 Interpretive methodological expertise and editorial board compositionChristopher S. Chapman CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, 2018, vol. 51, issue C, 47-51 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. Keywords: Research diversity; Methodology (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:crpeac:v:51:y:2018:i:c:p:47-51 DOI: 10.1016/j.cpa.2017.10.007 Access Statistics for this article CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING is currently edited by Marcia Annisette, Christine Cooper and Yves Gendron More articles in CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.