Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Management Accounting Research

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

Insights into method triangulation and paradigms in interpretive management accounting research
Juhani Vaivio , Anna Sirn
Aalto University School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
This paper seeks to develop our understanding of method triangulation and research paradigms in interpretive management accounting research. Relying on eld illustrations, the paper provides insight into how method triangulation has actually been received within the Finnish management accounting research community. At present, talk can be distinguished from action in method triangulation. Relying further on this insight, the paper discusses the meaning of a paradigm. It points out that for the individual scholar the paradigm is not necessarily a coherent, well-reected philosophical standpoint. Instead, it represents a socio-political assemblage that suggests a methodological identity and provides paradigmatic economies for the self-interested academic. We also put forward a view on the future of method triangulation and paradigmatic dtente more generally. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Paradigm Triangulation Methodology Research methods Interpretive management accounting research

1. Introduction Interpretive management accounting research seems to be living a period of critical self-reection. Recently, the philosophical underpinnings of interpretive studies, and especially the paradigmatic subjective/objective dichotomy in its methodological foundations, have been elements in an intensive academic exchange (KakkuriKnuuttila et al., 2008a,b; Ahrens, 2008). The distinctive role of theory in producing plausible empirical ndings has been reassessed (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006). Even the future of interpretive accounting research has been discussed in a polyphonic debate (Ahrens et al., 2008; Armstrong, 2008; Baxter et al., 2008; Scapens, 2008).1 Against this background, the arguments which have been advanced for combining case and survey study methods in management accounting research have become

Corresponding author. E-mail address: juhani.vaivio@hse. (J. Vaivio). 1 For an earlier round of methodological soul-searching and discussion, see Tomkins and Groves (1983), Abdel-Khalik and Ajinkya (1983), Morgan (1983), Cooper (1983), and Willmott (1983). 1044-5005/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2010.03.001

more signicant. What has been said regarding method triangulation now appears as a terrain where the orientation of interpretive accounting research can once again be discussed. It seems that method triangulation is becoming a central dimension where critical choices about the reconciliation or incompatibility of research paradigms are being made in research practice. As Modell (2009, p. 3) crystallizes it: The tensions associated with straddling between paradigms are readily observable when one considers the issue of triangulation between theories and methods [emph. added] rooted in different paradigms. Here, at the level of actually doing empirical management accounting research by mobilizing or by not mobilizing multiple research methods, management accounting researchers reveal how much they actually wish, and are able, to straddle between the positivist and the interpretive paradigms (Modell, 2009, 2007, 2005; Arnold, 2006; Hopper and Hoque, 2006; Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al., 2008a,b; Davila and Oyon, 2008). Method triangulation can be seen as revealing something fundamental about how paradigmatic dtente is perceived amongst management accounting scholars working in the interpretive tradition. We should, however, acknowledge the challenge that method triangulation sets for scholars at the level of actual research practice (Ahrens and

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

131

Chapman, 2006, pp. 833836, see also e.g. Patton, 1990). Moreover, questions should be raised about how method triangulation can be effectively operationalized, and about how it could affect the future of interpretive management accounting research (Hopwood, 2008). This paper offers an illustrated theoretical discussion. It is anchored to the contemporary debates concerning the nature of paradigms in management accounting research and the benets of employing different research methods. In brief, it contributes to these debates by rst seeking eld insights into the social reality of academics in the interpretive tradition. Then, having explored the actual mobilization of different research methods, by listening to a number of voices from the eld, it discusses the potential of method triangulation and the nature of research paradigms as critical socio-political assemblages. More specically, through interviews in a reachable national research community, the study seeks insight into how practicing management accounting researchers are, in reality, enacting method triangulation. Within the boundaries of a small European country, where a strong interpretive tradition in management accounting research has taken root, we are able to address a particular research community fairly comprehensively. We selected the Finnish research community as we belong to it, and are familiar with its theoretical tradition and academic organization. This provides us a context and a kind of introspective setting for theoretical reection and for illustrating our conclusions about the current status, the pros and cons and the actual prospects of method triangulation as well as for a discussion on the meaning of research paradigms more broadly. We are cautious about transporting our argument to other settings, but on the basis of our eld insights, we seek to add to the current debate by discussing how method triangulation actually becomes mobilized, what its perceived benets are, how its challenges are actually being felt in everyday research practice, and why it often fails to become widely embraced as a vehicle for validating qualitative empirical enquiry. Furthermore, we seek to develop a more detailed understanding of how the research paradigm both enables and constrains the interpretive management accounting researcher. Our conclusions are advanced in a tentative spirit, with the aim of further stimulating the debate. The papers purpose is to deepen our understanding of method triangulation and research paradigms at the operational level of management accounting research. We examine method triangulation and its challenges in the practical eld where paradigmatic rigidity seems to surface. Consequently, our curiosity about method triangulation leads us to say something about paradigms as practical socio-political constructs. Our study suggests that the individual scholar in interpretive management accounting does not evaluate research paradigms primarily from a philosophical standpoint. Instead of pondering the philosophical foundations of competing paradigms, the individual scholar usually embraces one of the available paradigms. However, paradigms may contain philosophical contradictions, and exaggerate their ontological and epistemological distinctiveness (Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al.,

