23

TRIANGULATION APPROACHES TO ACCOUNTING

RESEARCH
Trevor Hopper
Manchester Business School, UK; Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden; and Victoria
University of Wellington, New Zealand

Zahirul Hoque
Deakin University, Australia
Abstract: Multiple theoretical perspectives or research methods permit a
wider and richer understanding of accounting practice than methodologically
a singular approach. This claim, by some accounting researchers, advocates
the use of a variety of theories and research methods, namely ‘triangulation’,
as a way of taking advantage of their complementariness and building a more
holistic analysis. This chapter illustrates the various forms of triangulation
that can be applied in accounting research. The message of this chapter is that
whilst conventional ‘paradigms’ can usefully explain qualitative, case study
research, they need to be located in analyses embracing subjective and
institutional factors for an adequate understanding of their import. As well as
being a plea for greater theoretical plurality, the chapter also suggests a
variety of research methods which can be developed jointly within a single
study.
Keywords: Theory-triangulation; data-triangulation; investigator-
triangulation; multiple perspectives.

1. Introduction
Some accounting researchers in recent years have become interested in using a
variety of theoretical perspectives or research methods developed jointly to
understand an organisational phenomenon such as management accounting
practice (Ansari and Euske, 1987; Berry et al., 1991; Ansari and Bell, 1991; Hoque and
Hopper, 1994; Covaleski, et al., 1985; Carpenter and Feroz, 2001). This approach was
prompted by the perceived inadequacies of a single theory or research method for
tapping the wider aspects of management accounting practice. Multiple approaches
to research can lead to a more holistic understanding of how a management
accounting system operates within its context. This chapter introduces the various
forms of triangulation that can be applied to study accounting practice. As argued in

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 477

RESEARCH STRATEGIES AND DATA ANALYSIS

the chapter, triangulation approaches have the potential to provide us with better
understandings of management accounting practice.
The remainder of this chapter is organised as follows. The next section
introduces the meaning of triangulation. Section three discusses the various forms of
triangulation. Section four outlines the limitations of triangulation approaches. The
last section provides conclusions.

2. Meaning of Triangulation
The Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus (1993, p. 1237) defines triangulation
as ‘a method of surveying in which an area is divided into triangles, one side (the
base line) and all angles of which are measured and the lengths of the other lines are
calculated trigonometrically’. It has long been used by navigators and military
strategists as a strategy that uses multiple reference points to locate an object’s exact
position (Smith, 1981). In social science research, the term ‘triangulation’ refers to
the use of multiple strategies in the study of the same phenomenon (Campbell and
Fiske, 1959; Denzin, 1978, 1983; Jick, 1979). A triangulation approach draws from
multiple theoretical perspectives and research methods and can help a researcher
capture a comprehensive, holistic and contextual portrayal of events or the social
phenomena under study (Vidich and Shapiro, 1955; Webb et al., 1966; McCall and
Simmons, 1969; Sieber, 1973). As Bouchard (1976, p. 268) argued, such an approach
enhances our belief that the results (empirical) are valid and not a methodological
artefact.

3. Forms of Triangulation
Various types of triangulation can be employed for studying management
accounting practice namely theory triangulation, data triangulation and investigator
triangulation. These are discussed in turn.
3.1. Theory Triangulation
Theoretical triangulation involves using various factors from a variety of theoretical
perspectives simultaneously to examine the same dimension of a research problem.
Considerable accounting research advocates this form of research approach (see, for
example, Covaleski et al., 1985, 1996; Ansari and Euske, 1987; Berry et al., 1991;
Ansari and Bell, 1991; Carpenter and Feroz, 1992, 2001; Hoque and Hopper, 1994;
Hoque et al., 2004; Abernethy and Chua, 1996; Geiger and Ittner, 1996; Klumpes,
2001). These researchers believe that a single theoretical paradigm is inadequate for
tapping into a comprehensive understanding of accounting practice.
There can be two types of theoretical triangulation. One type of theoretical
triangulation can be ‘within-same tradition’ that uses multiple theories with no
differences in their epistemological, ontological and philosophical assumptions.
Examples of this would be the use of technical-rational choice models (Chapter 1),
human-relations theory (Chapter 2), contingency approach (Chapter 3), and agency
theory (Chapter 4) to research management accounting practice in an organisation.

