Management Accounting Research 21 (2010) 130–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Management Accounting Research

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /mar

Insights into method triangulation and “paradigms” in interpretivemanagement accounting research

Juhani Vaivio ∗, Anna SirénAalto University School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:ParadigmTriangulationMethodologyResearch methods

a b s t r a c t

This paper seeks to develop our understanding of method triangulation and researchparadigms in interpretive management accounting research. Relying on field illustrations,the paper provides insight into how method triangulation has actually been received withinthe Finnish management accounting research community. At present, talk can be distin-

Interpretive management accountingresearch

guished from action in method triangulation. Relying further on this insight, the paperdiscusses the meaning of a “paradigm”. It points out that for the individual scholar theparadigm is not necessarily a coherent, well-reflected philosophical standpoint. Instead, itrepresents a socio-political assemblage that suggests a “methodological identity” and pro-vides “paradigmatic economies” for the self-interested academic. We also put forward a

of met

view on the future

1. Introduction

Interpretive management accounting research seemsto be living a period of critical self-reflection. Recently,the philosophical underpinnings of interpretive stud-ies, and especially the paradigmatic subjective/objectivedichotomy in its methodological foundations, have beenelements in an intensive academic exchange (Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al., 2008a,b; Ahrens, 2008). The distinctiverole of theory in producing plausible empirical findingshas been reassessed (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006). Eventhe future of interpretive accounting research has beendiscussed in a polyphonic debate (Ahrens et al., 2008;

Armstrong, 2008; Baxter et al., 2008; Scapens, 2008).1

Against this background, the arguments which havebeen advanced for combining case and survey study meth-ods in management accounting research have become

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail address: juhani.vaivio@hse.fi (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

hod triangulation and paradigmatic détente more generally.© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

more significant. What has been said regarding method tri-angulation now appears as a terrain where the orientationof interpretive accounting research can once again be dis-cussed. It seems that method triangulation is becoming acentral dimension where critical choices about the recon-ciliation or incompatibility of research paradigms are beingmade in research practice. As Modell (2009, p. 3) crystal-lizes it: “The tensions associated with straddling betweenparadigms are readily observable when one considers theissue of triangulation between theories and methods [emph.added] rooted in different paradigms”. Here, at the level ofactually doing empirical management accounting researchby mobilizing or by not mobilizing multiple research meth-ods, management accounting researchers reveal how muchthey actually wish, and are able, to straddle betweenthe 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 détente is perceivedamongst management accounting scholars working in theinterpretive tradition. We should, however, acknowledgethe challenge that method triangulation sets for schol-ars at the level of actual research practice (Ahrens and

Accounti

CMtha

inaIfiimatp

niabihrtaoita–p

ottcfbtmbaad

itWtsaataitipie

J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

hapman, 2006, pp. 833–836, see also e.g. Patton, 1990).oreover, questions should be raised about how method

riangulation can be effectively operationalized, and aboutow it could affect the future of interpretive managementccounting research (Hopwood, 2008).

This paper offers an illustrated theoretical discussion. Its anchored to the contemporary debates concerning theature of paradigms in management accounting researchnd the benefits of employing different research methods.n brief, it contributes to these debates by first seekingeld insights into the social reality of academics in the

nterpretive tradition. Then, having explored the actualobilization of different research methods, by listening tonumber of “voices from the field”, it discusses the poten-

ial of method triangulation and the nature of researcharadigms as critical socio-political assemblages.

More specifically, through interviews in a “reachable”ational research community, the study seeks insight

nto how practicing management accounting researchersre, in reality, enacting method triangulation. Within theoundaries of a small European country, where a strong

nterpretive tradition in management accounting researchas taken root, we are able to address a particularesearch community fairly comprehensively. We selectedhe Finnish research community as we belong to it, andre familiar with its theoretical tradition and academicrganization. This provides us a context and a kind ofntrospective setting for theoretical reflection and for illus-rating our conclusions about the current status, the prosnd cons and the actual prospects of method triangulationas well as for a discussion on the meaning of research

aradigms more broadly.We are cautious about transporting our argument to

ther settings, but on the basis of our field insights, we seeko add to the current debate by discussing how methodriangulation actually becomes mobilized, what its per-eived benefits are, how its challenges are actually beingelt in everyday research practice, and why it often fails toecome widely embraced as a vehicle for validating quali-ative empirical enquiry. Furthermore, we seek to develop a

ore detailed understanding of how the research paradigmoth enables and constrains the interpretive managementccounting researcher. Our conclusions are advanced intentative spirit, with the aim of further stimulating theebate.

The paper’s purpose is to deepen our understand-ng of method triangulation and research paradigms – athe operational level of management accounting research.

e examine method triangulation and its challenges inhe practical field where paradigmatic rigidity seems tourface. Consequently, our curiosity about method tri-ngulation leads us to say something about paradigmss practical socio-political constructs. Our study suggestshat the individual scholar in interpretive managementccounting does not evaluate research paradigms primar-ly from a philosophical standpoint. Instead of pondering

he philosophical foundations of competing paradigms, thendividual scholar usually embraces one of the availablearadigms. However, paradigms may contain philosoph-

cal contradictions, and exaggerate their ontological andpistemological distinctiveness (Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al.,

ng Research 21 (2010) 130–141 131

2008a). But regardless of such contradictions and exag-gerated elements, the paradigm plays a critical role. Aswe will argue in this paper, the interpretive methodologi-cal paradigm serves important functions: it provides botha “methodological identity” as well as “paradigmatic eco-nomics”.

The paper is structured as follows. First, it remindsus what a recent pronouncement concerning straddlingbetween research paradigms suggests about the paradigmincommensurability thesis. Second, it provides a summaryof key arguments about method triangulation. Third, itexplains the field interviews that both inspired and illus-trate the paper’s message. The fourth section introducesthe voices from the field of Finnish management account-ing scholars, while the fifth section discusses the insightsgained from the field and offers a number of conclusions.

2. Straddling between paradigms

To begin with, we want to revisit the recent Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a) argument about straddling betweenparadigms. We would emphasize that it is not focusedspecifically on method triangulation: it is an argumentat a more fundamental level. From the perspective ofnaturalistic philosophy, it examines how the influentialmethodological thesis of Burrell and Morgan (1979) aboutthe subjectivism of interpretive research is actually fol-lowed within a single, “representative” interpretive study– Dent’s (1991) longitudinal examination of cultural trans-formation within Euro Rail. Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al.’s aimis not to blur methodological distinctions, but “to exploreand explicate the ways in which concepts from differentmethodological camps can peacefully coexist and co-operate within a single study”. They do this by “drawing onrecent philosophical literature attempting to overcome thestrict dichotomy between subjectivism and objectivism”(2008a, p. 4).