2008a). But regardless of such contradictions and exaggerated elements, the paradigm plays a critical role. As we will argue in this paper, the interpretive methodological paradigm serves important functions: it provides both a methodological identity as well as paradigmatic economics. The paper is structured as follows. First, it reminds us what a recent pronouncement concerning straddling between research paradigms suggests about the paradigm incommensurability thesis. Second, it provides a summary of key arguments about method triangulation. Third, it explains the eld interviews that both inspired and illustrate the papers message. The fourth section introduces the voices from the eld of Finnish management accounting scholars, while the fth section discusses the insights gained from the eld and offers a number of conclusions. 2. Straddling between paradigms To begin with, we want to revisit the recent KakkuriKnuuttila et al. (2008a) argument about straddling between paradigms. We would emphasize that it is not focused specically on method triangulation: it is an argument at a more fundamental level. From the perspective of naturalistic philosophy, it examines how the inuential methodological thesis of Burrell and Morgan (1979) about the subjectivism of interpretive research is actually followed within a single, representative interpretive study Dents (1991) longitudinal examination of cultural transformation within Euro Rail. Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al.s aim is not to blur methodological distinctions, but to explore and explicate the ways in which concepts from different methodological camps can peacefully coexist and cooperate within a single study. They do this by drawing on recent philosophical literature attempting to overcome the strict dichotomy between subjectivism and objectivism (2008a, p. 4). After a meticulous examination of the explanatory structure in Dents study, Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a) conclude that this seminal work does not t well into the strict categorization of mutually exclusive, incompatible paradigms, as spelled out by Burrell and Morgan (1979). Hence, Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. argue that interpretive studies contain both subjectivist and objectivist elements, suggesting that the contrast between subjectivist and objectivist paradigms is overly exaggerated. The Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a) argument about how interpretive research actually straddles between paradigms has several implications for management accounting researchers on both sides of paradigmatic demarcation lines. Especially, its core message will bring the concept of method triangulation under a new light. A possible reading of Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a) could run along the following lines: If the philosophical differences between the subjectivist and objectivist paradigms are in fact smaller than previously assumed, then barriers to combining subjectivist and objectivist research methods in practice must also be lower than assumed. Consequently, method triangulation may appear as a practical expression of paradigmatic dtente in management accounting research.

132

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

3. The argument for method triangulation A classic case for combining multiple research methods to investigate management accounting phenomena was advanced by Birnberg et al. (1990). Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of eld, laboratory and survey methods, and stressing that no one research method dominates on all of the criteria that they lay out, the authors advocated the use of multiple methods either within a particular study, or within a coordinated series of complementary studies on a specic topic (see also Ferreira and Merchant, 1992, p. 26). Also Abernethy et al. (1999, p. 25), illustrating the trade-offs that take place in experimental, survey and eld research, concluded that some of the exposed limitations of these different methods could be overcome by method triangulation.2 Recently, more nuanced arguments have been advanced for combining elements of case and survey research within coherent research programs. In a comparative review of management accounting research that incorporates elements of case study and survey methods, Modell (2005) suggests that the role of triangulation in enhancing the validity of empirical research efforts has traditionally been dependent on an investigations theoretical aims. Triangulation has been mobilized in different ways in theory development than it has in theory testing. An argument is advanced for a more balanced approach within research programs, since triangulation approaches relying on closer interweaving of case study and survey methods in multiple iterations stand a better chance of addressing a broader range of validity issues (Modell, 2005, p. 250). Brown and Brignall (2007) discuss the application of triangulated research design, paying particular attention to the methodology of a dual method, mixed paradigm study in UK universities, which involved two separate teams of quantitative and qualitative researchers with different methodological orientations. They conclude that these dual approaches both complemented and challenged each other. But being rooted in different philosophical and political realities they also talked past each other, as it may not be possible to integrate two sets of ndings in a meaningful way. In a similar vein, Arnolds (2006) discussion suggests that triangulation methods that integrate case research, surveys and cross-sectional eld studies would improve our understanding in the eld of enterprise resource planning systems. Also Vaivio (2008, pp. 7980) has been advocating the use of multiple methods in management accounting research for building a more unied body of knowledge. For instance, a qualitative case study can be complemented with a large-sample survey to test hypotheses that emerged from the case study. Recently, a modied notion of method triangulation has been proposed to address the philosophical criticisms which have emanated from ontological and epistemological considerations (Modell, 2009). Relying on

critical realism (Fleetwood, 2004), this modied notion of method triangulation advances it as a theory-related and context-bound validation technique, which is grounded in abductive reasoning. The possibilities of this modied notion of triangulation are also illustrated through a review of two empirical studies. These empirical examples illuminate how this notion may be applied in mixed methods research straddling between the functionalist and interpretive paradigms (Modell, 2009, p. 218). The critical realist approach, it is suggested, offers an alternative to the entrenched paradigm thinking informing criticisms of triangulation in mixed methods research (Modell, 2009, p. 219). Moreover, the modied notion of triangulation should be viewed as a preliminary guide to what may constitute a philosophically informed foundation for mixed methods research in management accounting (Modell, 2009, p. 219). Hence, from a philosophical vantage point, method triangulation can be advanced as a way of easing paradigmatic tension in contemporary accounting research practice. 4. Gaining eld insight But how is method triangulation, we asked, actually mobilized in contemporary management accounting research? How is method triangulation understood and how are experienced scholars making it operable? And is it realistic to assume that it actually bridges entrenched methodological views? Or is method triangulation one of those idealized intellectual spaces, where we like to dwell but where we nally prefer to substitute talk for action where hypocrisy persists (Brunsson, 1993)? These questions guided the execution of this study, and made us seek insight in eld interviews concerning the practical application of method triangulation in management accounting research. The interviews targeted Finnish management accounting researchers, representing ve different universities within the country.3 In total, eight scholars were interviewed with a semi-structured approach, around specic themes (displayed here in Appendix A), with the average interview lasting about an hour. The interviews were made between April 12thMay 10th, 2007, and were all tape recorded, with the permission of the interviewees. All of the eight interviewed scholars have doctoral degrees in accounting and hold university positions. The great majority of them are in their early 40s. Most of them have considerable research experience, especially in the qualitative/interpretive genre. They have published numerous refereed articles, research papers, book chapters and other professional publications, in both national and international arenas. Two interviewees wanted to remain strictly anonymous, not wishing to reveal their academic positions or their institution. Of those six who participated openly (see Appendix B), three are tenured professors of man-

2 See e.g. Jick (1979) and Erzberg and Prein (1997) for a discussion about how triangulation between methods can be seen as the most advanced technique of cross-validation. For a pragmatist argument on paradigm peace and mixed-methods in social research see Bryman (2006).

3 These were: (1) The Helsinki School of Economics, (2) The University of Jyvskyl, (3) The University of Oulu, (4) The Turku School of Economics Unit based in Pori and (5) an additional university which remains condential, by agreement.

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

133

agement accounting. Taken together, the experience of the interviewed scholars encompassed both qualitatively and quantitatively oriented research, but the weight of their expertise can be located in the interpretive tradition. We underline that we never sought to cover the entire population of Finnish management accounting scholars, or sought any balanced sample of them. Instead, because we know the interviewed scholars relatively well, we trust that we gained candid answers to our questions, and are also able to understand more fully what the logics of our interviewees are. We use this eldwork as a source of inspiration not as a stock of empirical evidence. And we use the eldwork to illustrate our informed reasoning not as a solid empirical basis for generating theory.

