Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 124129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Management Accounting Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mar

Bridging the paradigm divide in management accounting research: The role of mixed methods approaches
Sven Modell
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
This paper discusses the role of mixed methods research in management accounting and how it may help researchers bridge the divide between the economics-based, functionalist mainstream and the alternative paradigm informed by interpretive and critical perspectives. Whilst noting the considerable barriers to dialogue across these paradigms, I outline how mixed methods research can be mobilized as part of a strategy of meta-triangulation to engender inter-paradigmatic engagement. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mixed methods research Paradigms Management accounting Triangulation

1. Introduction This paper will discuss the role of mixed methods research in management accounting with particular emphasis on how it may help bridging the divide currently separating the primarily economics-based mainstream from alternative, sociology-based approaches informed by interpretive and critical perspectives (cf. Ryan et al., 2002). Examining this issue is important for stimulating more widespread dialogue across these paradigms. Mixed methods research, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, has recently been extensively discussed in the management accounting literature and is growing in popularity (e.g., Anderson and Widener, 2007; Lillis and Mundy, 2005; Modell, 2005). However, much of this debate has had a rather technical emphasis and has only rarely addressed the deeper paradigmatic implications of conducting such research (Brown and Brignall, 2007; Modell, 2007, 2009). The case for mixed methods research has generally been stated in terms of its propensity to enable researchers to combine breadth and depth in empirical inquiries, to enhance the validity of research ndings through triangula-

tion and to facilitate the mobilization of multiple theories in examining management accounting practices. Little attention has been paid to whether mixed methods research, as such, may spearhead research endeavours encouraging dialogue across the aforementioned paradigm divide. This is the over-riding concern of this paper. I will start by briey accounting for my own personal experiences of doing and writing about mixed methods research in management accounting with an eye to some paradigmatic issues encountered along the way. This anchors the discussion in some rst-hand observations of potential barriers to bridging paradigms, which are further examined in the ensuing section. Finally, I examine how mixed methods research may be used as part of a strategy of meta-triangulation to overcome these barriers. 2. Doing and writing about mixed methods research: some personal experiences My interest in mixed methods research started with an empirical study in the Norwegian health care sector (Modell and Lee, 2001). The study started with a surveybased phase exploring the inuence of decentralization on reliance on the controllability principle at the middle management level of a large, public sector hospital. Whilst our initial hypothesis and the design of the survey instrument were primarily informed by functionalist approaches

Correspondence address: Accounting and Finance Group, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Crawford House, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, United Kingdom. E-mail address: Sven.Modell@mbs.ac.uk. 1044-5005/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2010.02.005

S. Modell / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 124129

125

(e.g., agency theory), we retained some openness to alternative theoretical perspectives and combined the survey with semi-structured interviews. This proved very helpful since our survey ndings only provided weak and far from conclusive support for our a priori expectations. However, the interview data strongly indicated that institutional and political factors, to some extent unique to the Norwegian health care sector, had an important, mediating inuence on the relationship between decentralization and reliance on the controllability principle. These relationships were further theorized by complementing our original model with insights from neo-institutional sociology. Hence, interview data enabled us to extend extant theories of the possibilities of implementing the controllability principle in conjunction with budgetary control. The paper was well-received by reviewers and was accepted for publication after minor revisions. To our delight, it was eventually awarded the John Perrin Prize for Best Paper in Financial Accountability and Management in 2001. In hindsight, both I and my co-author saw the study as a great learning experience opening up new perspectives and helping us develop new methodological skills. Having completed this empirical study, I set out to compare my experiences with those of other management accounting scholars conducting similar kinds of research. This resulted in a comprehensive review of management accounting research relying on triangulation between survey- and case study-based methods published in major accounting journals between 1970 and 2002 (Modell, 2005). The paper explored the issue of how various forms of method triangulation may contribute to validate research ndings and resulted in the identication of three distinct approaches to this end. I started out by somewhat navely equating the use of qualitative and quantitative methods with those of the interpretive and functionalist paradigms, respectively (cf. Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Whilst a number of studies explicitly combining these paradigms were identied, my positioning of triangulation between them proved far from unproblematic and generated rather heated reactions in conference presentations. In particular, some interpretive and critical researchers saw this as an untenable position, arguing that triangulation is not possible across paradigms as the notion of validity has very different meanings which are embedded in diverging ontological and epistemological assumptions (cf. Blaikie, 1991). My response to these criticisms, smacking of the notion of paradigm incommensurability, was to re-position the paper exclusively within the functionalist paradigm whilst adopting the inherently pragmatist, but far from undisputed, position that the choice of particular theories and methods can be (and is often) emancipated from their ontological roots (cf. Bryman, 2006, 2007). However, the published paper ultimately eschewed ontological and epistemological issues related to mixed methods research. Yet, on completing this paper I felt that there was still some unnished work to be done to develop a consistent philosophical foundation for mixed methods research combining elements of interpretive and functionalist approaches. This led to some grappling with pragmatism as a possible means to this end. However, whilst pragmatism has emerged as the dominant philo-