478 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

 Triangulation Approaches to Accounting Research

A more ambitious and difficult form of theoretical triangulation is the use of

theories, which have fundamentally different assumptions. It is not the intention to
debate this issue here – it is simply too vast. Instead the chapter wishes to state its
position in this regard and its consequences for such a triangulation approach. First,
the chapter does not accept the existing view that theories with fundamentally
different ontologies and epistemologies cannot be merged into one integrated
approach without the researcher’s abandoning core methodological beliefs (Burrell
and Morgan, 1979). Second, given the general conclusions of the philosophy of
science it is impossible to ‘prove’ the superiority of one theoretical approach over
another (Lakatos, 1976; Feyerabend, 1978, 1990). No theory has the prerogative of
truth. Third, dichotomies between objective and subjective reality, hard and soft
theories, are essentially language games for privileging theories (Latour, 1999). Their
basis is dubious and not helpful – all knowledge is socially created but this does not
mean that conventional scientific inquiry has no validity or is not useful. Fourth,
what is true is a social creation relying on the conviction of potential users – this will
offer perceptions of whether a study effectively pursued methods consistent with its
philosophical underpinnings or it can also be a product of relations within social
milieu (Lakotos, 1976). Fifth, purposeful individuals base choice of theories on
moral, pragmatic and social grounds. Pragmatically the choice of methods and use
of results is a consequence of perceived usefulness to problems under scrutiny
(Chua, 1986; Humphrey and Scapens, 1996; Rorety, 1999). Individuals can and do
construct useful knowledge that does not normally dichotomise between its
theoretical source. The essential message is that theoretical hypocrisy is normal,
useful in everyday-life (though not without a moral dimension) and realisation of
this is liberating for researchers and practitioners intent on informing practical
problems.
Perhaps the most prevalent attempt in theoretical triangulation approach is in
researcher’s efforts to integrate different perspectives into the study of the same
phenomena, which helps enrich our understanding of everyday accounting practice.
Further, the most challenging effort in the use of theoretical triangulation is to assess
whether or not results analysis from multiple perspectives has converged. It should
be, however, noted that due to the differing nature of different perspectives the
determination of the effectiveness of theoretical triangulation would be subjective.
A theory-triangulation approach offers alternative interpretations of the same
phenomena. Because each theory can reflect distinctive insights on various
dimensions of accounting and control practices in organisations, and a single theory
would have been captured a little on these multidimensional issues in organisations.
Theory- triangulation can help one to take advantage of the complementariness of
different theories and gain alternative interpretations of the same phenomena.
A major dilemma confronting a researcher new to this area is how to choose a
theoretical perspective to begin with or which theoretical perspective is most apt?
One way of resolving this dilemma is to review a number of theoretical perspectives