5. Triangulating: voices from the eld 5.1. An overview of the interviewed management accounting scholars In order to protect the individual views of the interviewed scholars, we refer to the eight interviewees with alphabetic letters, ranging from A to H. All of the interviewees have been engaged with qualitative research. Most of the interviewees have been doing predominantly qualitative/interpretive scientic work. Two interviewees are an exception: One of them has been using qualitative and quantitative survey research in a balanced way. Another one has been specializing mostly in positivistic survey research, but has been gaining more experience in qualitative methods in his/her research. We can group the scholars into two broad categories: (1) those having personal experience in using method triangulation and (2) those not having personal experience in method triangulation. Those researchers who had personal experience in method triangulation (hereafter referred to as MT in our report) had combined methods by merging qualitative interviews with a broader survey. The importance of this action varied, however. Only one researcher claimed having used these different methods in a more comprehensive way. The rest of them told us about using

qualitative and survey methods in a more unbalanced way, in order to corroborate in other ways the results obtained by their primary method. One researcher had corroborated interview data with a survey. Another scholar had probed deeper into his/her survey ndings with interviews. A third researcher told us about having used a survey to get a better pre-understanding for a qualitative case study. None of those researchers who had been personally engaged in the mobilization of MT admitted, however, using it very actively. They revealed having tried the approach only once or maybe a few times but none of them are now actively using it. Most of those researchers with no personal experience of combining methods perceived this approach to be a rather problematic one. In this group, only one scholar was considering a combination of methods in the near future. Hence, the interviewees experience in MT can be compressed into Fig. 1. 5.2. Perceived benets of method triangulation (MT) We want to underline, that our interviews did not reveal any dogmatic opposition towards MT. The benets of MT were acknowledged and can be related to arguments which have also appeared in literature (e.g. Modell, 2005; Birnberg et al., 1990). Foremost, the scholars we addressed spoke about getting a multifaceted, richer picture of the phenomenon under investigation when MT was applied. Researcher E, for instance, had this to say: Well, you get quite different information with measurements and interviews. Sure you can get a richer picture about some phenomenon if you approach it through measurements and, in a sense, in an objectivist way. And on the other hand, with qualitative data sets you strive to build, in a way, interpretation and understanding a comprehensive view about that phenomenon. Sure they complement each other. That is clear. However, this richer picture, bridging methodological demarcation lines, actually boiled down to different aspects of validity. The most important single reason for mobilizing MT appeared to be improvement in the

Fig. 1. The experience of the interviewed scholars in method triangulation.

134

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

external validity of qualitative/interpretive investigation. Researcher F also pointed out that statistical generalization of ndings can also be necessary for getting published on certain forums, since especially quantitatively oriented scholars may regard this as being important per se. Hence, many researchers found it particularly valuable that an investigation was able to reach out to a larger number of individual agents, than was possible with a traditional interview study. Often, external validity was seen as an issue of generalizing ndings within a single, larger organization (Modell, 2005, pp. 234235). Researcher E emphasized that a phenomenon could rst be studied through interviews. You could then generalize these ndings to the entire organization with a survey. Alternatively, you could start by nding out something intriguing with an organization-wide survey, and then proceed to deepen this knowledge by exploring underlying mechanisms, with more focused interviews in key organizational niches. These benets of MT in a single-organization study were explained by researcher A: You can collect different kinds of data. . .For instance, if you have to interview fty people somewhere at Nokia or Motorola or somewhere which is indeed scattered around the globe that can be impossible! But then you can nd out at least some things by using a survey. Nevertheless, the potential of MT for increasing the internal validity of ndings in validating presumed causeeffect relations between observed phenomena and in building a more solid argument (Modell, 2005, p. 236) was also brought up in our interview data: You could think of the benet-side in terms of getting more credible ndings. That what you actually claim as a result of that study. . .In a way that claim is better founded. (Researcher D) Finally, three scholars also mentioned enhanced construct validity as arising from the application of different research methods. Especially in instances where little prior knowledge exists about the phenomenon under investigation, qualitative methods can be useful in developing the preunderstanding, the concepts to be applied and the specic research instruments which will later be deployed in survey-based research (see Birnberg et al., 1990; Modell, 2005, p. 237). Researcher G, speaking about qualitative research, provided us with this illustrative comment: One of its applications is, of course, in the conceptual specication of these survey studies of these studies which in a way strive towards generalizable results. And in taking care that these concepts. . .these concepts have something to do with the subject of this research. So that you avoid being like Marx, who had never visited a factory in his life. Other benets of MT included the education of new management accounting scholars: MT was seen as an important issue in educating broad-based doctoral students. Also, one researcher pointed out that MT can be seen as bringing together the different methodological camps in management accounting research, allowing for better communication.

The interviewed scholars, however, also held views about how to realize these benets in actual research practice. And here, in these insights, some more problematic aspects relating to the mobilization of MT started seeping into our empirical material. Although half of the researchers held to the view that the benets of MT could materialize fairly easily, they emphasized professional competence in different methods as well as careful research design as essential requirements of potential success. Researcher E observed that, especially in Ph.D. projects, good training in MT could make sense in principle, but added this view: But then when you look at the results one or the other of these research methods is more suitable for the researcher. That if we have this kind of staple-together Ph.D. thesis where you have a few contingency-based surveys and then also one case study then often the case study is of a kind: Better not have this at all! Or of course the other way round. Moreover, it is noteworthy that especially those who had not applied MT in their scientic work perceived its potential benets as materializing within a much wider research program. At the level of a single study, MT would not necessarily make sense. These reservations can be heard in how researcher E continued his/her reections: It depends on what level. . .I would see this question on the level of a research program. That we have a topic like ERP, or service centers, or ABC or whatever and we want to investigate it. So. . .sure it makes sense, and it should be investigated with multiple methods, multiple data sets. And then, we actually get, as a consequence of this multiplicity, a very rich picture. But I dont know whether it is appropriate, or whether we should strive to mix different kinds of methods within a single study. Is this really what we want?. . .You can see a methodological contradiction here. Can we see in a subjectivist way with one eye, and with an objectivist way with the other and then combine these skillfully into one study. I mean, the ndings tend to be such that you actually have both eyes closed. Thats not subjectivist, nor objectivist that research. Its a middle-model story. But not well done in both ways. 5.3. Perceived challenges of MT part one: it is about methodological identity But beyond these reservations about how to realize the benets of MT, the interviewed researchers provided us with a spectrum of views concerning the challenges of MT. We asked them about what was seen as being problematic in MT and what would prevent the mobilization of MT in actual research practice. Here, our eld insights can be broadly grouped into two categories. The rst focuses on observations concerning a management accounting scholars methodological identity, which does not seem to be very receptive to the application of different research methods. Within this methodological identity are philosophically anchored assumptions about reality and the