After a meticulous examination of the explanatorystructure in Dent’s study, Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a)conclude that this seminal work does not fit well intothe strict categorization of mutually exclusive, incom-patible paradigms, as spelled out by Burrell and Morgan(1979). Hence, Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. argue that inter-pretive studies contain both subjectivist and objectivistelements, suggesting that the contrast between subjectivistand objectivist paradigms is overly exaggerated.

The Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a) argument abouthow interpretive research actually straddles betweenparadigms has several implications for managementaccounting researchers on both sides of paradigmaticdemarcation lines. Especially, its core message will bringthe concept of method triangulation under a new light. Apossible reading of Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a) couldrun along the following lines: If the philosophical differ-ences between the subjectivist and objectivist paradigmsare in fact smaller than previously assumed, then barriers

to combining subjectivist and objectivist research methodsin practice must also be lower than assumed. Consequently,method triangulation may appear as a practical expres-sion of paradigmatic détente in management accountingresearch.

Account

132 J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

3. The argument for method triangulation

A classic case for combining multiple research methodsto investigate management accounting phenomena wasadvanced by Birnberg et al. (1990). Analyzing the strengthsand weaknesses of field, laboratory and survey methods,and stressing that no one research method dominates on allof the criteria that they lay out, the authors advocated theuse of multiple methods – either within a particular study,or within a coordinated series of complementary studieson a specific topic (see also Ferreira and Merchant, 1992,p. 26). Also Abernethy et al. (1999, p. 25), illustrating thetrade-offs that take place in experimental, survey and fieldresearch, concluded that some of the exposed limitationsof these different methods could be overcome by methodtriangulation.2

Recently, more nuanced arguments have been advancedfor combining elements of case and survey research withincoherent research programs. In a comparative review ofmanagement accounting research that incorporates ele-ments of case study and survey methods, Modell (2005)suggests that the role of triangulation in enhancing thevalidity of empirical research efforts has traditionally beendependent on an investigation’s theoretical aims. Trian-gulation has been mobilized in different ways in theorydevelopment than it has in theory testing. An argu-ment is advanced for a more balanced approach withinresearch programs, since “triangulation approaches relyingon closer interweaving of case study and survey methodsin multiple iterations stand a better chance of addressing abroader range of validity issues” (Modell, 2005, p. 250).

Brown and Brignall (2007) discuss the application oftriangulated research design, paying particular attentionto the methodology of a “dual method, mixed paradigmstudy” in UK universities, which involved two separateteams of “quantitative” and “qualitative” researchers withdifferent methodological orientations. They conclude thatthese dual approaches both complemented and challengedeach other. But being rooted in different philosophical andpolitical “realities” they also “talked past” each other, as itmay not be possible to integrate two sets of findings in ameaningful way. In a similar vein, Arnold’s (2006) discus-sion suggests that “triangulation methods” that integratecase research, surveys and cross-sectional field studieswould improve our understanding in the field of enterpriseresource planning systems. Also Vaivio (2008, pp. 79–80)has been advocating the use of “multiple methods” in man-agement accounting research for building a more unifiedbody of knowledge. For instance, a qualitative case studycan be complemented with a large-sample survey to testhypotheses that emerged from the case study.

Recently, a modified notion of method triangula-tion has been proposed to address the philosophicalcriticisms which have emanated from ontological andepistemological considerations (Modell, 2009). Relying on

2 See e.g. Jick (1979) and Erzberg and Prein (1997) for a discussion abouthow triangulation between methods can be seen as the most advancedtechnique of cross-validation. For a pragmatist argument on “paradigmpeace” and “mixed-methods” in social research see Bryman (2006).

ing Research 21 (2010) 130–141

critical realism (Fleetwood, 2004), this modified notion ofmethod triangulation advances it as a theory-related andcontext-bound validation technique, which is groundedin abductive reasoning. The possibilities of this modifiednotion of triangulation are also illustrated through a reviewof two empirical studies. These empirical examples illumi-nate how this notion may be applied in mixed methodsresearch “straddling between the functionalist and inter-pretive paradigms” (Modell, 2009, p. 218). The criticalrealist approach, it is suggested, “offers an alternative tothe entrenched paradigm thinking informing criticisms oftriangulation in mixed methods research” (Modell, 2009,p. 219). Moreover, the modified notion of triangulation“should be viewed as a preliminary guide to what may con-stitute a philosophically informed foundation for mixedmethods research in management accounting” (Modell,2009, p. 219). Hence, from a philosophical vantage point,method triangulation can be advanced as a way of easingparadigmatic tension in contemporary accounting researchpractice.

4. Gaining field insight

But how is method triangulation, we asked, actu-ally mobilized in contemporary management accountingresearch? How is method triangulation understood andhow are experienced scholars making it operable? And isit realistic to assume that it actually bridges entrenchedmethodological views? Or is method triangulation one ofthose “idealized intellectual spaces”, where we like to dwellbut where we finally prefer to substitute talk for action –where hypocrisy persists (Brunsson, 1993)? These ques-tions guided the execution of this study, and made us seekinsight in field interviews concerning the practical applica-tion of method triangulation in management accountingresearch. The interviews targeted Finnish managementaccounting researchers, representing five different univer-sities within the country.3 In total, eight scholars wereinterviewed with a semi-structured approach, around spe-cific themes (displayed here in Appendix A), with theaverage interview lasting about an hour. The interviewswere made between April 12th–May 10th, 2007, and wereall tape recorded, with the permission of the interviewees.

All of the eight interviewed scholars have doctoraldegrees in accounting and hold university positions. Thegreat majority of them are in their early 40s. Most ofthem have considerable research experience, especiallyin the qualitative/interpretive genre. They have publishednumerous refereed articles, research papers, book chaptersand other professional publications, in both national andinternational arenas.

Two interviewees wanted to remain strictly anony-mous, not wishing to reveal their academic positions ortheir institution. Of those six who participated openly(see Appendix B), three are tenured professors of man-

3 These were: (1) The Helsinki School of Economics, (2) The Universityof Jyväskylä, (3) The University of Oulu, (4) The Turku School of Eco-nomics’ Unit based in Pori and (5) an additional university which remainsconfidential, by agreement.

Accounti

aiqeutatgtwnwe

5

5a

vawoiaqort

(ameaqtcc

J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

gement accounting. Taken together, the experience of thenterviewed scholars encompassed both qualitatively anduantitatively oriented research, but the weight of theirxpertise can be located in the interpretive tradition. Wenderline that we never sought to cover the entire popula-ion of Finnish management accounting scholars, or soughtny balanced “sample” of them. Instead, because we knowhe interviewed scholars relatively well, we trust that weained candid answers to our questions, and are also ableo understand more fully what the logics of our intervie-ees are. We use this fieldwork as a source of inspiration –ot as a stock of empirical evidence. And we use the field-ork to illustrate our informed reasoning – not as a solid

mpirical basis for generating theory.

