Academic Reading 0

Positivism in Accounting Research:

What It Can and What It Cannot Do

Suwardjono
Faculty of Economics and Business
Gadjah Mada University

Presented at
The Second Postgraduate Consortium on Accounting 2006
Multiparadigm Accounting: Broadening Our View

Postgraduate Program
Brawijaya University
Malang

June 14-15, 2006

Note: The writer is still working on this paper. Therefore, it is subject to criticism,
refinement, elaboration, and extension. Comments are welcome.

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 1

Positivism in Accounting Research:

What It Can Do and What It Cannot
Suwardjono
Faculty of Economics
Gadjah Mada University

Background

To be scientific, a research should be purposive (Sekaran, 2003). Research is not a hapha-

zard undertaking. People conduct research for variety of purposes. Purposes dictate appro-
priate research method. In turn, available research methods develop along with the
progress of the discipline and the framework for observation and understanding reality to
validate theories or explanation. This framework is known as paradigm. Babbie (2004)
defines paradigms within the context of social research as fundamental models or frames
of reference we use to organize our observations and reasoning. Paradigm is a way of look-
ing natural and social phenomena under study. Quoting Kuhn, Blaug (1992) characterizes
paradigm as “certain exemplary instances of past scientific achievement that continue to
serve as models for current practitioners,” “choice of problems and the set of techniques
for analyzing them,” “a general metaphysical world outlook, “the entire constellation of
beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of given community.”
Because there are many ways of looking the same phenomena, there are also many para-
digms advanced by natural and social scientist. These paradigms then become the basis for
classifying or even dichotomizing research into certain categories. In the development,
each paradigm competes for its legitimacy and supremacy to be the best way of underta-
king research within a certain discipline such as accounting.
Unfortunately, a graduate study program in a certain discipline, because of time limit-
ation and resources, cannot provide training in all legitimate paradigms. The introduction
to a certain paradigm chosen may shape the idea of the graduates that the underlying
paradigm is the best way of doing research and there is a tendency that the graduates per-
petuate the paradigm by ignoring alternative paradigms. This situation creates schism,
undermining, and isolation among followers of paradigms. Followers of a paradigm then
try to achieve rigorously what Blaug called methodological monism. This doctrine claims
that all theoretical or generalizing science should make use of the same method, whether
they are natural sciences or social sciences. Conflict of paradigms is unavoidable. The pro-
ponents of a certain paradigm claim that their paradigm is the only “correct” or “true”
way of doing research. This tendency becomes more intense among students and faculty
members in graduate study programs when they are trained only in research method but
not in methodology (the way of knowing). Again, because of time and resource limitation,
this is the best way a program study can do. In other words, a certain training may develop
into what Cooper and Schindler (2003) call the favored technique syndrome. Researchers
or academia trained in some techniques but not in others tend to be blinded by their spe-
cial competencies. This is consistent with the old saying that if you have a hammer every-
thing looks like a nail.
In evaluating the popularity of the main stream accounting research, Christenson
(1983) remarks that accounting researchers are well trained in research methods but
hardly at all in methodology. Christenson distinguishes research method and research
methodology by quoting Machlup as follows:

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 2

Methodology, in the sense in which literate people use the word, is a branch of phi-
losophy or of logic ... Semiliterates adopt the word when they are concerned neither
with philosophy nor with logic, but simply with methods. Instead of “statistical
techniques” they would say “statistical methodology,” and instead of “research
methods” they love to say “research methodology.”

Methodology entails methods. Fixation to a certain method tends to make students

equate method with methodology and the underlying paradigm and thus close themselves
to alternative research methods. Therefore, in evaluating research in finance and account-
ing, Ryan, Scapens, and Theobald (1992) also differentiate between research method and
methodology. Methodology is used in the level of contrasting philosophical approach or
scientific thinking (paradigm) such as empiricism, rationalism, relativism, positivism, and
interpretive approach. Research method is used to refer to steps in scientific research pro-
cess. Sekaran (2003), for example, describes the steps (building blocks) in one of scientific
research called hypothetico-deductive method which consists of the following steps:

1. Observation
2. Preliminary information gathering
3. Theory formulation
4. Hypothesizing
5. Further scientific data collection
6. Data analysis
7. Deduction