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

135

possibilities of knowledge in management accounting. Of course, methodological identity appears to be a fundamental, paradigmatically anchored issue of ontology and epistemology. It is also, however, often an issue of very personal choice, afliation and self-denition, which is located within constraining socio-political structures and institutionalized norms. Researcher F conceptualized the above in terms of epistemological problems and irreconcilable epistemological and paradigmatic contradictions. But speaking about ontological contrasts between interpretive and more positivist inquiry, and underlining that MT was more of an issue within entire research programs, researcher G gave us this skeptical remark illustrating his/her point about ontological differences with a reference to The X-Files, the popular TV series: The idea of triangulation contains the notion that within some enterprise there is a kind of objective fact, which we do not know about. And then with different methods with surveys and interviews and collection of data we, so to speak, get closer to that fact. That it is a bit like The X-Files that The Truth is out there. That there is an issue out there, awaiting discovery. And which we must nd out. But then I have been involved also in research projects where we actually think that we are not investigating the reality behind interviews and survey questionnaires, but the interviews and interviewees in themselves. And then it is actually not relevant what this kind of reality, independent from the observer, could be out there. . .And there you have a world, where the concept of triangulation does not need to be applied. It confuses. Or it takes our thought into the direction that we have some kind of objective reality, in a sense. That is not always interesting. These contrasting conceptions of reality can be linked with methodological identity and professional orientation also in a much deeper sense. For instance researcher E spoke about different world views as something that calibrates an individual researchers overall cognition. A researcher denes him/herself in spirit, as belonging either to the positivist or the interpretive tradition. This surfaced in the following comment: Sure you ponder sometimes why someone investigates in one way, and somebody else in another way. . . And why do we combine these methods so little. . .So, it may be related to people having their own way to see the world, to see the interesting issues. You can speak about something like the world view. And if you then have a very functionalist and objectivist view of the world if you really are of the engineer-type, so to speak you cannot be turned into an interpretive type even if we tried. Or the other way round: If you are a bit like a priest, or some shaman or healer interested in understanding things and something which is beyond the concrete, in a sense, or interested in what is going on in peoples heads, and see that as important so then you are not necessarily terribly interested in the operating logic of machines.

Instead of this individualistic view, researcher F provided us, however, with the explanation that this methodological identity is gradually elaborated during a junior scholars educational process and professional growth, in a social setting which contains strong normative and cultural elements: . . .And then they [researchers] have been, in a sense, educated or they have been educating themselves in a certain paradigm or way to do research. So growing within a certain paradigm, in my opinion, determines to a great extent. It is even a kind of cultural explanation. That it determines in which paradigm one grows. And it is fairly difcult, or it is rare, that we are then genuinely interested in other approaches. A researchers methodological identity also appears to generate notions of superiority as well as negative prejudice, in terms of the cherished methodological beliefs and assumptions. This deeply rooted practice of valuing only one way of doing research may further strengthen the incommensurability of methodological approaches. The paradigmatic tension within the social context of an international research collective was explained by researcher D: I can say that for a long time and even today these people who do research in a positivistic spirit, they have not given much credit to case research. They just say that these cannot be generalized. On the other hand, when you try to build these kind of idiographic theories where the world is seen as very complex and multidimensional, where we are trying to understand in a sense the behaviour of actors there, in the eld so try to do this then with some statistical apparatus! Moreover, researcher D was not very optimistic about the possibilities of reconciliation between the methodological dogmas of the interpretive and the positivist traditions: In a way these two worlds in research are different. If you go into the interpretive direction, and if you believe that a scholars purpose is to bring in this complexity, and explain that complexity with different theories, and so on. So, it is an altogether different research agenda than this positivist one. . .We can think, of course, that in this kind of interpretive research the case method has been the dominant method. It is difcult to think that you could bring much novelty in there with these laboratory experiments or survey instruments. Beyond the above illustrations, taken together the bulk of our interview-material on a researchers methodological identity is suggestive of why the potential of MT is regarded as problematic. All of the interviewed eight scholars perceived the incompatibility of the positivistic and the interpretive research paradigms as an explanation of why MT has not been more broadly embraced in management accounting research. Another equally important stream of explanations soon surfaced, however. We illustrate these observations next, under the concept of paradigmatic economics.

136

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

5.4. Perceived challenges of MT part two: it is about paradigmatic economics With paradigmatic economics, we introduce the second category of insight which was captured by this studys eldwork. In brief, our interviews seem to suggest that the studied management accounting scholars are self-interested, highly calculative productive agents, in a competitive research industry. They can do their personal management accounting very well. They remain conscious of their initial xed investment in productive technologies. They weigh the running costs and the expected benets of their productive undertakings. And they are aware of risk. Thus, we claim that their choices in research methods are not merely guided by their paradigmatically embedded methodological identity, but by the purpose to maximize rewards within the research paradigm where they operate. This, in sum, is what we suggest with the term paradigmatic economics. The rst element we identied in this paradigmatic economics relates to professional specialization, in terms of the productive technology of the research method. Early in his/her academic career, a junior scholar invests considerable intellectual resources in training in either the positivist or the interpretive technology.4 Researcher E provided the following comment on academic incentives and professional specialization in the paradigmatically segmented management accounting research industry: This professional research, it sure favors specialization. I mean, it does not pay off to spread out resources into very different kinds of stories. In a sense then although it would otherwise make sense to be a broadly-based researcher and investigate multiple things, and understand multiple theories and methods, and master them you do not usually get tenure that way. Or it is much slower and more difcult. This world is one where, if you really specialize in a narrow segment, one theory or topic, method and tinker with that little spot there in that way you get tenure and those other merits. That is rewarding. Researcher E continued about the size of the xed investment that was needed to overcome the barriers to entry surrounding a particular pocket of the research industry: You tend to have different audiences and different circles of debate for different studies. It sure is a big investment every time you read yourself into, publish and get into a specic research circle which is characterized by the research method, the employed theories and the investigated topics. And these are fairly tight. . .tight circles. Very tightly dened circles using these criteria. And when you have gained entry into such a circle, there you have a kind of comfort-zone. I mean it is easier to stay there than go through the enormous nuisance of climbing again for adventurously exploring some other circle.