. “Triangulating”: voices from the field

.1. An overview of the interviewed managementccounting scholars

In order to protect the individual views of the inter-iewed scholars, we refer to the eight interviewees withlphabetic letters, ranging from A to H. All of the intervie-ees have been engaged with qualitative research. Most

f the interviewees have been doing predominantly qual-tative/interpretive scientific work. Two interviewees aren exception: One of them has been using qualitative anduantitative survey research in a “balanced” way. Anotherne has been specializing mostly in “positivistic” surveyesearch, but has been gaining more experience in qualita-ive methods in his/her research.

We can group the scholars into two broad categories:1) those having personal experience in using method tri-ngulation and (2) those not having personal experience inethod triangulation. Those researchers who had personal

xperience in method triangulation (hereafter referred to

s MT in our report) had combined methods by mergingualitative interviews with a broader survey. The impor-ance of this action varied, however. Only one researcherlaimed having used these different methods in a moreomprehensive way. The rest of them told us about using

Fig. 1. The experience of the interviewed

ng Research 21 (2010) 130–141 133

qualitative and survey methods in a more “unbalanced”way, in order to corroborate in other ways the resultsobtained by their primary method. One researcher had cor-roborated interview data with a survey. Another scholarhad probed deeper into his/her survey findings with inter-views. A third researcher told us about having used asurvey to get a better pre-understanding for a qualita-tive case study. None of those researchers who had beenpersonally engaged in the mobilization of MT admitted,however, using it very actively. They revealed having triedthe approach only once or maybe a few times – but none ofthem are now actively using it. Most of those researcherswith no personal experience of combining methods per-ceived this approach to be a rather problematic one. Inthis group, only one scholar was considering a combina-tion of methods in the near future. Hence, the interviewees’experience in MT can be compressed into Fig. 1.

5.2. Perceived benefits of method triangulation (MT)

We want to underline, that our interviews did notreveal any dogmatic opposition towards MT. The benefitsof MT were acknowledged and can be related to argumentswhich have also appeared in literature (e.g. Modell, 2005;Birnberg et al., 1990). Foremost, the scholars we addressedspoke about getting a multifaceted, “richer picture” of thephenomenon under investigation when MT was applied.Researcher E, for instance, had this to say:

“Well, you get quite different information with mea-surements and interviews. Sure you can get a richerpicture about some phenomenon if you approach itthrough measurements and, in a sense, in an objec-tivist way. And on the other hand, with qualitative datasets you strive to build, in a way, interpretation andunderstanding – a comprehensive view about that phe-nomenon. Sure they complement each other. That is

clear.”

However, this “richer picture”, bridging methodologi-cal demarcation lines, actually boiled down to differentaspects of validity. The most important single reasonfor mobilizing MT appeared to be improvement in the

scholars in method triangulation.

Account

134 J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

external validity of qualitative/interpretive investigation.Researcher F also pointed out that statistical generaliza-tion of findings can also be necessary for getting publishedon certain forums, since especially quantitatively orientedscholars may regard this as being important per se.

Hence, many researchers found it particularly valuablethat an investigation was able to reach out to a largernumber of individual agents, than was possible with a tra-ditional interview study. Often, external validity was seenas an issue of generalizing findings within a single, largerorganization (Modell, 2005, pp. 234–235). Researcher Eemphasized that a phenomenon could first be studiedthrough interviews. You could then generalize these find-ings to the entire organization with a survey. Alternatively,you could start by finding out something intriguing withan organization-wide survey, and then proceed to deepenthis knowledge by exploring underlying mechanisms, withmore focused interviews in key organizational niches.These benefits of MT in a single-organization study wereexplained by researcher A:

“You can collect different kinds of data. . .For instance, ifyou have to interview fifty people somewhere at Nokiaor Motorola – or somewhere which is indeed scatteredaround the globe – that can be impossible! But then youcan find out at least some things by using a survey.”

Nevertheless, the potential of MT for increasing the internalvalidity of findings – in validating presumed cause–effectrelations between observed phenomena and in buildinga more solid argument (Modell, 2005, p. 236) – was alsobrought up in our interview data:

“You could think of the benefit-side in terms of gettingmore credible findings. That what you actually claimas a result of that study. . .In a way that claim is betterfounded.” (Researcher D)

Finally, three scholars also mentioned enhanced constructvalidity as arising from the application of different researchmethods. Especially in instances where little prior knowl-edge exists about the phenomenon under investigation,qualitative methods can be useful in developing the pre-understanding, the concepts to be applied and the specificresearch instruments which will later be deployed insurvey-based research (see Birnberg et al., 1990; Modell,2005, p. 237). Researcher G, speaking about qualitativeresearch, provided us with this illustrative comment:

“One of its applications is, of course, in the conceptualspecification of these survey studies – of these studieswhich in a way strive towards generalizable results. Andin taking care that these concepts. . .these concepts havesomething to do with the subject of this research. Sothat you avoid being like Marx, who had never visited afactory in his life.”

Other benefits of MT included the education of newmanagement accounting scholars: MT was seen as an

important issue in educating broad-based doctoral stu-dents. Also, one researcher pointed out that MT can be seenas bringing together the different methodological “camps”in management accounting research, allowing for bettercommunication.

ing Research 21 (2010) 130–141

The interviewed scholars, however, also held viewsabout how to realize these benefits in actual researchpractice. And here, in these insights, some more prob-lematic aspects relating to the mobilization of MT startedseeping into our empirical material. Although half of theresearchers held to the view that the benefits of MTcould materialize fairly easily, they emphasized profes-sional competence in different methods – as well as carefulresearch design – as essential requirements of potentialsuccess. 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 theother of these research methods is more suitable for theresearcher. That if we have this kind of ‘staple-togetherPh.D. thesis’ – where you have a few contingency-basedsurveys and then also one case study – then often thecase study is of a kind: ‘Better not have this at all!’ Or ofcourse the other way round.”

Moreover, it is noteworthy that especially those who hadnot applied MT in their scientific work perceived its poten-tial benefits as materializing within a much wider researchprogram. At the level of a single study, MT would not neces-sarily make sense. These reservations can be heard in howresearcher E continued his/her reflections:

“It depends on what level. . .I would see this questionon the level of a research program. That we have atopic – like ERP, or service centers, or ABC or what-ever – and we want to investigate it. So. . .sure it makessense, and it should be investigated with multiple meth-ods, multiple data sets. And then, we actually get, asa consequence of this multiplicity, a very rich picture.But I don’t know whether it is appropriate, or whetherwe should strive to mix different kinds of methodswithin a single study. Is this really what we want?. . .Youcan see a methodological contradiction here. Can wesee in a subjectivist way with one eye, and with anobjectivist way with the other – and then combinethese skillfully into one study. I mean, the findings tendto be such that you actually have both eyes closed.That’s not subjectivist, nor objectivist that research.It’s a middle-model story. But not well done in bothways.”

