Methodological themes Empirical research in accounting:alternative approaches and a case for“middle-range” thinking [5]
论文作者:PAT SUCHER论文属性:短文 essay登出时间:2008-06-10编辑:点击率:30153
论文字数:3600论文编号:org200806101038079925语种:英语 English地区:英国价格:免费论文
关键词:Methodological themesEmpirical researchaccountingalternative approaches
ariability, the presence of any type of rules invariably is a restriction on the observer’s freedoms. Whether this is always recognized by those advocating this way of seeing is unclear. However, what is clear is that whatever rules are defined they will always attempt to preserve differences in perceptual powers since a belief in this variability and its importance in discovery processes forms the foundation for this way of seeing. The final choice dimension refers to “change”. What change means is complex and uncertain. However, in general, it refers to attitudes by the researcher concerning the worth or otherwise of maintaining the current situation that is being investigated as well as views about the necessity for actually doing something about this situation. These two aspects of change differ since it is possible for an investigator to value the need for change but nothave either the conviction or possibility to engender the change that is required. While this is recognized it is not unreasonable to assume that those who adopt a critical perspective with regard to the phenomenon being investigated would also want to do something about it even if not in a position to see through the change required. On the basis of this assumption those who believe in “high” levels of change are of the view that everything they see is bound to be inadequate and incomplete and in need of change even though not always in a position to engender the change desired. Those who believe in “low” change see little problem in maintaining the status quo. This would also include those who see understanding as an aid to control and thus who may, on occasions, be very proactive in any phenomenon when it deviates away from an accepted equilibrium (i.e. the status quo). Those in the “middle” on this continuum are more strategic in their attitude to change – open to maintaining certain aspects of current functioning but also open to challenging the status quo. It is possible, therefore, to think of these three choices on three different scalars ranging from high to low. The “theory” dimension refers to high to low levels of usage of prior theorizing before undertaking any investigation. The “methodology” dimension ranges from high to low levels of theoretical closure on the methods of investigation. The “change” dimension relates to high to low levels of critique with regard to the status quo and the need for change in the phenomena being investigated. Even though it is possible to describe these continuums in these simple terms it is important to stress that each includes an amalgam of quite complex variables as the above detailed descriptions indicate. It is also important to stress that the descriptors “high”, “medium” and “low” are not precise, definable or measurable. These three choices are clearly interrelated although on a three-dimensional plane as Figure 1 suggests. The theory and methodology dimensions arearguably related in a simple linear way. Those who believe in high levels of prior theorizing will also see great value in high levels of theoretically defining the methods of investigation. Likewise those who want to reduce to a minimum prior theorizing will prefer a similar minimal theoretical definition in the investigatory methods. The change dimension is less predictable and hence the reason for it cutting across both the theory and methodology continuums. However, there is a connection to the theory dimension. In fact, while this is a separate ch
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。