Interpretive methodological expertise and editorial board composition

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)
324 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Concerns over research diversity in our journals are longstanding, and empirical enquiry on this topic plays an important role in contributing to debate. In reflecting on the propositions put forward by Endenich and Trapp (2018), an aspect that I believe is currently implicit in their analysis, and which might usefully advance their agenda if made explicit, is the distinction between methodology (e.g. Positivism or Interpretivism) and method. The risk of adopting categories such as “elite”, or, of counting method is that the nature of what diversity might look like remains only indirectly visible. This presents challenges of communication about what different forms of research aspire to achieve. This is an important element of rendering clearer what is the practical nature of complementarity hoped for in a holistic understanding of accounting. Complementarity and understanding between researchers of different methods but sharing a methodology is challenging. The greater challenge, but also thereby the greater potential complementarity, come from engagement across this methodological divide.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)47-51
Number of pages5
JournalCritical Perspectives on Accounting
Volume51
Early online date23 Nov 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2018

Structured keywords

  • AF Management Accounting

Keywords

  • Methodology
  • Research diversity

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Interpretive methodological expertise and editorial board composition'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this