Relating performative and ostensive management accounting research

Allan Hansen

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 2011, vol. 8, issue 2, 108-138

Abstract: Purpose - The methodological debate relating to accounting research using actor‐network theory (ANT) has primarily focused on how ANT generates performative studies that significantly differ from ostensive studies. These discussions have in many ways (and for good reasons) distanced performative from ostensive research. Recently, however, several scholars have emphasized the interdependencies between ostensive and performative aspects when it comes to knowledge development, thereby underlining the need to coordinate ostensive and performative studies and bring them closer together. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the methodological opportunities and limitations for ANT researchers who seek to move closer to ostensive research. Design/methodology/approach - The basis for exploring the opportunities and threats stemming from integration at the methodological level is a comparison of performative and ostensive case study methodologies as they have been presented in research. Robert K. Yin's case study methodology is chosen to represent an ostensive view whereas performative case study methodology is represented by the methodological reflections of Bruno Latour, John Law, and Michel Callon. Findings - The paper illustrates how the process is a balancing act. On the one hand, it requires performative researchers to relate more closely to aspects decisive for ostensive researchers; yet, on the other, they need to preserve the distinctiveness of the performative approach. Originality/value - This paper exemplifies these issues with reference to management accounting research and contributes by clarifying the methodological implications of moving performative research closer to ostensive research.

Keywords: Case studies; Methodology; Actor‐network theory; Management accounting research; Performative and ostensive research; Research methods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:8:y:2011:i:2:p:108-138

DOI: 10.1108/11766091111137546

Access Statistics for this article

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management is currently edited by Lukas Goretzki and Thomas Ahrens

More articles in Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().