5.3. Perceived challenges of MT – part one: it is about“methodological identity”

But beyond these reservations about how to realize thebenefits of MT, the interviewed researchers provided uswith a spectrum of views concerning the challenges of MT.We asked them about what was seen as being problem-atic in MT and what would prevent the mobilization ofMT in actual research practice. Here, our field insights canbe broadly grouped into two categories. The first focuses

on observations concerning a management accountingscholar’s “methodological identity”, which does not seemto be very receptive to the application of different researchmethods. Within this “methodological identity” are philo-sophically anchored assumptions about reality and the

Accounti

pcmeswt

“lapiuop

T“iaadpf

J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

ossibilities of knowledge in management accounting. Ofourse, “methodological identity” appears to be a funda-ental, paradigmatically anchored issue of ontology and

pistemology. It is also, however, often an issue of very per-onal choice, affiliation and self-definition, which is locatedithin constraining socio-political structures and institu-

ionalized norms.Researcher F conceptualized the above in terms of

epistemological problems” and “irreconcilable epistemo-ogical and paradigmatic contradictions”. But speakingbout ontological contrasts between interpretive and moreositivist inquiry, and underlining that MT was more of an

ssue within entire research programs, researcher G gaves this skeptical remark – illustrating his/her point aboutntological differences with a reference to The X-Files, theopular TV series:

“The idea of triangulation contains the notion thatwithin some enterprise there is a kind of objective fact,which we do not know about. And then with differentmethods – with surveys and interviews and collectionof data – we, so to speak, get closer to that fact. That itis 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 find out. But then I have beeninvolved also in research projects where we actuallythink that we are not investigating the reality behindinterviews and survey questionnaires, but the inter-views and interviewees in themselves. And then it isactually not relevant what this kind of reality, indepen-dent from the observer, could be out there. . .And thereyou have a world, where the concept of triangulationdoes not need to be applied. It confuses. Or it takes ourthought into the direction that we have some kind ofobjective reality, in a sense. That is not always interest-ing.”

hese contrasting conceptions of reality can be linked withmethodological identity” and professional orientation alson a much deeper sense. For instance researcher E spokebout different “world views” as something that calibratesn individual researcher’s overall cognition. A researcherefines him/herself “in spirit”, as belonging either to theositivist or the interpretive tradition. This surfaced in theollowing comment:

“Sure you ponder sometimes why someone investigatesin one way, and somebody else in another way. . . Andwhy do we combine these methods so little. . .So, it maybe related to people having their own way to see theworld, to see the interesting issues. You can speak aboutsomething like ‘the world view’. And if you then have avery functionalist and objectivist view of the world – ifyou really are of the ‘engineer-type’, so to speak – youcannot be turned into an interpretive type even if wetried. Or the other way round: If you are a bit like a priest,or some shaman or healer – interested in understandingthings and something which is beyond the concrete, in

a sense, or interested in what is going on in people’sheads, and see that as important – so then you are notnecessarily terribly interested in the operating logic ofmachines.”

ng Research 21 (2010) 130–141 135

Instead of this individualistic view, researcher F providedus, however, with the explanation that this “method-ological identity” is gradually elaborated during a juniorscholar’s educational process and professional “growth”,in a social setting which contains strong normative andcultural 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 growingwithin a certain paradigm, in my opinion, determines toa great extent. It is even a kind of cultural explanation.That it determines in which paradigm one grows. And itis fairly difficult, or it is rare, that we are then genuinelyinterested in other approaches.”

A researcher’s “methodological identity” also appears togenerate notions of superiority as well as negative prej-udice, in terms of the cherished methodological beliefsand assumptions. This deeply rooted practice of valuingonly one way of doing research may further strengthen theincommensurability of methodological approaches. Theparadigmatic tension within the social context of an inter-national research collective was explained by researcherD:

“I can say that for a long time – and even today – thesepeople who do research in a positivistic spirit, they havenot given much credit to case research. They just saythat 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 multidi-mensional, where we are trying to understand in a sensethe behaviour of actors there, in the field – so try to dothis then with some statistical apparatus!”

Moreover, researcher D was not very optimistic about thepossibilities of reconciliation between the methodologicaldogmas of the interpretive and the positivist traditions:

“In a way these two ‘worlds’ in research are differ-ent. If you go into the interpretive direction, and ifyou believe that a scholar’s purpose is to bring in thiscomplexity, and explain that complexity with differ-ent theories, and so on. So, it is an altogether differentresearch agenda than this positivist one. . .We can think,of course, that in this kind of interpretive researchthe case method has been the dominant method. It isdifficult to think that you could bring much noveltyin there with these laboratory experiments or surveyinstruments.”

Beyond the above illustrations, taken together the bulkof our interview-material on a researcher’s “methodolog-ical identity” is suggestive of why the potential of MT isregarded as problematic. All of the interviewed eight schol-ars perceived the incompatibility of the positivistic and theinterpretive research paradigms as an explanation of whyMT has not been more broadly embraced in management

accounting research. Another equally important stream ofexplanations soon surfaced, however. We illustrate theseobservations next, under the concept of “paradigmatic eco-nomics”.

Account

136 J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

5.4. Perceived challenges of MT – part two: it is about“paradigmatic economics”

With “paradigmatic economics”, we introduce the sec-ond category of insight which was captured by thisstudy’s fieldwork. In brief, our interviews seem to sug-gest that the studied management accounting scholars areself-interested, highly calculative productive agents, in acompetitive research industry. They can do their “per-sonal management accounting” very well. They remainconscious of their initial fixed investment in produc-tive technologies. They weigh the running costs and theexpected benefits of their productive undertakings. Andthey are aware of risk. Thus, we claim that their choices inresearch methods are not merely guided by their paradig-matically embedded “methodological identity”, but bythe purpose to maximize rewards within the researchparadigm where they operate. This, in sum, is what wesuggest with the term “paradigmatic economics”.

The first element we identified in this “paradigmaticeconomics” relates to professional specialization, in termsof the “productive technology” of the research method.Early in his/her academic career, a junior scholar investsconsiderable intellectual resources in training in eitherthe positivist or the interpretive technology.4 ResearcherE provided the following comment on academic incentivesand professional specialization in the paradigmatically seg-mented “management accounting research industry”:

“This professional research, it sure favors specialization.I mean, it does not pay off to spread out resources intovery different kinds of stories. In a sense then – althoughit would otherwise make sense to be a broadly-basedresearcher and investigate multiple things, and under-stand multiple theories and methods, and master them– you do not usually get tenure that way. Or it is muchslower and more difficult. This world is one where, ifyou really specialize in a narrow segment, one theoryor topic, method – and tinker with that little spot there– in that way you get tenure and those other merits. Thatis rewarding”.