Specialization and scale benets were pointed out by researcher D: Once we learn something, that is what we like to do then. In a way, you get these scale benets here. That when you master something, then you will nd the angle wherefrom you can turn these [research output] out fairly easily. . .To think that you would learn an entirely new form of art again!. . . This rigid specialization and reluctance to invest into new inter-paradigmatic technologies in the spirit of MT was commented by researcher C in a critical tone: Many have this attitude towards it [MT and different methods] that they should remain unrelated, or that they maybe would not become combined. But I think it is easy to take such an attitude. If you dont want to learn anything new. And if you are, in a sense, so brainwashed into your own way of thinking that you dont accept anything else. It sure is easy to maintain that attitude not least because you dont have to learn anything new and change your own ways of operating: That you remain sufciently competent in what you have always done, in a sense. However, it appeared to us that technological specialization, and the purpose to gain comparative advantage in one research method, were key elements in the paradigmatic economics we observed. This was driven by the institutionalized arrangements of the research community. Research production takes place in a paradigmatic setting: We refer to what was earlier said on methodological identity. Many interviewees underlined that research organizations tend to become specialized in terms of method, xing paradigmatic boundaries around the selfinterested productive agent. The research context includes incentives which guide a researchers methodological orientation and choice of method. This path-dependency seems to pay off, as researcher G observed: Well, I have never been terribly interested in statistical methods and their use. During my doctoral studies I took courses in time-series analysis and other things, and sometimes thought of doing something like that. But that idea was dropped. And specialization, in a sense, pays off after all and you become oriented to other things then. Besides, these case-studies are bloody interesting. So, in some way. . .you somehow remain on a kind of path. From which it always is more and more demanding and somehow more meaningless even to step aside. Researcher D also spoke about how the high operating costs of method-triangulated research. Also from this perspective, paradigmatic rigidity seems understandable: MT requires a higher marginal effort, irrespective of any initial investment: Its realization usually takes more time. Many people think that if Ive done a good survey, thats already a big job. Not to speak about doing interviews then! And then again, if you do good case research, it does not work the way that you just go and speak to one person. You have

4 E.g. Modell, 2007, p. 203 points out the following: Theoretically and methodologically, accounting scholars tend to specialize at an early stage of their careers as a result of differences in research training.

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

137

to remain there a long time. And speak to many people from many levels, and so on. It depends on the research problem, of course, but that in itself is a lot of work. And if you then combine two labour intensive projects, or research methods in a sense a single individual cant do that very easily. This cost-conscious production of research output brings us to the second key pattern that emerged from our eld insight into paradigmatic economics. Research is directed towards reward-maximizing, risk-averse publication in refereed journals. All of the interviewed scholars perceived the publication process as a major obstacle to the application of MT. It is difcult to compress different methods into the space of a single article. And this did not necessarily make sense: Why would you do it, if you can produce that same publication with less effort?, researcher D asked. Our interviewees complained that referees are not very receptive to the combination of different methods. On this, researcher C had the following to say about the risks of applying interpretive methods and about the paradigmatic selection that prevails in scientic publications: In practice I have noticed a difference. . .That usually those researchers who do quantitative research, they perhaps do not respect qualitative research that much. Perhaps because they do not understand that method profoundly. So, in a piece of research where you have applied more quantitative [methods], so under that literature it is difcult to get qualitative things accepted because the referees come from that quantitative side. And they knock-out, in a sense, rst that methodology and not the topic itself. Researcher G, in the same vein, emphasized that narrow and paradigmatically institutionalized publishing practices are not favorable to experimentation: I have had a bit of the view that if you employ very different methods, you should have done that in your Ph.D. A feature of double-refereed scientic articles is, maybe, that they are very narrow in their concentration. . .And I doubt whether it [MT] would have, in most cases, any chances. We have to investigate things which, in a sense, become published. Researcher B added how the mobilization of MT may, in fact, send a wrong signal: It [MT] depends of course on how you have been using it. That if you do some supercial case-study and add it to quantitative data, then you may get the idea that Well. . .was that quantitative analysis not sufcient for a publication? Or why do you need this short case study or description? And through this that paper can, in itself, already be weaker on either side. And if it turns out that, in combination, one or the other side is weaker weaker than if you had done it separately so that deserves not to be published. The interviewed researchers also provided some additional insight into how MT is perceived from the perspective of academic incentives, when paradigmatic economics was followed. Researcher G started by explaining how impor-

tant it was to publish quickly within a paradigmatically calibrated normalizing system: And increasingly, of course, you should publish quickly. . .You should not get bogged down explaining unconventional choices. This is still a very normalizing system. And I dont know who holds such scientic ideals that you would start doing something that others do not expect. . .Perhaps you do not have the motivation to start thinking about any possible departures from the norm. At least not in this phase. Perhaps in a tenured position then. . . S/he continued about how numbers count in rewarding the production of publications, and about the strong guidance that incentive systems exert in the meritocratic academic context where management by numbers is increasingly common. It was rational to concentrate on one method, maximizing the total number of publications: And on the other hand, if you can choose. . .Do you publish in our current system where they constantly watch over how much you publish. And if you dont publish they start speaking about what are you actually doing here? I mean, if you can choose between publishing one story or publishing two stories, how would you choose? There it is actually. Because even in the paysystem, these days, you must list when they dene academic compensations how many publications you have got. And it seems it is not that important where they have been published, but how many they are. So, it is a clear incentive. And to that extent I am also an economist even though Im on this hermeneutic path. That I do believe in the effects of these incentives very strongly! That what kinds of incentive systems are being made, that kind of results you get. Against this background of paradigmatic economics and methodological identity, the interviewed scholars expressed reservations about the future of MT. On the level of scientic action, the established paradigms seemed to prevail. But talk about inter-paradigmatic ideals would continue. In what follows, we illustrate this briey. 5.5. The future of method triangulation in management accounting research Taken together, the interviewees were cautious in predicting the future of MT. They acknowledged that MT has been much discussed recently in management accounting research. But they remained skeptical about its future applicability in the prevailing paradigmatic conditions. Five of the eight researchers did not believe in a wider application of MT in the near future. Two researchers took a more optimistic view. Researcher C underlined that the new generation of management accounting scholars takes a more open position about combining different methods. Researcher A observed that MT has become more widely applied especially in Ph.D. work, continuing: Attitudes, on the other hand, have become more liberal. More has been published about it [MT]. We have