sophical position behind mixed methods research, I was disheartened by the rather loose and implicit manner in which this position is often mobilized in empirical studies. Instead, I started developing a paper grounded in critical realism (Modell, 2009). I saw critical realism as a more appealing foundation for mixed methods research providing some paradigmatic middle ground entailing clearly articulated analytical procedures for validating empirical observations. As such, it provided a convincing basis for tackling the philosophically tuned criticisms of the notion of triangulation encountered in my earlier work. However, it soon became clear that my ambition was by no means seen as politically neutral. Whilst draft versions of the paper met with some interest and encouraging comments from colleagues generally associated with the interpretive paradigm, some of them raised concerns that the essentially realist approach being advocated might constitute a threat to this paradigm and that the politics behind the paper were not clearly articulated. On the other hand, some colleagues with a more functionalist orientation saw such approaches as a strawman or non-issue, arguing that positivist writers had already solved the problem of how to validate mixed methods research. Such reactions were typically combined with calls for getting on with empirical research without worrying too much about philosophy and I generally found them more hostile than those emerging from my interpretive colleagues. However, I experienced little opposition to the usefulness of mixed methods research as such. To summarize these personal experiences of conducting mixed methods research in management accounting it is clear that this is by no means an unproblematic or uncontested endeavour. A casual observation, not dissimilar to the experiences of other practitioners of mixed methods research (see Bryman, 2006, 2007), is that doing such research is more straightforward than writing about it. This would especially seem to be the case as long as we do not let philosophical issues get in the way and concentrate on getting on with empirical research. In what follows, I elaborate on why such a stance may reinforce the barriers to dialogue across paradigms. 3. Barriers to inter-paradigmatic dialogue in management accounting research The above discussion suggests that the barriers to mixed methods research as a way of stimulating dialogue between the mainstream and alternative paradigms are particularly entrenched in the former. This impression is reinforced by prevailing mainstream conceptions of the possibilities (and desirability) of such dialogue and can partly be traced to the intellectual roots of much research within this paradigm, notably articulated in Positive Accounting Theory (PAT). The preferred logic of inquiry in PAT places a strong emphasis on explaining and predicting substantive accounting phenomena and favours a hypothetico-deductive mode of theorizing and relatively one-sided reliance on quantitative methods using large samples (Watts and Zimmerman, 1986; see Williams, 1989 for an early critique). However, whilst generally seen as rooted in a realist ontology and positivist epistemology

