 Whose voice is it anyway? Rethinking the oral history method in accounting research on race, ethnicity and genderSoon Nam Kim CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, 2008, vol. 19, issue 8, 1346-1369 Abstract: Drawing on contemporary feminist and postcolonial writings, this paper endeavors to provide a critique of some underlying assumptions of the oral history method. The very methodology of the oral history method re-enforces hegemonic Western ideologies about race/ethnicity, gender and class perpetuated through the connection between the cultural identity of the speaker and the notion of authenticity as a ground for academic authority. Without recognizing the inherent subjectivities of the research methods we use, we may unwittingly perpetuate these hegemonic ideologies, despite our good intention. If other histories are to be heard, this bias and viewpoint needs to be challenged, not in a threatening way but in an enlightening way, so that the “Other” voices can tell their stories in a more, if not fully, liberated way. Keywords: Academic authority; Accounting history; Authenticity; Ethnicity; Gender; Oral history; Power relationship; Race; Shared authorship; Silence (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:19:y:2008:i:8:p:1346-1369 DOI: 10.1016/j.cpa.2007.03.009 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.