Skip to content

Interpretive methodological expertise and editorial board composition

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)47-51
Number of pages5
JournalCritical Perspectives on Accounting
Early online date23 Nov 2017
DateAccepted/In press - 19 Oct 2017
DateE-pub ahead of print - 23 Nov 2017
DatePublished (current) - 1 Mar 2018


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.

    Research areas

  • Methodology, Research diversity

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Elsevier at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Accepted author manuscript, 384 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY-NC-ND


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups