The future of interpretive accounting research

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the polyphonic debate on the future of interpretive accounting research (IAR) by addressing the issues of cumulative knowledge and embedment of IAR in wider literatures. Design/methodology/approach McCracken's method of inquiry, adapted to incorporate meso‐level considerations, can be used to help resolve these issues. Accounting‐related phenomena can be studied by first identifying the cumulative knowledge contributed by different theoretical perspectives that provides broad skeletal categories to be investigated in the context of an interpretive study. In addition, micro‐ and macro‐level “external” theories are incorporated in a global meso‐level framework to provide a high‐level lens to guide data generation and analysis, fostering the embedment of IAR in wider literatures. Findings Meso‐level research implies thinking organizationally and behaviourally, and thinking about linkage. By extension, it requires reflecting on the characteristics of the context in which the phenomenon occurs and the actors behave, the nature of the task or decision to perform, and possible links between macro‐ and micro‐factors that help identify “external” theories and frameworks that contribute to understanding the phenomenon. Research limitations/implications The contribution of the suggested approach is highlighted in the context of financial accounting research. Reflexive accounts on the choice and use of a meso‐level approach are presented, and the issue of appropriate balance between theoretical and empirical material is addressed. Originality/value Creativity is fostered when cumulative knowledge about a specific phenomenon is embedded in wider meso‐level theoretical perspectives, leading to the discovery of new insights about the topic under study and contributing to the advancement of knowledge.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.