Summary of Chua 1986
Summary of Chua 1986
Authors main point
Provide two alternative world views and their underlying assumptions are elucidated – interpretive and the critical.
Discuss consequences of conducting research within these philosophical traditions through a comparison between accounting research that is conducted on the same problem but from two different perspectives.
Deal briefly with the difficulties associated with these alternative perspectives
Author’s purpose
To change the emphasis of mainstream accounting research from hypothetico-deductivism and technical control assumptions to alternative views and obtain a fundamentally different and potentially rich research insights.
Aim
1. To enable accounting researchers to self-reflect on the dominant assumptions that they share and, more importantly, the consequence of adopting this position. a. Limited the types of problems studied b. The use of research methods c. The possible research insights that could be obtained
Author believes that such limitations can only become clear when they are exposed to the challenge of alternative world-views 2. To introduce such alternative set of assumptions, illustrate how they change both problem definition and solution, and offer research which is fundamentally different from that currently prevailing. 3. To argue that, not only are these alternative world-views different, they can potentially enrich and extend our understanding of accounting.
Authors intended audience
Positivist researchers, Public, Professionals, academics, All researchers
Arguments presented to support main point
Recent classifications of accounting perspectives
Cooper (19830 ad Hopper ad Powel (1985) rely on the sociological work of Burrell and Morgan (1979) * Classification of accounting literature: 1. social sciences – includes assumptions about: * ontology of the social world (realism v. nominalism) * epistemology (positivism v.
Authors main point
Provide two alternative world views and their underlying assumptions are elucidated – interpretive and the critical.
Discuss consequences of conducting research within these philosophical traditions through a comparison between accounting research that is conducted on the same problem but from two different perspectives.
Deal briefly with the difficulties associated with these alternative perspectives
Author’s purpose
To change the emphasis of mainstream accounting research from hypothetico-deductivism and technical control assumptions to alternative views and obtain a fundamentally different and potentially rich research insights.
Aim
1. To enable accounting researchers to self-reflect on the dominant assumptions that they share and, more importantly, the consequence of adopting this position. a. Limited the types of problems studied b. The use of research methods c. The possible research insights that could be obtained
Author believes that such limitations can only become clear when they are exposed to the challenge of alternative world-views 2. To introduce such alternative set of assumptions, illustrate how they change both problem definition and solution, and offer research which is fundamentally different from that currently prevailing. 3. To argue that, not only are these alternative world-views different, they can potentially enrich and extend our understanding of accounting.
Authors intended audience
Positivist researchers, Public, Professionals, academics, All researchers
Arguments presented to support main point
Recent classifications of accounting perspectives
Cooper (19830 ad Hopper ad Powel (1985) rely on the sociological work of Burrell and Morgan (1979) * Classification of accounting literature: 1. social sciences – includes assumptions about: * ontology of the social world (realism v. nominalism) * epistemology (positivism v.