126

S. Modell / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 124129

(see Ryan et al., 2002; Whitley, 1988), key proponents of PAT have shown little interest in debating its philosophical foundations and have tended to resort to the idea of paradigm incommensurability as a reason for not doing so. For instance, in responding to emerging criticisms of the ontological and epistemological premises of PAT, Watts and Zimmerman (1990, p. 149) argued that: . . .to most researchers, debating methodology is a no win situation because each side argues from a different paradigm with different rules and no common ground. Rather than debating abstract philosophical issues, Watts and Zimmerman (1990) saw the pathway to scientic progress as a matter of addressing the limitations of earlier research in repeated studies to enhance the explanatory and predictive capacity of theories as these relate to specic, substantive accounting phenomena. Hence, a strong emphasis on getting on with empirical research is discernible. Whilst this resonates with my personal experiences of interacting with colleagues within the mainstream, getting on with research in all likelihood implies heavy reliance on economic theories and quantitative methods. As indicated by Merchant (this issue), this may be the only possible strategy for scholars aspiring to elite status within the mainstream (especially in North America) even if they are sympathetic to a broader range of theories and methods. Whatever role, if any, positive accounting theorists might see for mixed methods research it is likely to be a rather peripheral one informed by a very narrow range of theories. This is not least clear from Zimmermans (2001) lamenting of the state of contemporary management accounting research for encompassing too much descriptive and exploratory work informed by theoretical approaches other than economics. The lack of training in and incentives for conducting qualitative research in North American accounting academe (see e.g., Lee, 1995; Panozzo, 1997) would also seem to work against a wider acceptance of mixed methods approaches as a legitimate research strategy. Recent review articles, extending economics-based thinking to demonstrate the value of combining it with other theories, have mostly been based on the positivist epistemology under-pinning the mainstream (Covaleski et al., 2003; Merchant et al., 2003). It is possible that preserving such commonalities with economics-based research is necessary to stimulate some form of dialogue between economic and other social theories. However, these advances have tended to bracket wider ontological and epistemological issues and thus offer few insights into the challenges involved in fostering interparadigmatic dialogue. Similarly, the considerably more pluralist, alternative, or inter-disciplinary, accounting research community, primarily populated by interpretive and critical scholars (cf. Roslender and Dillard, 2003), is not automatically in favour of mixed methods research as a means of stimulating interparadigmatic exchange of ideas.1 Many leading scholars

within this community subscribe to a notion of interdisciplinarity which would not seem conducive to dialogue with the economics-based mainstream. Indeed, attempts to dene the inter-disciplinary accounting research agenda have largely excluded research based on neo-classical (nancial) economics (e.g., Guthrie and Parker, 2004; Milne et al., 2008; Parker and Guthrie, 2009), sometimes in favour of mostly sociological theories (Roslender and Dillard, 2003). Recent celebrations of the achievements of such research also reveal pronounced concerns with the hegemonizing strivings of the economics-based mainstream (e.g., Hopwood, 2007, 2008), although there is also some unease with the conception of it as little more than the alternative to the mainstream (Ahrens et al., 2008). Whilst these agenda-setting efforts are largely mute as far as the potential of mixed methods research is concerned, it is questionable whether such research will contribute to bridging paradigms unless it explicates how research ndings informed by sociological and other theories contribute to and modify those dominating the economics-based mainstream and vice versa. Merely getting on with mixed methods research within a narrow, sociology-based denition of inter-disciplinarity is unhelpful. As noted by Vollmer (2009), more explicit attempts to examine the social within the economic are necessary for management accounting research to encompass a more reciprocal exchange of ideas between sociology and economics. This brief outline of recent debates within the mainstream and alternative paradigms reveals a prevailing silence about the potential of mixed methods research in stimulating inter-paradigmatic dialogue and what premises need to be lled for this to materialize. Leading mainstream scholars have largely eschewed these issues as a result of their reluctance to engage in inter-paradigmatic debates. Similarly, propagators of alternative, or inter-disciplinary, accounting research have carried on the quest to position such research in opposition to the mainstream and offer little advice as to whether mixed methods research may nurture some paradigmatic middle ground. The main challenge ahead is thus to develop mixed methods approaches which may foster inter-paradigmatic engagement and compel researchers to articulate the premises for more systematic exchange of ideas across paradigmatic boundaries. I now turn to examine this issue in greater detail. 4. Mixed methods research as a strategy of inter-paradigmatic engagement In pondering how mixed methods research may be used as a strategy for inter-paradigmatic engagement it is important to emphasize that this neither implies dismantling paradigmatic boundaries nor forces researchers to subscribe to some readily available, hybrid paradigm combining elements of the mainstream and alternative paradigms. Insisting on such changes would, at best,

Although inter-disciplinary research can take place across paradigmatic boundaries, the notion of inter-disciplinarity is here equated with

the alternative paradigm (see Roslender and Dillard, 2003). Whilst empirical research within this paradigm has tended to be predominantly qualitative, it does not preclude mixed methods research.