Researcher E continued about the size of the fixed “invest-ment” that was needed to overcome the “barriers to entry”surrounding a particular pocket of the research industry:

“You tend to have different audiences and differentcircles of debate for different studies. It sure is a biginvestment every time you ‘read yourself into’, pub-lish and get into a specific research circle – which ischaracterized by the research method, the employedtheories and the investigated topics. And these are fairlytight. . .tight circles. Very tightly defined circles usingthese criteria. And when you have gained entry into sucha circle, there you have a kind of comfort-zone. I mean it

is easier to stay there than go through the enormous nui-sance of climbing again – for adventurously exploringsome other circle.”

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

ing Research 21 (2010) 130–141

Specialization and scale benefits were pointed out byresearcher D:

“Once we learn something, that is what we like to dothen. In a way, you get these scale benefits here. Thatwhen you master something, then you will find theangle wherefrom you can turn these [research output]out fairly easily. . .To think that you would learn anentirely new form of art – again!. . .”

This rigid specialization and reluctance to invest into newinter-paradigmatic technologies – in the spirit of MT – wascommented by researcher C in a critical tone:

“Many have this attitude towards it [MT and differentmethods] that they should remain unrelated, or thatthey maybe would not become combined. But I think itis easy to take such an attitude. If you don’t want to learnanything new. And if you are, in a sense, so brainwashedinto your own way of thinking that you don’t accept any-thing else. It sure is easy to maintain that attitude – notleast because you don’t have to learn anything new andchange your own ways of operating: That you remainsufficiently competent in what you have always done,in a sense.”

However, it appeared to us that technological specializa-tion, and the purpose to gain comparative advantage inone research method, were key elements in the “paradig-matic economics” we observed. This was driven by theinstitutionalized arrangements of the research commu-nity. Research production takes place in a paradigmaticsetting: We refer to what was earlier said on “methodolog-ical identity”. Many interviewees underlined that researchorganizations tend to become specialized in terms ofmethod, fixing paradigmatic boundaries around the self-interested productive agent. The research context includesincentives which guide a researcher’s methodological ori-entation and choice of method. This path-dependencyseems to “pay off”, as researcher G observed:

“Well, I have never been terribly interested in statisti-cal methods and their use. During my doctoral studiesI 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 asense, pays off after all – and you become oriented toother things then. Besides, these case-studies are bloodyinteresting. So, in some way. . .you somehow remain ona kind of path. From which it always is more and moredemanding – and somehow more meaningless even –to step aside.”

Researcher D also spoke about how the high “operatingcosts” of method-triangulated research. Also from this per-spective, paradigmatic rigidity seems understandable: MTrequires a higher “marginal” effort, irrespective of any ini-tial investment:

“Its realization usually takes more time. Many peoplethink that if I’ve done a good survey, that’s already a bigjob. Not to speak about doing interviews then! And thenagain, if you do good case research, it does not work theway that you just go and speak to one person. You have

Accounti

TuitrtttmsOrras

Raa

Rf

Tiaf

J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

to remain there a long time. And speak to many peoplefrom many levels, and so on. It depends on the researchproblem, of course, but that in itself is a lot of work. Andif you then combine two labour intensive projects, orresearch methods in a sense – a single individual can’tdo that very easily.”

his cost-conscious production of research output bringss to the second key pattern that emerged from our field

nsight into “paradigmatic economics”. Research is directedowards reward-maximizing, risk-averse publication inefereed journals. All of the interviewed scholars perceivedhe publication process as a major obstacle to the applica-ion of MT. It is difficult to compress different methods intohe space of a single article. And this did not necessarily

ake sense: “Why would you do it, if you can produce thatame publication with less effort?”, researcher D asked.ur interviewees complained that referees are not very

eceptive to the combination of different methods. On this,esearcher C had the following to say about the risks ofpplying interpretive methods and about the paradigmaticelection that prevails in scientific publications:

“In practice I have noticed a difference. . .That usuallythose researchers who do quantitative research, theyperhaps do not respect qualitative research that much.Perhaps because they do not understand that methodprofoundly. So, in a piece of research where you haveapplied more quantitative [methods], so under that lit-erature it is difficult to get qualitative things accepted –because the referees come from that quantitative side.And they knock-out, in a sense, first that methodologyand not the topic itself.”

esearcher G, in the same vein, emphasized that narrownd paradigmatically institutionalized publishing practicesre not favorable to experimentation:

“I have had a bit of the view that if you employ very dif-ferent methods, you should have done that in your Ph.D.A feature of double-refereed scientific articles is, maybe,that they are very narrow in their concentration. . .AndI doubt whether it [MT] would have, in most cases, anychances. We have to investigate things which, in a sense,become published.”

esearcher B added how the mobilization of MT may, inact, send a wrong signal:

“It [MT] depends of course on how you have been usingit. That if you do some superficial case-study and addit to quantitative data, then you may get the idea that“Well. . .was that quantitative analysis not sufficient fora publication?” Or why do you need this short case studyor 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 – weakerthan if you had done it separately – so that deserves notto be published.”

he interviewed researchers also provided some additionalnsight into how MT is perceived from the perspective ofcademic incentives, when “paradigmatic economics” wasollowed. Researcher G started by explaining how impor-

ng Research 21 (2010) 130–141 137

tant it was to publish quickly within a paradigmaticallycalibrated “normalizing system”:

“And increasingly, of course, you should publishquickly. . .You should not get bogged down explainingunconventional choices. This is still a very normalizingsystem. And I don’t know who holds such scientific ide-als that you would start doing something that others donot expect. . .Perhaps you do not have the motivation tostart thinking about any possible departures from thenorm. At least not in this phase. Perhaps in a tenuredposition then. . .”

S/he continued about how numbers count in rewarding theproduction of publications, and about the strong guidancethat incentive systems exert – in the meritocratic academiccontext where “management by numbers” is increasinglycommon. It was rational to concentrate on one method,maximizing the total number of publications:

“And on the other hand, if you can choose. . .Do youpublish in our current system – where they constantlywatch over how much you publish. And if you don’tpublish they start speaking about what are you actuallydoing here? I mean, if you can choose between publish-ing one story or publishing two stories, how would youchoose? There it is actually. Because even in the pay-system, these days, you must list – when they defineacademic compensations – how many publications youhave got. And it seems it is not that important wherethey 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 I’m on this hermeneutic path.That I do believe in the effects of these incentives verystrongly! That what kinds of incentive systems are beingmade, that kind of results you get.”

Against this background of “paradigmatic economics”and “methodological identity”, the interviewed schol-ars expressed reservations about the future of MT. Onthe level of scientific action, the established paradigmsseemed to prevail. But talk about inter-paradigmatic ide-als would continue. In what follows, we illustrate thisbriefly.