The above seven steps are called scientific on the basis of eight attributes he proposes
that constitute scientific research. These attributes or hallmarks are purposiveness, rigor,
testability, replicability, precision and confidence, objectivity, generalizability, and parsi-
mony. In social science arena, Neuman (2000) describes the similar seven-step scientific
method or approach to produce knowledge in a more general sense as follows:

1. Choose topic
2. Focus research question
3. Design study
4. Collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data
7. Inform others

The above steps are based on the argument that knowledge based on research is more
likely to be true and has fewer potential errors compared to alternatives to research.
These alternatives or methods are authority, tradition, common sense, media myth, and
personal experience. Neuman warns us that scientific method is not one single thing but
rather it signifies ideas, rules, techniques, and approaches that scientific community
applies in their research agenda. Based on the differences in phenomena being studied, the
approach to inquiry, and the way the phenomena are to be analyzed, he describes three
main approaches to social research in term of methodology: positivism, interpretive social
science, and critical social science.
It seems that paradigmatic issue or conflict of paradigms permeates more on social
science than natural science since a paradigm is rarely replaced altogether by a new one.
As Babbie puts it, social scientists have developed several paradigms for understanding

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 3

social behavior. The status of supplanted paradigms in the social science is different from
natural sciences. In natural science, the shift from one paradigm to another usually repre-
sents progress from a false view to a true one. In the social sciences, theoretical paradigms
come and go in popularity but they are seldom completely abandoned. More over, para-
digms as ways of looking are not evaluated on the basis of their truth but rather on the
basis of their usefulness for a certain purpose. Paradigms reflect beliefs. Beliefs in social
sciences are less veridical and malleable than in natural sciences. These account for the
multitude of paradigms within social sciences. These multiple paradigms, in turn, inspire
different kinds of research methods and dichotomous conflicting or at least competing
paradigms.1 The competing paradigms that are usually discussed within the context of
social sciences are among other, but not limited to:2

Quantitative versus Qualitative

Positivism versus Normativism
Positivism versus Postmodernism/Postpositivism
Positivism versus Interpretive
Scientific versus Nonscientific/Grounded Theory
Interpretive versus Critical Social Science
Empiricism/Realism versus Rationalism
Empiricism/Realism versus Idealism
Relativism versus Methodological Rationalism
Existentialism versus Rationalism

In general, positivism is tightly associated with quantitative approach to research so

that quantitative approach falls within the realm of positivism. The list may be summa-
rized into two main competing paradigms: positivism versus non-positivism. Since positiv-
ism has been dominating accounting research within the last three decades, positivism
(including quantitative approach) is often referred to as main-stream accounting.
Recently, positivism in accounting research is challenged by emerging paradigms that orig-
inate from social sciences (notably sociology and anthropology) which are characterized by
multiparadigmatic methodology. The intense debate centers around the propriety of posi-
tivism and non-positivism as orientation choice in study programs in accounting especially
in graduate level. Non-positivism (or anti-positivism?) paradigms are generally interpre-
tive and qualitative in nature. Non-positivism encompasses all available beliefs, values,
techniques, and vocabulary in qualitative research [see for example Denzin and Lincoln
(2000), Triyuwono (2006), Sukoharsono (2006)]. The vocabulary includes interpretivism,
hermeneutics, constructionism, feminism, case study, ethnography, postmodernism, par-
ticipatory action research, and critical theory just to name a few.
The above background underlies the discussion on methodological issue in accounting
research. The question is whether accounting research is subject to the same paradigmatic
problem. The paper deals with positivism in accounting: its properties as research orienta-
tion, its inherent problems, and what it cannot do (instead of its weaknesses). The purpose
of the discussion is to cast some light on the its merit or benefit to accounting study pro-

1Apart from paradigmatic issues, social sciences also suffer from inherent dilemmas. See Hubert M. Blalock, Jr. Basic
Dilemmas in the Social Sciences (Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1984.
2
The classifications of research that do not reflect issues in paradigmatic level but more in design (dimension) of research
are basic versus applied, experimental versus field (ex post facto), exploratory versus formal, statistical versus case
study, descriptive versus causal, and longitudinal versus cross-sectional. See further discussion in Cooper and Schindler
(2003).