S. Modell / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 124129

127

seem nave and at worst, counter-productive, as this may provoke politically motivated reactions and ultimately alienate potential allies of paradigm-bridging approaches (cf. Symon et al., 2008). Whilst I have previously advocated critical realism as a paradigmatic middle ground for mixed methods research in management accounting (Modell, 2009), it is still too early to tell whether such a position will gather a strong enough following to form a hybrid paradigm encouraging more widespread and reciprocal exchange of ideas between the mainstream and alternative paradigms (cf. Kuhn, 1962). Hence, the following discussion concentrates on how mixed methods research can bring together scholars and ideas associated with these paradigms, but leaves the question of what paradigmatic position might ultimately emerge from such endeavours open-ended. A useful approach for stimulating inter-paradigmatic dialogue is that of meta-triangulation (Lewis and Grimes, 1999; Wolfram Cox and Hassard, 2005). The basic idea of meta-triangulation is to mobilize multiple paradigms in examining a particular social phenomenon and at least initially preserve their integrity (rather than modifying and integrating them) whilst remaining aware of the potential transition zones between them. Differences and similarities in research ndings may then be systematically analyzed at the levels of ontology, epistemology and methodology. For instances, a particular accounting issue may be examined with the aid of both quantitative and qualitative methods informed by theories and philosophical assumptions associated with the mainstream and the alternative paradigm, respectively, using a team of researchers afliated with both paradigms. This might reveal whether research ndings converge or diverge as a result of methodological artefacts or due to more fundamental similarities and differences in philosophical assumptions. Such research may also be extended by paying explicit attention to the positions adopted by various researchers as a result of differences in their backgrounds, such as research training, institutional afliations and paradigmatic commitments (cf. Wolfram Cox and Hassard, 2005). Consistent with the emergent view of paradigms outlined at the beginning of this section, a useful starting point for mixed methods research following a strategy of meta-triangulation would be to momentarily bracket ontological and epistemological assumptions whilst striving to discover how such assumptions are played out in action. Instead, a team of researchers representing mainstream as well as the alternative paradigms would be encouraged to empirically examine a substantive management accounting issue of interest to both paradigms based on their respective, preferred research methods. An initial challenge would be to identify such a substantive issue, since researchers from different paradigms have a propensity to focus on slightly different aspects of the same issue and ask different research questions (cf. Brown and Brignall, 2007). However, this could be enlightening in its own right as it may compel researchers to confront their respective priors with alternative views. Whilst it would be unrealistic to expect researchers primarily working within a particular paradigm to readily abandon their

