Theoretical paradigms of understanding in accounting: from structuralism to pluralism

Abstract

Accounting thought has been largely driven by the immediate needs of accounting practitioners and hence the praxis of accounting has leaned heavily towards practice rather than theory. Resulting from this has been a loose patina of rules and conventions, frequently without articulation and frequently lacking detailed research and theorising. Two, at times overlapping, responses to this situation may be identified. One response can be described as the ‘professional’ or ‘institutional’ response, with researchers undertaking conceptual framework-type work which, although debatable, has provided little more than a political solution and has not adequately addressed the need for fundamental research and theory. The second response can be described as the development of theorising. Accounting researchers within this category in particular uplifted the scientific approach and have more recently considered alternative methods of gaining knowledge which are themselves reactions to the scientific approach. The purpose of the thesis is to examine and criticise the principal extant theoretical paradigms of understanding in accounting with a view to offering guidance for future researchers in accounting. In doing this a phenomenological approach is used. The thesis concludes that although there are strengths associated with the scientific approach, it is not universally appropriate nor does it confer any automatic legitimacy on the research. As a corollary, knowledge or understanding that has resulted from alternative approaches (whether they be interpretive case study or ethnomethodological research) should be included in the accounting body of knowledge. Further, by de-privileging the scientific approach researchers working in alternative areas do not then need to resort to the claim that their work is ‘scientific’ in order to gain ‘legitimacy’. The conclusion is that a pluralistic approach would liberate accounting from the privilege accorded to scientific research. As a consequence, this would impose a more stringent requirement on the researcher and the reader to study the objectives, setting and methodology of research. Liberating accounting research from the dominance of the scientific approach means that research can be discriminated on these bases. Results can then be evaluated in their own right without one technique being privileged over another. The importance of this conclusion is that the whole range of approaches to gaining knowledge is open to researchers - there is no prescription of one methodology or method, the positivist approach is not privileged over the ethnomethodological or vice versa. Consequently, a particular approach is held only as a belief statement by an individual and knowledge is recognised to be merely that which we believe it to be. Thus the ultimate conclusion of this thesis is that we need an open exchange of views and a more empathic attitude to understanding and analysis while not being tied to particular structures nor particular rules. Hence the title, Theoretical Paradigms of Understanding in Accounting: From Structuralism to Pluralism.