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 4

grams rather than to win the debate between positivism and non-positivism. Because a
paradigm (positivism) reflects belief that cannot be blended with other paradigm (non-
positivism), it is in the author’s belief that both paradigms are not mutually exclusive but
rather complementary to each other. By understanding and broadening our view than we
will be able to see the potential benefits of both approaches.

Scientific Method and Attitude

As warned by Neuman, to evaluate the legitimacy of a paradigm is not to ask whether it is

scientific or not. Whether a method is scientific should be based on the consensus within
the scientific or academic community. Therefore, it is more useful and fruitful to be con-
cerned with scientific attitude that is a way of looking at the world and a willingness to
consider evidence and argument. Hirshleifer (1988) describes scientific attitude to advance
sciences by showing unscientific attitude that retards the progress of sciences. He states:

All sciences advance through disagreement. In astronomy the geocentric

model of Ptolemy was opposed by the new heliocentric model of Copernicus; in
chemistry Priestley supported the phlogiston theory of combustion while Lavoisier
propounded the oxidation theory; and in biology the creationism of earlier natural-
ists was countered by Darwin’s theory of evolution.
It is not universal agreement but rather the willingness to consider evi-
dence that signals the scientific approach. For Galileo’s opponents to dis-
agree with him about Jupiter’s moons was not unscientific of itself; what was
unscientific was their refusal to look through his telescope and see.

To be scientific, we have to be willing to look through other people point of view and
evaluate the argument advanced. We have to abandon our ingrained tendency to stick to
our belief when there is a strong evidence to the contrary. We have to find a common
ground to share our view. This means that we have to broaden our view by our willingness
to learn from others. Figure 1 illustrates how broadening our view may lead to resolving
conflicting paradigm or at least appreciating competing paradigm. The way we are trained
in a particular research method may develop confined experience, knowledge, and belief
that finally create some kind of functional silo or bounded rationality. Broadening the view
enables us to see issues in higher level so that we can see that our paradigms are in fact
complementary rather than exclusive. Our own paradigm will become orientation or
emphasis rather than a dead choice. By this scientific attitude, conversion of paradigm is
possible and scientific truth will prevail.
However, there are circumstances in which scientists are not willing to broaden their
view and conversion of paradigm is impossible. In fact, conversion of paradigm is not a
thing that can be scientifically or socially forced. Kuhn (1970) quotes Max Planck’s remark
in this regard:

... a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new gen-
eration grows up that is familiar with it.

Kuhn further argues that scientists, being only human, cannot always admit their
errors, even when confronted with strict proof. He would argue, rather, that in these mat-
ters neither proof nor error is at issue. The change of devotion from paradigm to paradigm
is a process that cannot be forced.

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 5

Figure 1
Broadening View as a Reflection of Scientific Attitude

Experience Experience
Knowledge Knowledge
Belief Belief

Positivism

Historically, positivism has two dimensions in accounting research. One is in the context of
accounting theory in which it is opposed to normativism. In the later development, positiv-
ism is used in the context of research and is opposed to non-positivism particularly inter-
pretive-qualitative paradigm.
Pioneered by the Rochester School of Accounting, positive accounting theory emerged
and developed increasingly during 1970s and 1980s to challenge the normative theories
represented by the extant literature in accounting. Basically both theories differ in the
realm of issues to be dealt with. Normative theories are concerned with policy making and
thus value-laden while positive theories are focused on explanation and prediction and
thus value-free. The development of positive accounting theories was attributed to the tra-
dition of positive theory in economics. Positive accounting is considered scientific in the
sense that it is descriptive and not intended to prescribe accounting policy or standards.
Sharp distinction of positive and normative theory in economics is described by Blaug
(1992) and called Hume’s guillotine. The aspects of distinction are shown below.