priors, this may help them delineate the boundaries of particular theoretical explanations and their interfaces with complementary or competing explanations. Openness to insights from other paradigms might lead researchers from different paradigms to articulate the assumptions and contingent conditions under which their priors are likely to hold. It would seem particularly important to maintain some openness to insights from both sides at the earlier stages of the research process to prevent one or the other from becoming too dominant and suppress ndings with important implications for later stages. Hence, appropriate arenas for researchers to continuously share their views need to be established and maintained throughout the research process. Whilst it is premature to predict what the outcomes of research projects such as that outlined above might be, they may shed light on the ontological and epistemological premises effectively enacted by researchers espousing different paradigms. For instance, they may reveal whether mainstream researchers genuinely subscribe to an ontological position of extreme empirical realism and a positivist epistemology, according to which the world is so stable, predictable and readily observable that context-specic differences are of little consequence for explaining particular accounting phenomena. There is some reason for doubting that this is always the case. Even though PAT advocates have expressed their aversion to excessive reliance on exploratory research as a way of situating research ndings, they have repeatedly emphasized the importance of investigating emerging anomalies as a basis for theory development (e.g., Watts and Zimmerman, 1986; Zimmerman, 2001). Recognizing such anomalies, or atypical anecdotal evidence (Watts and Zimmerman, 1986, p. 11), has been seen as a stepping stone for rening theories and enhancing their explanatory and predictive capacity across various research settings. In addition, the critique of exploratory research as a means of situating research ndings should perhaps not be taken too literally. Even Zimmerman (2001) identied a number of economics-based studies where innovative insights were said to be gained by confronting extant theories with unique, context-specic issues and data. Mixed methods research following a strategy of meta-triangulation can test how far mainstream researchers are prepared to go in exploring anomalies and what this implies in terms of acting out paradigmatic assumptions. On the other hand, mixed methods research can show whether researchers associated with the alternative paradigm invariably follow ontological and epistemological premises characterized by pronounced subjectivism, or whether they are open to explaining and even generalizing about various accounting phenomena. Recent debates about the nature of interpretive research in management accounting indicate that the latter may indeed be the case (Ahrens, 2008; Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al., 2008a,b). Interpretive researchers can do considerably more than simply describe and explore subjectively held meanings; often they can advance theoretically informed explanations. However, such explanations also tend to be highly context- and time-specic and are deeply embedded in the socially constructed meanings of researched individ-

128

S. Modell / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 124129 UK university central administrative services. Management Accounting Research 18, 3248. Bryman, A., 2006. Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9, 111126. Bryman, A., 2007. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1, 822. Burrell, G., Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Heinemann, London. Covaleski, M.A., Evans III, J.H., Luft, J.L., Shields, M.D., 2003. Budgeting research: three theoretical perspectives and criteria for selective integration. Journal of Management Accounting Research 15, 349. Dillard, J., 2008. A political base for a polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19, 894900. Guthrie, J., Parker, L., 2004. Editorial. Diversity and AAAJ: interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting, auditing and accountability. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 17, 716. Hellstrm, T., 2008. Transferability and naturalistic generalization: new generalizability concepts for social science or old wine in new bottles. Quality and Quantity 42, 321337. Hopwood, A.G., 2007. Whither accounting research? The Accounting Review 82, 13651374. Hopwood, A.G., 2008. Management accounting research in a changing world. Journal of Management Accounting Research 20, 313. Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., Kuorikoski, J., 2008a. Straddling between paradigms: a naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33, 267291. Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., Kuorikoski, J., 2008b. No premature closures of debates, please: a response to Ahrens. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33, 298301. Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The Structure of Scientic Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lee, T., 1995. Shaping the US academic accounting research profession: the American Accounting Association and the social construction of a professional elite. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 6, 241 261. Lewis, M.W., Grimes, A.J., 1999. Metatriangulation: building theories from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review 24, 672 690. Lillis, A.M., Mundy, J., 2005. Cross-sectional eld studies in management accounting researchclosing the gap between surveys and case studies. Journal of Management Accounting Research 17, 119141. Lukka, K., Modell, S. Validation in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, in press. Merchant, K.A. Paradigms in accounting research: a view from North America. Management Accounting Research, this issue. Merchant, K.A., Van der Stede, W.A., Zheng, L., 2003. Disciplinary constraints on the advancement of knowledge: the case of organizational incentive systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28, 251286. Milne, M., Guthrie, J., Parker, L., 2008. Editorial. Into the light and engagement. Two decades of interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting, auditing and accountability research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 21, 117128. Modell, S., 2005. Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research: an assessment of validity implications. Management Accounting Research 16, 231254. Modell, S., 2007. Mixed methods research in management accounting: opportunities and obstacles. In: Granlund, M. (Ed.), Total Quality in Academic Accounting. Essays in Honour of Kari Lukka. Publications of Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku. Modell, S., 2009. In defence of triangulation: a critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research 20, 208221. Modell, S., Lee, A., 2001. Decentralization and reliance on the controllability principle in the public sector. Financial Accountability and Management 17, 191218. Panozzo, F., 1997. The making of good academic accountants. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22, 447480. Parker, L., Guthrie, J., 2009. Editorial. Championing intellectual pluralism. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 22, 512. Roslender, R., Dillard, J.F., 2003. Reections on the interdisciplinary perspectives on accounting project. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 14, 325351. Ryan, B., Scapens, R.W., Theobald, M., 2002. Research Method and Methodology in Finance and Accounting, 2nd ed. Thomson, Padstow. Symon, G., Buehring, A., Johnson, P., Cassell, C., 2008. Positioning qualitative research as resistance to the institutionalization of the academic labour process. Organization Studies 29, 13151336.