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 479

RESEARCH STRATEGIES AND DATA ANALYSIS

in advance, choose one, and then test its efficacy in the field with a view to
confirming, modifying or rejecting it. Another is to carry a variety of possible
perspectives into a pilot study to establish which is most meaningful in content for
later use in the main study. This emergent strategy carries the danger of theoretical
eclecticism and a lack of focus, but it has the advantage of creating theory from the
extant situation and, as was found to be the case in prior research, to permit the
insights of a various theoretical approaches to inform the actual problem
simultaneously.
There has been interesting management research on theoretical triangulation
(see Academy of Management Review, October 1989 and October 1999), which
accounting research has neglected (see Modell, 2005, for exceptions). This invites
questions of how one can combine theories with different ontological and
epistemological assumptions. Can intuitive observation that competing theories
each contain some validity be pursued without losing theoretical coherence? Works
by Gioia and Pitre (1990) and Lewis and Grimes (1999) on theoretical triangulation
are useful here. They recognise the impossibility of integrating theories with
irreconcilable assumptions. Instead they advocate a dialectic that compares results
and explanations from divergent theories to establish paradoxes, conflicts, and
contradictions. The insights from alternative theories help extend or revise one’s
own theoretical stance and understanding of the topic under scrutiny. Lewis and
Grimes’(1999) strategy for multi-paradigm research proceeds by ascertaining the
different assumptions of each paradigm: then analyses data using codes from the
constructs and protocols of each; and rebuilds one’s focal theory by comparing and
contrasting each set of results to establish differences and contradictions.
To the best of our knowledge no accounting research has consciously
followed a theoretical triangulation strategy from the outset but examples of work
in this genre exist. Ansari and Euske’s (1987) research on the use of accounting
information in a US military organisation employed three theoretical perspectives:
the technical-rational theory, socio-political perspective and institutional theory.
They pointed out that the alternative theoretical perspectives coexist insofar as
different individuals use the accounting data differently in an organisation.
Likewise, Berry et al. (1991), in their study of control in a financial services company,
used a variety of different theoretical perspectives namely, management control
model, cybernetic approach, behavioural approach and contingency theory.
According to Berry et al., multiple theoretical perspectives, with their different
epistemological assumptions, can be seen as complementary in that they offer
alternative explanations of the same empirical data. Carpenter and Feroz’s (1992 and
2001) work on the decision-making process in the state of New York employed four
theoretical perspectives: economic consequences theory, traditional-rational theory,
power-political theory and institutional theory. They demonstrated that various
theoretical perspectives can complement each other and add richness to the analysis.
Hoque and Hopper’s (1994, 1997) work, concerning management control in a

480 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

 Triangulation Approaches to Accounting Research

Bangladeshi jute mill, is a good example of research in this category. By using

technical-rational model, human-relations approach, interpretive theory and
political economy approach, Hoque and Hopper provide evidence to support earlier
research claiming that multiple theoretical perspectives facilitate accounting
research in identifying and explaining the many factors causing failure of formal
accounting and control systems in an organisation. Berry et al. (1991, p. 137) suggest
that each approach offers something different and appears to offer something
practical and organisationally helpful – if not always individually helpful. They
claim that multiple approaches (whatever their limitations) can provide windows
into organisational activity and allow one to achieve a wider and richer
understanding of accounting and control procedures.
In summary, a theory-triangulation strategy can provide accounting
researchers with a number of opportunities. First, it allows a researcher to build a
wider explanation of the phenomena. Second, it helps uncover the deviant or
off-quadrant dimension of a phenomenon. Third, the strategy builds in means of
testing a whole range of plausible theoretical interpretations (Smith, 1981). Finally,
this strategy permits individual learning in the field and has the advantage of
creating theory from an extant situation (Hoque and Hopper, 1994). However, this
requires new researchers to be aware and skilled in more than one theoretical
approach. Also, whilst it is not claimed here that any researcher enters a site value
free and is not influenced by previous theoretical exposure and predilections, it
requires a discipline of scepticism and open-mindedness to build theory bottom up
from the field.
A theory-triangulation from conflicting perspectives is useful since one
perspective may be complementary to the other without being theoretically
integrated. Overall, by employing a theoretical triangulation approach to future
accounting research, more meaningful results can be provided, enabling the
discipline to advance at a faster rate and a more soundly manner than the single
theoretical approach. There is no correct way to gain knowledge or to understand a
phenomenon because the achievements of such knowledge or understanding are
based upon diverse approaches. Philosophers see theories as tools for predictions
(Popper, 1963; Lakatos, 1976) and, surely a theoretical triangulation approach
drawing insights from multiple perspectives not only lay down prescriptions by
which accounting can proceed, they also provide a basis for a descriptive rational
reconstruction of how accounting disciplines often evolve. As for philosophers,
there is virtue in every idea (see Lakatos, 1976; Feyerabend, 1978; for a review of this
literature, see Ardill, 2000). In fact, the issue here is methodological differences and
theoretical triangulation with approaches with mutually exclusive philosophical
assumptions. This then raises the big question of relativism and choice of a research
theory in a particular setting. The nature of the inquiry and the user’s perceived
usefulness of the problem-based approach are important in judging where a