138

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

examples of such research. . .It is getting more popular. Maybe the controversy has eased off a bit. Or it has actually eased off. On the other hand, it could perhaps be that traditional mainstream research maybe starts to accept case based interpretive research. If it contains, one could say, some kind of hard quantitative data. That it could also act as some kind of bridge towards that [mainstream quantitative research]. However, researcher B for instance pointed out that MT remains an ideal at the level of scholarly reection, but this researcher had reservations vis--vis its wider mobilization in the future: I dont see that it will be getting signicantly more popular. In a way, there is a view that maybe there is an emerging idea that both of these directions could be applied. . .their strengths. And get research designs where they would be formulated in an appealing way. But it sure is modest that popularity. And then, if you look at publications, you cannot see any massive popularity. That clearly these combinations in whatever form they are a small part of all research projects. The reasons behind this skepticism were often associated with the publication of studies which have applied MT. Researcher G provided a nal illustrative comment on this distinguishing between the academic talk and the academic action around MT: It has been discussed. Attitudes are open at least on the level of talk. But then you should always distinguish between talk and action. . .That we have not seen awfully many publications. But maybe you hear such rumors that these publications [using MT] have been shot down. Or the authors have been asked to split them in two [parts].

6. Discussion and conclusions 6.1. What do paradigms actually suggest? It should rst be pointed out that the interpretive/subjectivist and positivist/objectivist methodological paradigms in management accounting research are not the kind of paradigms that Thomas Kuhn discussed in his seminal work (Kuhn, 1970). In the Kuhnian perspective, paradigms guide normal science until anomalies lead to a scientic revolution. It is questionable, however, whether such normal science exists in the management accounting domain, and whether our fragmented eld still remains in a pre-paradigmatic phase in a strict Kuhnian sense (see Vollmer, 2009). However, in our reasoning, we would not embrace this view. After all, since Kuhns rst writings in 1962, paradigms have been used with a variety of meanings. In general, they mean a dominant mindset that normalizes research activity. Hence, we agree with the foundations of the Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a) argument: We have subjectivist and objectivist, or interpretive and positivist, research approaches in management accounting. These can be conceived as two

different research paradigms5 (see Vollmer, 2009; Locke and Lowe, 2008). In contrast to the philosophically oriented examination of Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a), the insights from our eld study prompt us to reect further about what these two paradigms actually mean in management accounting research. In this study, when scholars revealed their experiences about method triangulation and spoke about paradigmatic demarcation lines, it appeared that paradigms are more than philosophically informed, wellreected and logically consistent intellectual constructions which are built on a solid philosophical knowledge base and become embraced by a researcher in a situation of genuine choice. To the researchers interviewed in this study paradigms appeared in a different light. What was observed about methodological identity suggests that a paradigm is a socio-political and rhetorical device. Instead of being chosen after meticulous evaluation, it becomes adopted for pragmatic reasons (see Arrington and Schweiker, 1992). For the individual scholar, choosing a paradigm is not primarily a philosophical exercise. Hence, the paradigm may exaggerate some ontological and epistemological features as proposed by Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a,b). It may contain self-contradictory elements, thin methodological reasoning and stylized propositions. But instead of deciding in favor of a robust philosophical assemblage, the scholar adopts, in a rather haphazard way, something that promises professional opportunities. This decision should not be confused with a philosophically informed choice. For the junior scholar, the paradigm is usually the only available option at hand that holds some appeal. And our eld insights also suggest that instead of philosophical consistency, this appeal has more to do with the pragmatic side of research traditions. First, the paradigm provides a framework for professional growth, a methodological identity that serves as a mechanism of rationalization in the social processes where scientic knowledge is produced. The paradigm means order and a secure socio-political position. It gives us epistemic authority and regulates our interaction. It serves as a basis of self-identication, and signals with whom we stand as junior academics (see Lamont and Molnr, 2002; Gendron, 2008). It reduces ambiguity and provides a socially maintained cognitive comfort zone where perplexing questions of ontology and epistemology can be avoided. The paradigm also offers legitimate research methods in the form of a narrow, but practical repertoire. Typically, in the interpretive tradition, we concentrate on eldwork skills instead of rening our statistical capabilities. With this focus, we move ahead to conduct empirical work. Without confusing philosophical conjectures and perhaps agonizing Weltschmerz, we can proceed to research

5 We agree with Vollmer (2009) on the claim that management accounting hosts a multiplicity of paradigms. In our view, this multiplicity is reduced when we raise our level of abstraction and take a more distanced view. The variety of paradigms in management accounting research can be broadly categorized into the positivist and interpretive paradigms, or be conceived as a continuum with these extreme ends.

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

139

action, go into the eld, enjoy scientic fellowship, and take part in academic discussions. But in addition to this early philosophical shortcut, the paradigm also facilitates the theoretical task. It gives a basis for evaluating an often unorganized and fragmented stock of knowledge. The paradigm, it appears to us, provides the perhaps questionable rationalizations and dubious stigmas which we need to be able to ignore the theoretical pronouncements of competing paradigms (see e.g. Caldwell, 1982, pp. 7174). As emerging professionals, we make more rapid progress with this discriminating focus. Instead of roaming vast theoretical terrains, the management accounting scholar identies the niche in the theoretical landscape, where a novel argument can be produced. The paradigm limits which questions are meaningful and how they should be addressed (Arrington and Schweiker, 1992). It is a tool for valorizing some voices and for silencing others (Lamont and Molnr, 2002, see also Astley, 1985). By not problematizing the paradigms philosophical and methodological foundations, the junior scholar is ready for scientic advancement, through certain rites of passage (see Panozzo, 1997).