5.5. The future of method triangulation in managementaccounting research

Taken together, the interviewees were cautious in pre-dicting the future of MT. They acknowledged that MT hasbeen much discussed recently in management account-ing research. But they remained skeptical about its futureapplicability in the prevailing paradigmatic conditions. Fiveof the eight researchers did not believe in a wider applica-tion of MT in the near future. Two researchers took a moreoptimistic view. Researcher C underlined that the “newgeneration” of management accounting scholars takes a

more open position about combining different methods.Researcher A observed that MT has become more widelyapplied especially in Ph.D. work, continuing:

“Attitudes, on the other hand, have become more lib-eral. More has been published about it [MT]. We have

Account

fieldwork skills instead of refining our statistical capabili-ties. With this focus, we move ahead to conduct empiricalwork. Without confusing philosophical conjectures andperhaps agonizing Weltschmerz, we can proceed to research

138 J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

examples of such research. . .It is getting more popu-lar. Maybe the controversy has eased off a bit. Or it hasactually eased off. On the other hand, it could perhapsbe that traditional ‘mainstream’ research maybe startsto accept case based interpretive research. If it contains,one could say, some kind of hard quantitative data. Thatit could also act as some kind of bridge towards that[mainstream quantitative research].”

However, researcher B for instance pointed out that MTremains an ideal at the level of scholarly reflection, but thisresearcher had reservations vis-à-vis its wider mobilizationin the future:

“I don’t see that it will be getting significantly morepopular. In a way, there is a view that maybe there isan emerging idea that both of these directions couldbe applied. . .their strengths. And get research designswhere they would be formulated in an appealing way.But it sure is modest that popularity. And then, if youlook at publications, you cannot see any massive pop-ularity. That clearly these combinations – in whateverform – they are a small part of all research projects.”

The reasons behind this skepticism were often associatedwith the publication of studies which have applied MT.Researcher G provided a final illustrative comment on this– distinguishing between the academic talk and the aca-demic action around MT:

“It has been discussed. Attitudes are open – at least onthe level of talk. But then you should always distin-guish between talk and action. . .That we have not seenawfully many publications. But maybe you hear suchrumors that these publications [using MT] have beenshot down. Or the authors have been asked to split themin two [parts].”

6. Discussion and conclusions

6.1. What do “paradigms” actually suggest?

It should first be pointed out that the interpre-tive/subjectivist and positivist/objectivist methodologicalparadigms in management accounting research are notthe kind of paradigms that Thomas Kuhn discussed inhis seminal work (Kuhn, 1970). In the Kuhnian perspec-tive, paradigms guide normal science until anomalies leadto a “scientific revolution”. It is questionable, however,whether such normal science exists in the managementaccounting domain, and whether our fragmented field stillremains in a pre-paradigmatic phase in a strict Kuhniansense (see Vollmer, 2009). However, in our reasoning,we would not embrace this view. After all, since Kuhn’sfirst writings in 1962, “paradigms” have been used with

a variety of meanings. In general, they mean a domi-nant mindset that normalizes research activity. Hence, weagree with the foundations of the Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al.(2008a) argument: We have subjectivist and objectivist,or interpretive and positivist, “research approaches” inmanagement accounting. These can be conceived as two

ing Research 21 (2010) 130–141

different research paradigms5 (see Vollmer, 2009; Lockeand Lowe, 2008).

In contrast to the philosophically oriented examina-tion of Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a), the insights fromour field study prompt us to reflect further about whatthese two “paradigms” actually mean in managementaccounting research. In this study, when scholars revealedtheir experiences about method triangulation and spokeabout paradigmatic demarcation lines, it appeared thatparadigms are more than philosophically informed, well-reflected and logically consistent intellectual constructions– which are built on a solid philosophical knowledge baseand become embraced by a researcher in a situation of gen-uine choice. To the researchers interviewed in this studyparadigms appeared in a different light.

What was observed about “methodological identity”suggests that a “paradigm” is a socio-political and rhetor-ical device. Instead of being chosen after meticulousevaluation, it becomes adopted for pragmatic reasons(see Arrington and Schweiker, 1992). For the individ-ual scholar, choosing a paradigm is not primarily aphilosophical exercise. Hence, the “paradigm” may exag-gerate some ontological and epistemological features –as proposed by Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. (2008a,b). It maycontain self-contradictory elements, thin methodologi-cal reasoning and “stylized” propositions. But insteadof “deciding” in favor of a robust philosophical assem-blage, the scholar adopts, in a rather haphazard way,something that promises professional opportunities. This“decision” should not be confused with a philosophicallyinformed choice. For the junior scholar, the paradigm isusually the only available option at hand that holds someappeal.

And our field insights also suggest that instead ofphilosophical consistency, this appeal has more to dowith the pragmatic side of research traditions. First, theparadigm provides a framework for professional growth,a “methodological identity” that serves as a mechanismof rationalization in the social processes where scien-tific knowledge is produced. The paradigm means orderand a secure socio-political position. It gives us epis-temic authority and regulates our interaction. It servesas a basis of self-identification, and signals with whomwe stand as junior academics (see Lamont and Molnár,2002; Gendron, 2008). It reduces ambiguity and providesa socially maintained “cognitive comfort zone” – whereperplexing questions of ontology and epistemology canbe avoided. The paradigm also offers legitimate researchmethods in the form of a narrow, but practical repertoire.Typically, in the interpretive tradition, we concentrate on

5 We agree with Vollmer (2009) on the claim that managementaccounting “hosts a multiplicity of paradigms”. In our view, this mul-tiplicity is reduced when we raise our level of abstraction and take amore distanced view. The variety of paradigms in management account-ing research can be broadly categorized into the positivist and interpretiveparadigms, or be conceived as a continuum with these extreme ends.

Accounti

ap

tamudteafmtpiSaapsr

6

ttpmitni

wcmclTcbtdw6

btcim“tTep“i

J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

ction, go into the field, enjoy scientific fellowship, and takeart in academic discussions.

But in addition to this early philosophical “shortcut”,he paradigm also facilitates the theoretical task. It gives

basis for evaluating an often unorganized and frag-ented stock of knowledge. The paradigm, it appears to

s, provides the perhaps questionable rationalizations andubious stigmas which we need to be able to ignore theheoretical pronouncements of competing paradigms (see.g. Caldwell, 1982, pp. 71–74). As emerging profession-ls, we make more rapid progress with this discriminatingocus. Instead of roaming vast theoretical terrains, the

anagement accounting scholar identifies the niche inhe theoretical landscape, where a novel argument can beroduced. The paradigm limits which questions are mean-

ngful and how they should be addressed (Arrington andchweiker, 1992). It is a tool for valorizing some voicesnd for silencing others (Lamont and Molnár, 2002, seelso Astley, 1985). By not problematizing the paradigm’shilosophical and methodological foundations, the juniorcholar is ready for scientific advancement, through certainites of passage (see Panozzo, 1997).

.2. Why paradigmatic rigidity persists?