Figure 2
Hume’s Guillotine Separating Normative and Positive Economics

positive normative
is ought
facts values
objective subjective
descriptive prescriptive
science art
true/false good/bad

Positive accounting theory is criticized by Sterling (1990) on two grounds: the phe-
nomena studied and value-free assumption. Sterling argues that positive accounting the-
ory has changed the subject matter (fundamental question) of accounting from financial

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 6

reporting into the practice of accountants. Using cartography as an analogy, Sterling

asserts that positive accounting has confused the map and the territory being mapped.
Instead of studying of how to map the territory, positive accounting diverts the attention
to the map and the person preparing the map. The shifting of the fundamental question
has lead Christenson (1983) to name positive accounting theory as sociology of accoun-
tants. He further elaborates and illustrates the distinction of normative and positive
accounting in terms of fundamental problems or questions. Normative problems require
proposals while positive ones require propositions or hypotheses.
The deviation of subject matter is shown by the fact that almost all positive account-
ing theory literature and research direct their attention to explanation of the behavior of
practicing accountants and managers. In other words, instead of finding new concepts or
techniques to account for important transactions, positive accounting theory is more
interested to provide explanations to behaviors or actions of people. For instant, positive
accounting is not concerned with alternatives to existing inventory valuation methods but
rather with the reason why accountants are fond of wearing a blue necktie. Accounting
methods and techniques are assumed to be given. The deviation in subject matter will pre-
vent invention of best methods and we can say that LIFO or FIFO, for example, become
the last invention since the last fifty years. Christenson noted that positive accounting
theory does not deal with accounting as an entity (such as chemistry) but with the chem-
ists. In their defence, Watts and Zimmerman (1990) argue that studying of accounting
cannot be detached from studying of people. For example, contracting approach to study-
ing accounting requires researchers to understand the incentives of contracting parties.
As a paradigm, positivism refers to the application of natural science method to
accounting research. Positivism assumes that there is only one logic of science. To be sci-
entific, intellectual and research activities should conform to the same logic of science;
social science should emulate natural science. In other words, social science and natural
science should use the same method. To distinguish positivism from non-positivism (spe-
cifically interpretive) approach to social science, Neuman identifies the following eight
perspectives:

1. Purpose or motive of research

2. Nature of social reality
3. Nature of human being
4. Establishment of truth
5. The scope of theory
6. Criteria of truth
7. Rule of evidence
8. The role of values

The purpose of positive research is to provide explanation to a social or natural phe-

nomena in order to predict the behavior of factors under study. Explanation is given in the
form of theory and the theory will consist of principles, laws, or hypotheses about factors
(constructs or concepts or variables) being studied. Principles, laws, or hypotheses help
people to predict if certain events related to controllable factors will occur.
Social reality is assumed to be existing the way it is and to be real, regardless of
human perception. The aim of research is to discover the reality and the underlying princi-
ples, pattern, laws, order, or regularity.
Humans are assumed to be self-interested, pleasure-seeking, and rational individuals.
Behavior is observable and measurable to reflect external reality that can be used to create
causal laws.

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 7

To establish the truth of reality, positivism relies on scientific approach rather than to
alternatives to science (for example common sense) to produce scientific knowledge. Scien-
tific method is developed to distinguish between scientific and nonscientific knowledge.
Positivism builds a theory about a class or group of objects/subjects not individual
objects/subjects. This is a nomothetic approach as opposed to idiographic. Laws and theo-
ries are expressed in formal symbolic systems derived through logical reasoning (deductive
and inductive). Formal symbolic systems require the creation of meaningful measurable
constructs to represent social or natural reality. When constructs are operationally defined
and measured, they become the variables for empirical testing.
Explanation is true if it follows logical reasoning and it is consistent with observed
facts. Replication is also a criterion to evaluate the truth of laws or principles.
Observable facts are the best evidence compared to idea, value, subjective interpreta-
tion, or personal experience. Therefore, positivism relies on empirical evidence measured
and captured by means of instruments as an extension of senses.
Since the purpose of positive research is to produce causal laws objectively and
descriptively, values, opinions, attitudes, or belief do not have a place in science. The
observers should detach themselves from the subject matter being investigated. All find-
ings should be reported as they are and should not be tinted with the self-interests or sub-
jectivity of the researchers. Even if judgment is called for, it should be governed by rules of
science (i.e. scientific method).

Science, Scientific, and Unscientific

Neuman describes the above attributes of positivism in comparison with interpretive

social science and critical social science paradigms. The most important distinguishing fac-
tors among the three paradigms are the purpose (reason) for research and the nature of
social reality. Figure 3 shows comparison by Neuman of the three paradigms in terms of
the two distinguishing factors.