However, it has to be underlined that paradigmatic rigidity, and the economies that go with it, are sustained by multiple forces. A shared paradigm and the research methods that come with it provide a common rhetoric and xed discursive practices (Arrington and Schweiker, 1992). In interpretive management accounting research, for example, the paradigm facilitates communication and an extensive academic network. This often means shorter review times, prolic scientic output and a coherent academic reputation; i.e., good scholarship which nally materializes into the form of various rewards, especially tenure. 6.3. Method triangulation as talk rather than action But if both methodological identity and paradigmatic economics seem to work against method triangulation, why are both method triangulation and the easing of paradigmatic tension being discussed together so frequently? Here, we would underline the distinction between ideas and actions: what can be said cannot always be done. Also in scientic work it is not easy to transform ideas into actions (Brunsson, 1993). As interpretive accounting scholars, we are receptive to dtente between the interpretive and the positivist paradigms. And we see method triangulation as a key way for realizing this. Furthermore, these ideas, if broadly accepted, have the potential to produce a more unied body of knowledge. In short, management accounting phenomena would be better understood if competing paradigms overcame their divides, and if multiple research methods could be applied. As accounting academics, we wish to improve our domain. Dtente between the interpretive and the positivist paradigms in general, and the mobilization of method triangulation in particular, are ways to express more elevated aspirations. We need to talk about these ideas, because they portray us as researchers who are concerned by progress and the common good. But when we try turn these ideas into actions we soon discover some of the constraints which surfaced in our study. We can be critical of paradigms, while silently cherishing the clarity and security they guarantee for our methodological identity. We can even dismiss paradigms, but tacitly follow paradigmatic economics in our scientic work. And we can recognize method triangulation as a way of enhancing validity (Modell, 2009, 2005), but as practicing researchers we usually avoid it at least at the level of a single study or publication. 6.4. Method triangulation as less talk and more action The concluding step in our reasoning is to ask what might be done to transform talk on method triangulation and paradigmatic dtente into real action. To begin with, we wish to acknowledge that we are not yet convinced that paradigmatic convergence is selfevidently synonymous with scientic progress. Easing tension between competing paradigms may result in better communication and co-operation, but it may also produce unintended consequences. Uniformity and standardization could lead us into a monocentric research environment

6.2. Why paradigmatic rigidity persists? Besides the early adoption of a methodological identity, our eld work illustrates the paradigms grip on the individual researchers later orientation. This insight provides a perspective on the limited popularity of method triangulation and may explain paradigmatic rigidity in interpretive management accounting research. Here, the empirical illustrations are about paradigmatic economics. Paradigmatic rigidity appears to be foremost an issue of economy rather than a matter of philosophy. In our view, the interpretive paradigm is tightly coupled with the production of scientic output and the pragmatic concerns of the self-interested scholar. Within a paradigmatic context, the scholar makes a xed investment into certain research methods. The paradigm provides technological ease and predictability, at a tolerable level of risk. The relationship between research action (input) and its consequences (output) can be mapped and managed. In brief, the researcher in the interpretive genre learns how to transform especially eld interviews and other eld evidence efciently into theoretically intriguing arguments which are likely to be published (see Pfeffer, 1993, pp. 602607). We suggest that this productive specialization almost begs for scale and standardization. With repetitive action the scholar will be able to leverage the substantial initial cost. Moreover, the more mature scholar is unwilling to invest more into the productive apparatus of new research methods, as this may not add enough value to his/her customers to the editors and the referees, who are the paradigmatically constrained gatekeepers of science. These additional costs may in fact increase the academic entrepreneurs risk in this industry, as our interviewees pointed out. As the individual scholar may not be able to sell method-triangulated output, MT, at the level of an individual researcher can be risky experimentation.

140

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

where the positivist/objectivist tradition reigns supreme (see Hopwood, 2008). In our view, it is important to recognize fully the political character of dtente, and ask whether method triangulation really makes interpretive management accounting research stronger, preserving its originality, especially vis--vis the North American mainstream. Besides these reservations, we want to emphasize three specic points. First, we cannot see method triangulation taking place at the level of a junior researchers single publication. However, in her/his doctoral work she/he could present a collection of co-authored papers around a topic with qualitative papers standing alongside, for instance, survey-based or experimental research. Hence, method triangulation could be part of the young scholars early education and the construction of her/his methodological identity perhaps within a doctoral research program which exposes the junior scholar to a variety of research traditions. Second, we see more senior researchers producing complementary publications. For example, experts in depth could collaborate with experts in breadth. Here, the real synergies between qualitative case methods and survey-based statistical methods can be realized. But personal meritocratic gain needs to be present in these cross-paradigmatic efforts, to create a genuine win-winsituation. This leads us to our third point. We see method triangulation as a policy issue which needs to be addressed by key institutional actors notably deans, heads of academic departments and journal editors. We have discussed paradigmatic economics. Deans play a key role in establishing evaluation processes and incentives which could reward method-triangulated work. And journal editors on both sides of the Atlantic could model themselves as tolerant Renaissance potentates, inviting papers around a common theme, bringing together a diverse set of perspectives, mobilizing different methods from both the positivist and the interpretive paradigms. We wish to conclude by suggesting that paradigmatic dtente and method triangulation could be transformed into real academic action if these notions are accepted on both sides of the paradigmatic divide with a necessary symmetry. Here we point especially to North American publishing practices. They remain unreceptive towards the interpretive genre. Hence, we would welcome better opportunities for publication of interpretive and particularly mixed methods research, notably in the U.S. It would be regrettable if paradigmatic convergence and method triangulation led us nally to a state where interpretive research is considered scientically legitimate, at the level of a single study, but only in combination with other research methods. This would marginalize interpretive work, and produce a body of knowledge which is increasingly self-referential and isolated i.e., detached from the management accounting which is practiced in contemporary organizations. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the comments of Thomas Ahrens, Franco Amigoni, Sasson Bar-Yosef, Ariela Caglio, Chris Chapman, Albrecht Becker, Andrea Dossi, Seppo