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 481

RESEARCH STRATEGIES AND DATA ANALYSIS

theoretical triangulation approach might be useful. Clearly, there is much to be

explored in the empirical field around these substantive issues.
3.2. Data triangulation
Data triangulation involves using a variety of data sources within a single study
(Denzin, 1978). The strategy mixes both qualitative and quantitative methods
including interviews, detailed observations and shadowing, documentary evidence
and questionnaires to help the researcher to generate a rich source of field data with
internal checks on its validity (Webb et al., 1966; Gross et al., 1971; Denzin, 1978; Yin,
1981).
As discussed in Chapter 18, qualitative methods (such as observations and
interviews) derive from the ethnographic and field study traditions of anthropology
and sociology (Pelto and Pelto, 1978; Silverman, 1985). In this sense, the
philosophical and theoretical frames underpinning qualitative methods include:
phenomenology (Bussis et al., 1973), symbolic interactionism and naturalistic
behaviourism (Denzin, 1978), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967), and ecological
psychology (Barker, 1968). The central notion behind these perspectives is that the
study of human beings is different from other scientific inquiries.
Data-triangulation can assist a researcher to take advantage of the strong
points of each type of data, cross-check data collected by each method, and collect
information that is available only through particular techniques. Moreover, a
research strategy embracing quantitative and qualitative methods can, as Lukka and
Kasanen (1989) argue, alleviate the problems of generalisation from case study
research in accounting (for a detailed review on this issue, see Modell, 2005).
3.3. Investigator triangulation
Investigator triangulation involves using multiple researchers in collect data
(Denzin, 1970, p. 303). Smith (1981) suggests that investigator triangulation centres
on the validity rather than reliability checks. Investigators with differing perspective
or paradigmatic biases may be used to check out the extent of divergence in the data
each collects. Under such conditions, if data divergence is minimal, then one may
feel more confident in the data’s validity. On the other hand, if their data are
significantly different, then one has an idea as to possible sources of biased
measurement that should be further investigated.
Investigator triangulation can be employed in a variety of ways, for example,
interviews in a case study research can be conducted by employing more than one
interviewer. Berry et al.’s (1985) work within an area of the UK coal industry well
illustrates this category. Techniques, for instance, may include: one can be
responsible for asking questions, one to make notes (besides a tape recorder) and a
third to observe and pick up potentially interesting themes. Berry et al. suggest that
something like built-in validity and reliability checks can thus be obtained because
several interviewers/field workers are exposed directly to similar or identical data.
This strategy, however, cannot be applied in a doctoral research where a doctoral
candidate works on his/her own.

482 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

 Triangulation Approaches to Accounting Research

4. Limitations of Triangulation Approaches

Triangulation approaches, especially theory-triangulation and data-triangulation
have limitations. A fundamental concern about the use of these two approaches is
that they carry the danger of using theories and methods with different philosophies
that can lead to theoretical and methodological opportunism and incoherence.
Furthermore, the application of a triangulation approach is likely to be time
consuming and costly. Nevertheless, these are practical difficulties that need to be
overcome, rather than fundamental objections to this emergent ‘triangulation’
approach per se.

5. Conclusions
This chapter sought to demonstrate that triangulation approaches have a potentially
important role to play in accounting research. The basic point in this paper is that no
singular theory can fully explain the complexity of accounting practices. This
expectation is consistent with the thesis put forwarded by Lakatos (1976) and
Feyerabend (1978, 1990) where it has been suggested that no theories can have a
monopoly on explanation because there is some virtue in each individual theory,
and collectively, they add to an understanding that accounting is indeed a
paradoxical phenomenon (see also Morgan, 1988; for details, see Ardill, 2000).84 The
chapter argues that the use of theoretical triangulation means that the weaknesses in
each single theory will be compensated by the counter-balancing strengths of
another. Multiple theories within a theoretical triangulation approach, however, are
not to be taken as mutually exclusive; they complement each other (Klumpes, 2001).
Data triangulation can provide the researchers powerful solutions to offset the
problems of relying too much on any single data source or method by increasing the
validity and credibility of the research findings of their study(s). This suggests, for
example, that accounting researchers can use quantitative data in research that is
essentially qualitative and interpretive in design. The use of multiple field
researchers behoves the researcher to take full advantage of the opportunity to seek
confirmation of ‘factual’ data in the situation under study providing the researchers
have different background, training, etc.

