without reference to the agency of the actors in the field and independently of the reseacher's theoretical interest".

This is a noteworthy point as it indicates that the question of replication studies in qualitative field research is inappropriate because we would not expect identical results when two observers study the same organisation from different points of view, or when they study different substructures within a large organisation.  We do, however, expect that the two descriptions are compatible, in other words, the conclusions of one study do not implicitly or explicitly contradict those of the other (Becker, 1970 in Arhens and Chapman, 2006).  

Patterns of causality are of interest to both qualitative and positivistic researchers according to Luft and Shields (2003).  The qualitative researcher works on the assumption that oganisational activity is meaningful in practice.  Interestingly, Cronbach (1982, pg. 108, in Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 834) states that "validity is subjective rather than objective: the plausibility of the conclusion is what counts.  And plausibility, to twist a cliche`, lies in the ear of the beholder".

Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 835-836) state that the "field researcher's prior knowledge disciplines her interpretation of new observations..."Theory helps the author structure masses of data and communicate its significance at the same time as it helps construct that significance.  Even though detailed insight into organisational processes is necessary to inform a good field study, there is always more going on than the researcher can observe and report in a publication.  A good field study therefore requires a problem to be addressed and a theory can can frame the problem such that the fieldwork can contribute to the ongoing debate"..."Theorising [in field research] is about moving from the general to the local to the general [...]" Baxter and Chua, 1998, pg. 80, in Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 836).  That is, problem theory and data influence each other throughout the research process as the process is one of iteratively seeking to generate a plausible fit between problem, theory, and data (Arhens and Chapman, 2006, pg. 836).

According to Arhens and Chapman (2006) this iterative process requires three main sources of discipline:
1. the readers' knowledge of the existing literature imposes a disciplinary context;    
2. the researcher does not make up a story and suppress inconvenient data;
3. the significance of the theoretical contribution is ultimately judged by the reader.

Underlying the argument of Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 836) is "a notion of theory that is first and foremost a vehicle for understanding and communication".  Although things may be independent on theory, descriptions of them are always dependent on theory.  According to Arhens and Chapman (2006, pg. 837) "to generate findigs that are of interest to the wider management accounting research community, the qualitative field research must be able to continuously make linkages between theory and findings from the field in order to evaluable the potential interest of the research as it unfolds.  This ongoing engaging of research questions, theory, and data has important implications for the ways in which qualitative field researchers can define the field and interpret its activities". 
   

Ahrens and Chapman have co-authored many papers together and I noticed how they write so very well.  I have included some quotes because these scholars write in an almost poetic fashion that cannot be paraphrased.   

In order to be do good qualitative researcher you need to be good with people and you need to write really well (articulation) as words are your data and interviews, observations and document analysis can all be reduced to text and words. 

Luft and Shields (2003) "Mapping Management Accounting: Graphics and Guidelines for Theory-Consistent Empirical Research" - another very useful paper in my field - indicated that qualitative field studies are inclined to emphasise that management accounting is not easily classified as only a dependent or only an independent variable, but rather they tend to be more complexly implicated in the unfolding of events as both cause and effect of changes.     

No comments:

Post a Comment