Ikheimo, Katja Kolehmainen, Taru Lehtonen, Kari Lukka, Sven Modell, Mikko Sandelin and Robert Scapens, as well as the encouraging remarks of the participants of the EIASM 6th Conference on New Directions in Management Accounting Research (Brussels; December 2008). Appendix A. Interview themes (1) Do you have experience about combining different research methods? (2) What kind of combinations have you been using here? (3) Do you actively combine methods in your research? Why/why not? (4) What problems or challenges do you see in combining different research methods? (5) Is this approach [of triangulation] worthwhile despite problems? (6) To what kind of studies would this approach [of triangulation] be suitable? Why? (7) What benets do you pursue or could pursue by combining different methods? (8) Have the benets been realized? (9) Can you mention an example where the combination of different methods would have been particularly useful? (10) Does the combination of methods produce real valueadded in research in your opinion? Why/why not? (11) What could in your opinion be such typical problems of case- or eld-research that could become alleviated with method triangulation? (12) What are the weights and roles of different methods? (13) Are we heading towards some direction in applying method triangulation, compared to how management accounting research has previously been done? Do we have explanations to this? (14) Do we have differences in Nordic/Finnish research versus research abroad, in what comes to applying method triangulation? Appendix B. The interviewed scholars The University of Jyvskyl (1) Professor Marko Jrvenp, 12.4.2007, 47 min. (2) Professor Jukka Pellinen, 12.4.2007, 1 h. The University of Oulu (3) Assistant Professor Hanna Silvola, 20.4.2007, 52 min. (4) Assistant Professor Janne Jrvinen, 20.4.2007, 1 h 11 min. The Helsinki School of Economics (5) Professor Teemu Malmi, 3.5.2007, 37 min. The Turku School of Economics unit in Pori

J. Vaivio, A. Sirn / Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130141

141

(6) Acting Professor Esa Puolamki, 10.5.2007, 40 min. University XX (condential) (7) N.N. 16.4.2007, 1 h 5 min. (8) N.N. 16.4.2007, 48 min. References
Abdel-Khalik, A., Ajinkya, B., 1983. An evaluation of the everyday accountant and researching his reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (4), 375384. Abernethy, M., Chua, W.F., Luckett, P., Selto, F., 1999. Research in managerial accounting: learning from others experiences. Accounting and Finance 39, 127. Ahrens, T., 2008. Overcoming the subjectiveobjective divide in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33 (2/3), 292297. Ahrens, T., Chapman, C., 2006. Doing qualitative eld research in management accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31, 819841. 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 (6), 840866. Armstrong, P., 2008. Calling out for more: comment on the future of interpretive accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19 (6), 867879. Arnold, V., 2006. Behavioral research opportunities: understanding the impact of enterprise systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 7, 717. Arrington, C.E., Schweiker, W., 1992. The rhetoric and rationality of accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (6), 511533. Astley, W., 1985. Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly 30, 497513. Baxter, J., Boedker, C., Chua, W.F., 2008. The future(s) of interpretive accounting researcha polyphonic response from beyond the metropolis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19 (6), 880886. Birnberg, J., Shields, M., Young, S., 1990. The case for multiple methods in empirical management accounting research (with an illustration from budget setting). Journal of Management Accounting Research 2 (Fall), 3366. Brown, R., Brignall, S., 2007. Reections on the use of a dual-methodology research design to evaluate accounting and management practice in UK university central administrative services. Management Accounting Research 18, 3248. Brunsson, N., 1993. Ideas and actions: justication and hypocricy as alternatives to control. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (6), 489506. Bryman, A., 2006. Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9 (2), 111126. Burrell, G., Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. Heinemann, London. Caldwell, B., 1982. Beyond PositivismEconomic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. George Allen & Unwin, London. Cooper, D., 1983. Tidiness, muddle and things: commonalities and divergencies in two approaches to management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (2/3), 269286. Davila, T., Oyon, D., 2008. Cross-paradigm collaboration and the advancement of management accounting knowledge. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19 (6), 887893. Dent, J., 1991. Accounting and organizational cultures: a eld study of the emergence of a new organizational reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16, 693703.

Erzberg, C., Prein, G., 1997. Triangulation: validity and empirically based hypotheses construction. Quality & Quantity 31, 141154. Fleetwood, S., 2004. An ontology for organisation and management studies. In: Fleetwood, S., Ackroyd, S. (Eds.), Critical Realist Applications in Organisation and Management Studies. Routledge, London. Ferreira, L., Merchant, K., 1992. Field research in management accounting and control: a review and evaluation. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 5 (4), 334. Gendron, Y., 2008. Constituting the academic performer: the spectre of superciality and stagnation in academia. European Accounting Review 17 (1), 97127. Hopper, T., Hoque, Z., 2006. Triangulation approaches to accounting research. In: Methodological Issues in Accounting ResearchTheories, Methods and Issues. Spiramus, London. Hopwood, A., 2008. Changing pressures on the research process: on trying to research in an age when curiosity is not enough. European Accounting Review 17 (1), 8796. Jick, T., 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 602611. 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 (2/3), 267291. Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., Kuorikoski, J., 2008b. No premature closure of debates, please: a response to Ahrens. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33 (2/3), 298301. Kuhn, T., 1970. The Structure of Scientic Revolutions, second ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lamont, M., Molnr, V., 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28, 167195. Locke, J., Lowe, A., 2008. Evidence and implications of multiple paradigms in accounting knowledge production. European Accounting Review 17 (1), 161191. 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., 2007. Mixed methods research in management accounting: opportunities and obstacles. In: Total Quality in Academic AccountingEssays in Honour of Kari Lukka. Turku School of Economics, pp. 195213 (Series C 3). Modell, S., 2005. Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research: an assessment of validity implications. Management Accounting Research 16, 231254. Morgan, G., 1983. Social science and accounting research: a commentary on Tomkins and Groves. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (4), 385388. Patton, M., 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, second ed. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Panozzo, F., 1997. The making of the good academic accountant. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (5), 447480. Pfeffer, J., 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review 18 (4), 599620. Scapens, R., 2008. Seeking the relevance of interpretive research: a contribution to the polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19 (6), 915919. Tomkins, C., Groves, R., 1983. The everyday accountant and researching his reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (4), 361374. Vaivio, J., 2008. Qualitative management accounting research: rationale, pitfalls and potential. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 5 (1), 6486. Vollmer, H., 2009. Management accounting as normal science. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34, 141150. Willmott, H., 1983. Paradigms for accounting research: critical reections on Tomkins and Groves everyday accountant and researching his reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (4), 389405.