Figure 3
The Essential Properties of Competing Paradigms (Neuman, 2000)

Factor Positivism Interpretive Social Science Critical Social Science

1. Reason for research To discover natural laws so To understand and describe To smash myths and
people can predict and meaningful social action empower people to change
control events society radically

2. Nature of social reality Stable preexisting patterns Fluid definitions of situation Conflict filled and governed
or order that can be dis- created by human interaction by hidden underlying struc-
covered tures

The purpose or reason for research determines the research design. From the above
comparison, it seems that the seven-steps scientific method described by Sekaran (2003)
and Neuman (2000) are derived from the steps in natural science. Since positivism emu-
lates natural science, this scientific method characterizes positivism paradigm. Therefore,
positive accounting research in general is based on these scientific methods. The steps
become the standard in positive accounting research. The discovering laws or principles as
a purpose of research calls for the use statistics or quantitative approach to test hypothe-
ses empirically. This accounts for the fact that most positive accounting research involve
statistical hypothesis testing. To be successful in positive research, researchers should at

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 8

least master three things: theory of the discipline, statistics, and “scientific” (science-emu-
lating) research method discussed above. But, what “scientific” actually means? If positive
accounting assumes that accounting falls into the domain of science, it can be logically
construed that all accounting research should follow scientific method. If accounting is in
fact not a science, it is conceivable that an accounting research may or should employ
“unscientific” method to achieve whatever purpose it seeks.
Dictionary description may be helpful in understanding the notion of “scientific.”
Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English (1988), for example, describes the
meaning of science as follows:

1. the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge

2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on
in order to determine the nature of principles of what is being studied
3. a branch of knowledge or study, esp. one concerned with establishing and systematizing
facts, principles, and methods, as by experiments and hypotheses [the science of mathemat-
ics]
4. a) the systematized knowledge of nature and the physical world, b) any branch of this.
5. skill or technique based upon systematized training [the science of cooking]

Since paradigmatic issue pertains to the way knowledge is established, definition 3 is

the best description to define what the meaning of “scientific” is. Thus, being “scientific”
is defined in the dictionary as “a) based on, using, or in accordance with, the principles and
methods of science; systematic and exact [scientific classification] b) designating the
method of research in which a hypothesis, formulated after systematic, objective collection
of data, is tested empirically.” In general, natural science is studied based on research
approach as thus defined.
If we agree that the meaning of the word “scientific” comes from science (natural sci-
ence) in the sense of emulating natural science, then anything else that does not follow
natural science study may be called “unscientific.” It does not mean that unscientific
approach is useless or meaningless. When it comes to social phenomena or policy making,
unscientific approach may be shown or even proven to be useful, fruitful, and meaningful.

A Simple Example of Positive Accounting Research

Examples of positive research in accounting can be found in accounting journals dedicated

to positive empirical research such as The Accounting Review and Jurnal Riset dan Akun-
tansi Indonesia (national journal). Instead of providing specific examples or topics, this
paper illustrates how positive research is carried out following the standard research pro-
cess in positive accounting. Assume that the phenomenon to be studied is why high school
graduates in general are not competent to read and understand standard English text
books when they enter the university even though they have been learning English for six
years. The purpose of positive research is to provide explanation in the form of theories
and reasoning to the phenomena. When the theory is empirically confirmed, then a predic-
tion on the behavior of a particular variable or construct in question may be made with a
certain level of confidence. Figure 4 illustrates in diagrammatic format how the seven-
steps scientific method is applied to the research topic.

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 9

Figure 4
The Seven-Steps Research Process under Positivism

High school graduates are incompetent in English Observed phenomenon or reality

Why? (This is an inquiry to be answered scientifically)

• To believe about knowledge or assertion, people need

confidence about the truth of the knowledge.
• People evaluate the truth of assertion on the basis of
what they already know. New knowledge is compared to
their pre-knowledge.
• English language is learned by comparing its property to Explanation in the form of theory is
the property of their Indonesian language. expressed in theoretical framework
• The level of mastery of Indonesian language will deter-
mine the level of mastery of English language.
• If Indonesian language is not sophisticatedly mastered it Developed logically by
is likely that foreign language that has sophisticated deduction and induction
structure will not be adequately mastered.

Derived into

Sophisticated mastery of Indonesian Language has a

Proposition
positive impact on mastery of English language.