Besides the early adoption of a “methodological iden-ity”, our field work illustrates the paradigm’s grip onhe individual researcher’s later orientation. This insightrovides a perspective on the limited popularity ofethod triangulation and may explain paradigmatic rigid-

ty in interpretive management accounting research. Here,he empirical illustrations are about “paradigmatic eco-omics”. Paradigmatic rigidity appears to be foremost an

ssue of economy – rather than a matter of philosophy.In our view, the interpretive paradigm is tightly coupled

ith the production of scientific output and the pragmaticoncerns of the self-interested scholar. Within a paradig-atic context, the scholar makes a fixed investment into

ertain research methods. The paradigm provides techno-ogical ease and predictability, at a tolerable level of risk.he relationship between research action (input) and itsonsequences (output) can be mapped and managed. Inrief, the researcher in the interpretive genre learns howo transform especially field interviews and other field evi-ence efficiently into theoretically intriguing argumentshich are likely to be published (see Pfeffer, 1993, pp.

02–607).We suggest that this productive specialization almost

egs for scale and standardization. With repetitive actionhe scholar will be able to leverage the substantial initialost. Moreover, the more mature scholar is unwilling tonvest more into the productive apparatus of new research

ethods, as this may not add enough value to his/hercustomers” – to the editors and the referees, who arehe paradigmatically constrained gatekeepers of science.

hese additional costs may in fact increase the “academicntrepreneur’s” risk in this industry, as our intervieweesointed out. As the individual scholar may not be able tosell” method-triangulated output, MT, at the level of anndividual researcher can be risky experimentation.

ng Research 21 (2010) 130–141 139

However, it has to be underlined that paradigmaticrigidity, and the economies that go with it, are sustainedby multiple forces. A shared paradigm – and the researchmethods that come with it – provide a common rhetoricand fixed discursive practices (Arrington and Schweiker,1992). In interpretive management accounting research,for example, the paradigm facilitates communication andan extensive academic network. This often means shorterreview times, prolific scientific output and a coherent aca-demic reputation; i.e., “good scholarship” which finallymaterializes into the form of various rewards, especiallytenure.

6.3. Method triangulation as talk – rather than action

But if both “methodological identity” and “paradigmaticeconomics” seem to work against method triangula-tion, why are both method triangulation and the easingof paradigmatic tension being discussed together sofrequently? Here, we would underline the distinctionbetween ideas and actions: what can be said cannot alwaysbe done. Also in scientific work it is not easy to trans-form ideas into actions (Brunsson, 1993). As interpretiveaccounting scholars, we are receptive to détente betweenthe interpretive and the positivist paradigms. And wesee method triangulation as a key way for realizing this.Furthermore, these ideas, if broadly accepted, have thepotential to produce a more unified body of knowledge.In short, management accounting phenomena would bebetter understood if competing paradigms overcame theirdivides, and if multiple research methods could be applied.

As accounting academics, we wish to improve ourdomain. Détente between the interpretive and the posi-tivist paradigms in general, and the mobilization of methodtriangulation in particular, are ways to express more ele-vated aspirations. We need to talk about these ideas,because they portray us as researchers who are concernedby progress and the common good. But when we tryturn these ideas into actions we soon discover some ofthe constraints which surfaced in our study. We can becritical of paradigms, while silently cherishing the clarityand security they guarantee for our “methodological iden-tity”. We can even dismiss paradigms, but tacitly follow“paradigmatic economics” in our scientific work. And wecan recognize method triangulation as a way of enhancingvalidity (Modell, 2009, 2005), but as practicing researcherswe usually avoid it – at least at the level of a single studyor publication.

6.4. Method triangulation – as less talk and more action

The concluding step in our reasoning is to ask whatmight be done to transform talk on method trian-gulation and paradigmatic détente into real action. Tobegin with, we wish to acknowledge that we are notyet convinced that paradigmatic convergence is self-

evidently synonymous with scientific progress. Easingtension between competing paradigms may result in bettercommunication and co-operation, but it may also produceunintended consequences. Uniformity and standardizationcould lead us into a monocentric research environment

Account

140 J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

where the positivist/objectivist tradition reigns supreme(see Hopwood, 2008). In our view, it is important to rec-ognize fully the “political” character of détente, and askwhether method triangulation really makes interpretivemanagement accounting research stronger, preserving itsoriginality, especially vis-à-vis the North American main-stream.

Besides these reservations, we want to emphasize threespecific points. First, we cannot see method triangulationtaking place at the level of a junior researcher’s single pub-lication. However, in her/his doctoral work she/he couldpresent a collection of co-authored papers around a topicwith qualitative papers standing alongside, for instance,survey-based or experimental research. Hence, methodtriangulation could be part of the young scholar’s earlyeducation and the construction of her/his “methodologi-cal identity” – perhaps within a doctoral research programwhich exposes the junior scholar to a variety of researchtraditions. Second, we see more senior researchers pro-ducing complementary publications. For example, expertsin “depth” could collaborate with experts in “breadth”.Here, the real synergies between qualitative case meth-ods and survey-based statistical methods can be realized.But personal meritocratic gain needs to be present in thesecross-paradigmatic efforts, to create a genuine “win-win”-situation. This leads us to our third point. We see methodtriangulation as a policy issue which needs to be addressedby key institutional actors – notably deans, heads of aca-demic departments and journal editors. We have discussed“paradigmatic economics”. Deans play a key role in estab-lishing evaluation processes and incentives which couldreward method-triangulated work. And journal editors onboth sides of the Atlantic could model themselves as tol-erant Renaissance potentates, inviting papers around acommon theme, bringing together a diverse set of perspec-tives, mobilizing different methods from both the positivistand the interpretive paradigms.

We wish to conclude by suggesting that paradigmaticdétente and method triangulation could be transformedinto real academic action if these notions are accepted onboth sides of the paradigmatic divide – with a necessarysymmetry. Here we point especially to North Americanpublishing practices. They remain unreceptive towardsthe interpretive genre. Hence, we would welcome betteropportunities for publication of interpretive and particu-larly mixed methods research, notably in the U.S. It wouldbe regrettable if paradigmatic convergence and methodtriangulation led us finally to a state where interpretiveresearch is considered scientifically legitimate, at the levelof a single study, but only in combination with otherresearch methods. This would marginalize interpretivework, and produce a body of knowledge which is increas-ingly self-referential and isolated – i.e., detached from themanagement accounting which is practiced in contempo-rary organizations.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the comments of ThomasAhrens, Franco Amigoni, Sasson Bar-Yosef, Ariela Caglio,Chris Chapman, Albrecht Becker, Andrea Dossi, Seppo

ing Research 21 (2010) 130–141

Ikäheimo, Katja Kolehmainen, Taru Lehtonen, Kari Lukka,Sven Modell, Mikko Sandelin and Robert Scapens, as wellas the encouraging remarks of the participants of theEIASM 6th Conference on New Directions in ManagementAccounting Research (Brussels; December 2008).

Appendix A. Interview themes

(1) Do you have experience about combining differentresearch 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 trian-

gulation] be suitable?→ Why?