References
Abernethy, M. A. and Chua, W. F. (1996), “A field study of control system change: the impact
of institutional inducement on managerial choice”, Contemporary Accounting Research,
Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 569-595.
Ansari, S. L. and Euske, K. J. (1987), “Rational, rationalizing and reifying uses of accounting
data in organizations”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 549-
570.

84 It is to be pointed out that it is not the aim of the chapter to convince colleagues that they
need to re-evaluate their methodologies. Rather, the aim is to demonstrate how a better
understanding might be possible with such an approach in order to further our theoretical
knowledge in the area.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 483
RESEARCH STRATEGIES AND DATA ANALYSIS

Ansari, S. L. and Bell, J. (1991a), “Symbolic, behavioral and economic roles of control in
organizations and society”, in Bell, J. (Ed.), Accounting Control Systems: A Technical,
Social and Behavioral Interaction, Markus Wiener Publishing Inc., New York, pp. 9-24.
Ansari, S. L. and Bell, J. (1991b), “Symbolism, collectivism and rationality in organizational
control”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 4-27.
Ardill, A. (2000), “The ideology and rhetoric of positive accounting theory”, Accounting,
Accountability and Performance, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 1-26.
Barker, R.G. (1968), Ecological Psychology, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Berry, A. J., Capps, T., Cooper, D. J., Ferguson, P., Hopper, T. M. and Lowe, E. A. (1985),
“Management control in an area of the NCB: rationales of accounting practices in a
public enterprise”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3-28.
Berry, A. J., Laughton, E. and Otley, D. T. (1991), “Control in a financial services company
(RIF): a case study”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 109-139.
Bouchard, T.J. Jr. (1976), “Unobtrusive measures: an inventory of uses”, Sociological Methods and
Research, Vol. 4, pp. 267-300.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann,
London.
Bussis, A., Chittenden, E.A. and Amarel, M. (1973), Methodology in Educational Evaluation and
Research, Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.
Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. (1959), “Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56, pp. 81-105.
Carpenter, V. L. and Feroz, E. H. (1992), “GAAP as a symbol of legitimacy: New York’s
decision to adopt generally accepted accounting principles”, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 613-644.
Carpenter, V. L. and Feroz, E. H. (2001), “Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: an
analysis of four US state governments’ decisions to adopt generally accepted
accounting principles”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 26, pp. 565-596.
Chua, W.-F. (1986), “Radical developments in accounting thought”, The Accounting Review,
October, pp. 601-632.
Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W. and Jablonsky, S. F. (1985), “Traditional and emergent theories
of budgeting: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 277-
300.
Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W. and Samuel, S. (1996), “Managerial accounting research: the
contributions of organizational and sociological theories”, Journal of Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 8, pp. 1-35.
Denzin, N. K. (1978), “The logic of naturalistic inquiry”, in Denzin, N. K. (Ed.), Sociological
Methods: A Sourcebook, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Denzin, N. K. (1983), Beyond Method Strategies for Social Research, London, Sage Publications.
Feyerabend, P. (1978), Against Method, Verso, London.
Feyerabend, P. (1990), Farewell to Reason, Verso, London.
Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