Expressed into hypothesis for empirical testing

Indonesian lesson grade positively associated to English

lesson grade Hypothesis

Empirically and statistically tested

Conclusions and implications

The above steps reflect the pattern of positive accounting research found in leading
journals. Explanation is embedded in the theoretical framework. Prediction is embedded
in the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is empirically supported, it becomes a law or a princi-
ple on which prediction can be made. For example, if we find a student with high grade in
Indonesian, it is likely (with a certain level of confidence, e.g. 95%) that the student has a
high grade in English. Since reality is assumed to exist regardless of perception and should
be expressed in symbolic language, the above diagram can be reduced into Figure 5.3
Positive research is analytical and empirical in nature. The theoretical part is analyti-
cal and abstract and its consistency should be tested with the fact (empirically tested).
Constructs as symbolic language should be operationally defined to lend themselves to
measurement or quantification.

3
This diagram is adapted and extended from William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methods (Fort Worth: The Dryden
Press, 2000), p. 41.

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 10

Figure 5
Symbolic Language in Positivism
.

Abstract level
Theory

Theoretical relationship

Construct X Construct Y
(Mastery of Indonesian (Mastery of English
Language) Proposition Language)

Empirical level Operationalization

Generalization by
induction to pro-
duce laws or princi-
Variable X: Variable Y: ples
Indonesian Language English Language
Grade Hypothesis Grade

Sampling, data collection, and measurement

X Y
Statistical relationship
(Modeling, analysis, and testing)

Is Accounting a Social Science?

It is no doubt that accounting has a social impact as internet does. But, is it appropriate to
say that accounting is science or even social science? The fact that something has a social
impact does not necessarily make it a social science. Since paradigmatic issues occur in
mostly within the context of social science, does accounting undergo the same paradig-
matic problem if in fact accounting is social science. If accounting is a science (but not
social), paradigmatic conflict may still happen but it may not be as intense and pervasive
as that in social science. In science (notably natural), new paradigms generally replaced
old paradigms completely with a certain period of transition. As mentioned earlier,
because of low veridicality and malleability, paradigmatic issues in social science are
lingering and perpetuating. If accounting is a technology, is paradigmatic issue relevant? If
in fact accounting is a technology, challenging positivism and contrasting it with other
paradigms are trivial things and may lead us to a methodological trap.4 Therefore, norma-
tivism in accounting theory would be more meaningful in improving accounting practice.

4
See a deeper discussion of whether accounting is art, science, or technology in Suwardjono, Teori Akuntansi: Pereka-
yasaan Pelaporan Keuangan (Yogyakarta: BPFE, 2005), chapter 1.

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 11

Choice of Paradigm

Given that paradigmatic issues are relevant and that legitimate paradigms in accounting
research are available, which paradigm is chosen. Legitimacy of paradigm should be based
on how each paradigm (and thus research method) can serve the unique purpose of
research. The general rule in this situation is different methods for different purposes.
The same principle has been used in managerial and cost accounting: different costs for
different purposes which means that a unique decision model requires a different concept
of cost. Relevant cost and sunk cost are examples of different cost concepts.
At individual level, researchers have wider freedom to choose whatever method or
paradigm they desire as long as it serves the purpose. It is then more advantageous for
researchers when they master several methods under several different paradigms.
At institutional level (undergraduate and graduate study programs), the choice is
more problematic and a matter of institutional policy that it is finally reflected in the cur-
riculum. The problem arises because of the time limit in one hand and the number of
research methods under several paradigms that should be introduced in the other. If all
methods are introduced within a limited time there is a danger that students acquire only
superficial notion of the methods. Specifically, if the choice is between positivism and non-
positivism, which one should be introduced? Ideally both should be introduced to a greater
extent. Level of study (undergraduate or graduate) should also be taken into consider-
ation. In undergraduate level, the choice becomes more dilemmatic.
In general, positivism is dominant and becomes a tradition in accounting research.
Thereby, positivism is sometimes labeled as traditional accounting paradigm with all its
strengths and weaknesses. Generally, tradition has important basic principles that learn-
ers should master. Non-positivism is then characterized as contemporary or nontraditional
approach that defies or rejects positivism. Because of the danger of functional fixation due
to training, it is more beneficial in the long-run for learners to be introduced first with
positivism to a deeper extent until they are satisfied and then they start exploring other
possibilities or even rebelling or breaking their own tradition. The idea is to start thing
from the standard and then extend, defy, or even discard the standard.
The best analogy for the above training approach is the education of painting artists
in a school of art. The best conceivable approach is to train them in naturalism-romanti-
cism as basic skills. Naturalism teaches them about the basic features of good painting:
perspective, harmony, anatomy, proportion, golden angle, and natural beauty. The training
goes until they are able to see thing beyond naturalism and explore other styles of paint-
ing: realism, surrealism, expressionism, cubism, fauvism, and so on. After they are rich
enough to see all the possibilities, it is up to them to choose and stick to a particular style
to express their personal taste, vision, and actualization. Here the choice of style (or para-
digm) should come from understanding, comprehension, and reflection rather than from
ignorance. However, in some instants, an untrained or uneducated person does ridiculous
thing and claims himself or herself a contemporary artist and says: “That’s the real art.
Art is freedom, anything will do. Anything goes.”