(7) What benefits do you pursue or could pursue by com-bining different methods?

(8) Have the benefits been realized?(9) Can you mention an example where the combination

of different methods would have been particularlyuseful?

(10) Does the combination of methods produce real value-added in research in your opinion?

→ Why/why not?(11) What could in your opinion be such typical problems

of case- or field-research that could become alleviatedwith 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 managementaccounting 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 applyingmethod triangulation?

Appendix B. The interviewed scholars

The University of Jyväskylä

(1) Professor Marko Järvenpää, 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 Järvinen, 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

Accounti

(

((

R

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

Vollmer, H., 2009. Management accounting as normal science. Accounting,

J. Vaivio, A. Sirén / Management

6) Acting Professor Esa Puolamäki, 10.5.2007, 40 min.

University XX (confidential)

7) N.N. 16.4.2007, 1 h 5 min.8) N.N. 16.4.2007, 48 min.

eferences

bdel-Khalik, A., Ajinkya, B., 1983. An evaluation of “the everyday accoun-tant and researching his reality”. Accounting, Organizations andSociety 8 (4), 375–384.

bernethy, M., Chua, W.F., Luckett, P., Selto, F., 1999. Research in manage-rial accounting: learning from others’ experiences. Accounting andFinance 39, 1–27.

hrens, T., 2008. Overcoming the subjective–objective divide in interpre-tive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations andSociety 33 (2/3), 292–297.

hrens, T., Chapman, C., 2006. Doing qualitative field research inmanagement accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory.Accounting, Organizations and Society 31, 819–841.

hrens, 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 interpre-tive accounting research—a polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectiveson Accounting 19 (6), 840–866.

rmstrong, P., 2008. Calling out for more: comment on the future of inter-pretive accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19(6), 867–879.

rnold, V., 2006. Behavioral research opportunities: understanding theimpact of enterprise systems. International Journal of AccountingInformation Systems 7, 7–17.

rrington, C.E., Schweiker, W., 1992. The rhetoric and rationality ofaccounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (6),511–533.

stley, W., 1985. Administrative science as socially constructed truth.Administrative Science Quarterly 30, 497–513.

axter, J., Boedker, C., Chua, W.F., 2008. The future(s) of interpre-tive accounting research—a polyphonic response from beyond themetropolis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 19 (6), 880–886.

irnberg, J., Shields, M., Young, S., 1990. The case for multiple methodsin empirical management accounting research (with an illustrationfrom budget setting). Journal of Management Accounting Research 2(Fall), 33–66.

rown, R., Brignall, S., 2007. Reflections on the use of a dual-methodologyresearch design to evaluate accounting and management practice inUK university central administrative services. Management Account-ing Research 18, 32–48.

runsson, N., 1993. Ideas and actions: justification and hypocricy asalternatives to control. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (6),489–506.

ryman, A., 2006. Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. Inter-national Journal of Social Research Methodology 9 (2), 111–126.

urrell, G., Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological Paradigms and OrganizationalAnalysis. Heinemann, London.

aldwell, B., 1982. Beyond Positivism—Economic Methodology in theTwentieth Century. George Allen & Unwin, London.

ooper, D., 1983. Tidiness, muddle and things: commonalities and diver-gencies in two approaches to management accounting research.Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (2/3), 269–286.

avila, T., Oyon, D., 2008. Cross-paradigm collaboration and the advance-ment of management accounting knowledge. Critical Perspectives onAccounting 19 (6), 887–893.

ent, J., 1991. Accounting and organizational cultures: a field study of theemergence of a new organizational reality. Accounting, Organizationsand Society 16, 693–703.

ng Research 21 (2010) 130–141 141

Erzberg, C., Prein, G., 1997. Triangulation: validity and empirically basedhypotheses construction. Quality & Quantity 31, 141–154.

Fleetwood, S., 2004. An ontology for organisation and management stud-ies. In: Fleetwood, S., Ackroyd, S. (Eds.), Critical Realist Applications inOrganisation and Management Studies. Routledge, London.

Ferreira, L., Merchant, K., 1992. Field research in management account-ing and control: a review and evaluation. Accounting, Auditing andAccountability Journal 5 (4), 3–34.

Gendron, Y., 2008. Constituting the academic performer: the spectreof superficiality and stagnation in academia. European AccountingReview 17 (1), 97–127.

Hopper, T., Hoque, Z., 2006. Triangulation approaches to accountingresearch. In: Methodological Issues in Accounting Research—Theories,Methods and Issues. Spiramus, London.

Hopwood, A., 2008. Changing pressures on the research process: on try-ing to research in an age when curiosity is not enough. EuropeanAccounting Review 17 (1), 87–96.

Jick, T., 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulationin action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 602–611.

Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., Kuorikoski, J., 2008a. Straddlingbetween paradigms: a naturalistic philosophical case study oninterpretive research in management accounting. Accounting, Orga-nizations and Society 33 (2/3), 267–291.

Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., Kuorikoski, J., 2008b. No prematureclosure of debates, please: a response to Ahrens. Accounting, Organi-zations and Society 33 (2/3), 298–301.

Kuhn, T., 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second ed. Univer-sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lamont, M., Molnár, V., 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sci-ences. Annual Review of Sociology 28, 167–195.

Locke, J., Lowe, A., 2008. Evidence and implications of multiple paradigmsin accounting knowledge production. European Accounting Review17 (1), 161–191.

Modell, S., 2009. In defence of triangulation: a critical realist approachto mixed methods research in management accounting. ManagementAccounting Research 20, 208–221.

Modell, S., 2007. Mixed methods research in management account-ing: opportunities and obstacles. In: Total Quality in AcademicAccounting—Essays in Honour of Kari Lukka. Turku School of Eco-nomics, pp. 195–213 (Series C 3).

Modell, S., 2005. Triangulation between case study and survey methodsin management accounting research: an assessment of validity impli-cations. Management Accounting Research 16, 231–254.

Morgan, G., 1983. Social science and accounting research: a commentaryon Tomkins and Groves. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (4),385–388.

Patton, M., 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, seconded. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Panozzo, F., 1997. The making of the good academic accountant. Account-ing, Organizations and Society 22 (5), 447–480.

Pfeffer, J., 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science:paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Man-agement Review 18 (4), 599–620.

Scapens, R., 2008. Seeking the relevance of interpretive research: a contri-bution to the polyphonic debate. Critical Perspectives on Accounting19 (6), 915–919.

Tomkins, C., Groves, R., 1983. The everyday accountant and researchinghis reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (4), 361–374.

Vaivio, J., 2008. Qualitative management accounting research: rationale,pitfalls and potential. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Manage-ment 5 (1), 64–86.

Organizations and Society 34, 141–150.Willmott, H., 1983. Paradigms for accounting research: critical reflections

on Tomkins and Groves’ “everyday accountant and research-ing his reality”. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8 (4),389–405.