Cutting the Gordian knot [?]: a response to Lukka and Vinnari (2014)

Alan D. Lowe*, Ivo De Loo, Yesh Nama

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract


Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to constructively discuss the meaning and nature of (theoretical) contribution in accounting research, as represented by Lukka and Vinnari (2014) (hereafter referred to as LV). The authors aim is to further encourage debate on what constitutes management accounting theory (or theories) and how to modestly clarify contributions to the extant literature.

Design/methodology/approach
– The approach the authors take can be seen as (a)n interdisciplinary literature sourced analysis and critique of the movement’s positioning and trajectory” (Parker and Guthrie, 2014, p. 1218). The paper also draws upon and synthesizes the present authors and other’s contributions to accounting research using actor network theory.

Findings
– While a distinction between domain and methods theories … may appear analytically viable, it may be virtually impossible to separate them in practice. In line with Armstrong (2008), the authors cast a measure of doubt on the quest to significantly extend theoretical contributions from accounting research.

Research limitations/implications
– Rather than making (apparently) grandiose claims about (theoretical) contributions from individual studies, the authors suggest making more modest claims from the research. The authors try to provide a more appropriate and realistic approach to the appreciation of research contributions.

Originality/value
– The authors contribute to the debate on how theoretical contributions can be made in the accounting literature by constructively debating some views that have recently been outlined by LV. The aim is to provide some perspective on the usefulness of the criteria suggested by these authors. The authors also suggest and highlight (alternative) ways in which contributions might be discerned and clarified.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)305-316
Number of pages12
JournalAccounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
Volume29
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Feb 2016

Fingerprint

Accounting research
Usefulness
Trajectory
Accounting theory
Actor-network theory
Positioning
Design methodology
Management accounting

Keywords

  • accounting research
  • domain theory
  • method theory
  • theoretical contribution

Cite this

@article{895c193665e1471191a2057b4648db50,
title = "Cutting the Gordian knot [?]: a response to Lukka and Vinnari (2014)",
abstract = "Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to constructively discuss the meaning and nature of (theoretical) contribution in accounting research, as represented by Lukka and Vinnari (2014) (hereafter referred to as LV). The authors aim is to further encourage debate on what constitutes management accounting theory (or theories) and how to modestly clarify contributions to the extant literature.Design/methodology/approach– The approach the authors take can be seen as (a)n interdisciplinary literature sourced analysis and critique of the movement’s positioning and trajectory” (Parker and Guthrie, 2014, p. 1218). The paper also draws upon and synthesizes the present authors and other’s contributions to accounting research using actor network theory.Findings– While a distinction between domain and methods theories … may appear analytically viable, it may be virtually impossible to separate them in practice. In line with Armstrong (2008), the authors cast a measure of doubt on the quest to significantly extend theoretical contributions from accounting research.Research limitations/implications– Rather than making (apparently) grandiose claims about (theoretical) contributions from individual studies, the authors suggest making more modest claims from the research. The authors try to provide a more appropriate and realistic approach to the appreciation of research contributions.Originality/value– The authors contribute to the debate on how theoretical contributions can be made in the accounting literature by constructively debating some views that have recently been outlined by LV. The aim is to provide some perspective on the usefulness of the criteria suggested by these authors. The authors also suggest and highlight (alternative) ways in which contributions might be discerned and clarified.",
keywords = "accounting research, domain theory, method theory, theoretical contribution",
author = "Lowe, {Alan D.} and {De Loo}, Ivo and Yesh Nama",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2025",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "305--316",
journal = "Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal",
issn = "1368-0668",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Cutting the Gordian knot [?] : a response to Lukka and Vinnari (2014). / Lowe, Alan D.; De Loo, Ivo; Nama, Yesh.

In: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2, 15.02.2016, p. 305-316.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cutting the Gordian knot [?]

T2 - a response to Lukka and Vinnari (2014)

AU - Lowe, Alan D.

AU - De Loo, Ivo

AU - Nama, Yesh

PY - 2016/2/15

Y1 - 2016/2/15

N2 - Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to constructively discuss the meaning and nature of (theoretical) contribution in accounting research, as represented by Lukka and Vinnari (2014) (hereafter referred to as LV). The authors aim is to further encourage debate on what constitutes management accounting theory (or theories) and how to modestly clarify contributions to the extant literature.Design/methodology/approach– The approach the authors take can be seen as (a)n interdisciplinary literature sourced analysis and critique of the movement’s positioning and trajectory” (Parker and Guthrie, 2014, p. 1218). The paper also draws upon and synthesizes the present authors and other’s contributions to accounting research using actor network theory.Findings– While a distinction between domain and methods theories … may appear analytically viable, it may be virtually impossible to separate them in practice. In line with Armstrong (2008), the authors cast a measure of doubt on the quest to significantly extend theoretical contributions from accounting research.Research limitations/implications– Rather than making (apparently) grandiose claims about (theoretical) contributions from individual studies, the authors suggest making more modest claims from the research. The authors try to provide a more appropriate and realistic approach to the appreciation of research contributions.Originality/value– The authors contribute to the debate on how theoretical contributions can be made in the accounting literature by constructively debating some views that have recently been outlined by LV. The aim is to provide some perspective on the usefulness of the criteria suggested by these authors. The authors also suggest and highlight (alternative) ways in which contributions might be discerned and clarified.

AB - Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to constructively discuss the meaning and nature of (theoretical) contribution in accounting research, as represented by Lukka and Vinnari (2014) (hereafter referred to as LV). The authors aim is to further encourage debate on what constitutes management accounting theory (or theories) and how to modestly clarify contributions to the extant literature.Design/methodology/approach– The approach the authors take can be seen as (a)n interdisciplinary literature sourced analysis and critique of the movement’s positioning and trajectory” (Parker and Guthrie, 2014, p. 1218). The paper also draws upon and synthesizes the present authors and other’s contributions to accounting research using actor network theory.Findings– While a distinction between domain and methods theories … may appear analytically viable, it may be virtually impossible to separate them in practice. In line with Armstrong (2008), the authors cast a measure of doubt on the quest to significantly extend theoretical contributions from accounting research.Research limitations/implications– Rather than making (apparently) grandiose claims about (theoretical) contributions from individual studies, the authors suggest making more modest claims from the research. The authors try to provide a more appropriate and realistic approach to the appreciation of research contributions.Originality/value– The authors contribute to the debate on how theoretical contributions can be made in the accounting literature by constructively debating some views that have recently been outlined by LV. The aim is to provide some perspective on the usefulness of the criteria suggested by these authors. The authors also suggest and highlight (alternative) ways in which contributions might be discerned and clarified.

KW - accounting research

KW - domain theory

KW - method theory

KW - theoretical contribution

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957831332&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2025/full/html

U2 - 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2025

DO - 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2025

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84957831332

VL - 29

SP - 305

EP - 316

JO - Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal

JF - Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal

SN - 1368-0668

IS - 2

ER -