Abstract Generalization in accounting research is always suspect as the social context and institutions of accounting change over time and space. However, exactly for this reason, there are a number of different ways to reach pragmatic and somewhat generalizable results. No research programme or approach has an absolute upper hand in understanding the true dynamics of economic development. The genuine puzzle of inductive reasoning creates a rhetorical element for all attempts to generalize in accounting research. The main rhetorics used in accounting studies are statistical, contextual, and constructive generalization. To put it in broad terms, statistical generalization rhetoric relies on formal arguments brought from a mathematical theory, contextual generalization rhetoric is based on understanding of the historical and institutional context, and constructive generalization relies on the diffusion of innovation. Combining the often silenced opportunities of contextual or constructive generalization rhetorics in case studies, and noticing the typically omitted problems of statistical generalization rhetoric, argues that these research approaches are not as far from each other as current methodological discussion would suggest. On the contrary, argues that in terms of generalization, both case and statistical studies face the same obstacles of justifying real induction, and both approaches, if conducted properly, have a chance of producing results that are generalizable to some extent.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 284 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.