uals. Consequently, explaining accounting phenomena is not reducible to nding co-variances corroborating a priori hypotheses and requires much deeper empirical probing to be regarded as valid. Yet, validating explanations in interpretive management accounting research is ultimately a matter of establishing their plausibility against the background assumptions dominating a particular community of scholars at various points in time (Lukka and Modell, in press). Hence, there may be at least some scope for generalizing from a particular research setting to what is held to be true within and across such communities (cf. Hellstrm, 2008). Mixed methods research following a strategy of meta-triangulation can tell us something about the boundaries of such truth claims and how these are conditioned by the ontological and epistemological assumptions of various communities of scholars (which may or may not coincide with various paradigms).2 If research similar to that outlined above reveals more widespread divergences between what researchers on both sides of the paradigm divide are prepared to accept and the conventional conceptions of paradigms, then there are reasons to question the latter. So far, there have been few, if any, attempts at meta-triangulation in individual empirical studies in the management accounting literature and we may only speculate as to whether such attempts will lead to some modication of the philosophical assumptions effectively enacted by researchers and foster the emergence of hybrid paradigms. The strategy outlined above should be viewed as one small step in this processnot a giant leap towards a new paradigm. Much empirical work remains to be done to add momentum to this process. Acknowledgement This paper is based on my panel presentation at the 2009 EAA Annual Congress in Tampere. I am grateful to Kari Lukka, Ken Merchant and Bob Scapens for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper. References
Ahrens, T., 2008. Overcoming the subjectiveobjective divide in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33, 292297. Ahrens, T., Becker, A., Burns, J., Chapman, C., Granlund, M., Habersam, M., Hansen, A., Khalifa, R., Malmi, T., Mennicken, A., Mikes, A., Panozzo, F., Piber, M., Quattrone, P., Scheytt, T., 2008. The future of interpretive accounting researcha polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19, 840866. Anderson, S.W., Widener, S.K., 2007. Doing quantitative eld research in management accounting. In: Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G., Shields, M.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Management Accounting Research, vol. 1. Elsevier, Oxford. Blaikie, N.W.H., 1991. A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality and Quantity 25, 115136. Brown, R., Brignall, S., 2007. Reections on the use of a dual-methodology research design to evaluate accounting and management practice in

2 Whilst it is convenient to equate different paradigms in accounting research with distinct communities of scholars, there are diverging views about the homogeneity of mainstream accounting researchers guided by uniform paradigmatic assumptions (Ahrens et al., 2008 vs. Dillard, 2008).

S. Modell / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 124129 Vollmer, H., 2009. Management accounting as normal science. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34, 141150. Watts, R.L., Zimmerman, J.L., 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Watts, R.L., Zimmerman, J.L., 1990. Positive accounting theory: a ten year perspective. The Accounting Review 65, 131156. Whitley, R.D., 1988. The possibility and utility of positive accounting theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13, 631 645.

129

Williams, P.F., 1989. The logic of positive accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 14, 455468. Wolfram Cox, J., Hassard, J., 2005. Triangulation in organizational research: a re-presentation. Organization 12, 109133. Zimmerman, J., 2001. Conjectures regarding empirical management accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics 32, 411427.