484 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

 Triangulation Approaches to Accounting Research

Geiger, D. R. and Ittner, C. D. (1996), “The influence of funding source and legislative
requirements on government cost accounting practices”, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 549-567.
Gioia, D. A. and Pitre, E. (1990), “Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 584-625.
Gross, N., Giacquinta, J.B. and Bernatein, M. (1971), Implementing Organizational Innovation, New
York: Basic Book.
Hoque, Z. and Hopper, T. (1994), “Rationality, accounting and politics: a case study of
management control in a Bangladesh jute mill”, Management Accounting Research, Vol.
5, pp. 5-30.
Hoque, Z. and Hopper, T. (1997), “Political and industrial relations turbulence, competition
and budgeting in the nationalised jute mills of Bangladesh”, Accounting and Business
Research, Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 125-144.
Hoque, Z., Sharee, A. and Alexander, R. (2004), “Policing the police service: An exploratory
case study of the rise of “new public management’ within an Australian police
service”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 59-84.
Humphrey, C. and Scapens, R. W. (1996), “Theories and case studies of organizational
accounting practices: limitations or liberation”?, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 86-106.
Jick, T. D. (1979), “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 602-611.
Klumpes, P. J. M. (2001), “Implications of four theoretical perspectives for pension accounting
research”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 20, pp. 30-61.
Lakatos, I. (1976), “Methodology of scientific research programmes”, in Lakatos, I. and
Musgrave, A. (Eds.), Criticisms and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University
Press, London.
Latour, B. (1999), Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Social Science Studies, Harvard University
Press, Mass., Cambridge.
Lewis, M. W. and Grimes, A. J. (1999), “Metatriangulation: building theory
from multiple paradigms”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 672-
690.
Lukka, K. and Kasanen, E. (1995), The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in
accounting research, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.
71-90.
McCall, G. and Simmons, J. (1969), Issues in Participant Observation Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Modell, S. (2005), “Triangulation between Case Study and Survey Methods in Management
Accounting Research: An Assessment of Validity Implications”, Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 16, pp. 231-254.
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980), “The case for qualitative research”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 491-500.
Morgan, G. (1988), “Accounting as reality construction: towards a new epistemology for
accounting practice”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13, pp. 477-486.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 485

RESEARCH STRATEGIES AND DATA ANALYSIS

Pelto, P.J. and Pelto, G.H. (1978), Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry, 2nd Edition,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Popper, K. R. (1963), Conjectures and Refutation: the growth of knowledge, London: Cambridge
University Press.
Rorety, R. (1999), Philosophy and Social Hope, Penguin, London.
Sieber, S. D. (1973), “The integration of fieldwork and survey methods”, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 78, pp. 1335-1359.
Silverman, D. (1985), Qualitative Methodology & Sociology, London, Gower.
Smith, H.W. (1981), Strategies of Social Research Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vidich, A. J. and Shapiro, G. (1955), “A comparison of participant observation and surveys
data, American Sociological Review, Vol. 20, pp. 28-33.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D. and Sechresr, L. (1966), Unobtrusive Measures:
Non-reactive Research in the Social Science, Rand McNally, Chicago.
Yin, R. K. (1981), “The case study research: some answers”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 1, No. 26, pp. 58-65.

486 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

24
DEALING WITH HUMAN ETHICAL ISSUES IN
RESEARCH: SOME ADVICE

Zahirul Hoque
Deakin University, Australia

Abstract: Any research involving human and animal subjects requires ethical
clearance from the relevant institution. All educational and research
institutions have research and ethics policies and requirements. The ethics
policy requires that the researcher take the utmost care or safety of the
research participants involved to avoid any detriment – or risk of detriment –
to any person or entity directly involved. This chapter provides some advice
on how to deal with human subjects in research. It also outlines some key
issues.
Keywords: Human ethics; ethics policy; ethical issues in research.

1. Introduction
Ethics and ethical principles extend to all spheres of human activity. They apply to
our dealings with each other, with animals and the environment. They should
govern our interactions not only in conducting research but also in commerce,
employment and politics.85 In value-free social science, codes of ethics for
professional and academic associations are the conventional format for moral
principles (Christians, 2000, p. 138). Ethical clearance for academic research projects
and other research proposals such as student assignments and higher degrees by
research (HDR) which involve human subjects, including animal species, now
becomes a requirement. However, ethical clearance is not required for any archival
research based on information in the public domain, unless such research involves
materials likely to affect human or statistical data from which the identity of an
individual may be inferred.
If you are an academic researcher or a HDR student, your research involving
human and animal subjects will require the approval of the relevant University
ethics committee, in accordance with the University policies. All research and

85 Australian Government – National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving

Humans: http://www7.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH 487