Concluding Remark

Each research paradigm has its own unique features that it is only applicable for a certain
purpose or reason. Positivism with its unique standard research process is appropriate to
produce general laws or principles about a class of objects or events in a particular disci-

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism

Academic Reading 12

pline. Positivism cannot do what non-positivism can do. Non-positivism has its own fea-
tures and merits. It is true (at least we agree) that cars are best for travelling long distance
while bicycles are best suited for mountaineering. Therefore, comparing cars and bicycles
would be futile. It is so with confronting one paradigm to another especially if the purpose
is to win the claim of truth. It is more sensible for us to equip ourselves with a number of
conflicting paradigms and then we apply each at our disposal to suit the needs of research.
Claiming that one paradigm is the best and excluding others would only result in self-iso-
lation or schism. The sad thing researchers do in this regard is that they are not willing to
broaden their view by learning and looking other methods. In Hirshleifer’s description,
they refuse to see the “Galileo’s telescope.” When this attitude is motivated by their pre-
conceived notion of incapability and unwillingness to learn with reasonable diligence, they
actually trap themselves in escapism. Disagreement is healthy and scientific in itself since
only through disagreement do sciences and knowledge advance. Are we ready to disagree?

References:

Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2004.

Blalock, Jr., Hubert M. Basic Dilemmas in the Social Science. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1984.
Blaug, Mark. The Methodology of Economics Or How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992.
Christenson, Charles. “The Methodology of Positive Accounting.” The Accounting Review, Vol.58, No. 1, 1983:
1-22.
Cooper, Donald R. dan Pamela S. Schindler, Business Research Methods (Boston: McGraw-Hill, Irwin, 2003).
Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publication, Inc., 2000.
Hirshleifer, Jack. Price Theory and Applications. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Neuman, Paul. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
2000.
Ryan, Bob; Robert W. Scapens; and Michael Theobald. Research Method and Methodology in Finance and
Accounting. London: Academic Press, 1992.
Sekaran, Uma, Research Methods for Business. USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
Sterling, Robert R. “Positive Accounting: An Assessment.” Abacus, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1990: 97-135.
Sukoharsono, Eko Ganis. “Tradisi Riset Kualitatif Ilmu Akuntansi: Biografi, Phenomenologi, Grounded The-
ory, Critical Ethnography, dan Case Study.” Multiparadigm Accounting: Broadening Our View (Work-
shop Handout, The 2nd Postgraduate Consortium on Accounting 2006, Brawijaya University, Malang):
19-34.
Suwardjono. Teori Akuntansi: Perekayasaan Pelaporan Keuangan. Yogyakarta: BPFE, 2005.
Triyuwono, Iwan. “Paradigma Metodologi Penelitian Akuntansi.” Multiparadigm Accounting: Broadening
Our View (Workshop Handout, The 2nd Postgraduate Consortium on Accounting 2006, Brawijaya Uni-
versity, Malang): 8-18.
Watts, Ross L. and Jerold L. Zimmerman. “Positive Accounting Theory: A Ten Year Perspective.” The Account-
ing Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, 1990: 131-156.
__________. Positive Accounting Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1986.
Zikmund, William G. Business Research Methods. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press, 2000.

Suwardjono 2006 E:\Seminar-Loka\Positivism