Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Raymond S.

Pacaldo MS Accountancy

Discussion Leaders Report on Laughlin (1995) article entitled Empirical Research in

Accounting: Alternative Approaches and a Case for Middle-range Thinking

This descriptive research aimed to add new dimension on the debate of the approaches in

doing empirical research in accounting. It indicated the importance of identifying firstly the level

(e.g. high, medium or low) of the theoretical perspective and methodology to apply, followed by

the introduction of different school of thoughts from key philosophers and ranking the theory,

method and change choices applied and lastly, proposition of another idea of what can be

considered a middle-range thinking which makes the study interesting.

Laughlin accentuate that is of great importance to decide the theory and methodology to

use before jumping into data collection and analysis that biases and exclusions are properly

identified. After it was found out that there was a disconnection between the previous normative

ideas and its applicability in the actual practice, greater understanding in the current accounting

system was needed to create a more suitable one. Yet for him, the explosion of researches

following the conflicting economics and behavioral approaches creates confusion to new entrants

as well as those considered experts as to the importance of researches in accounting. Thus, defining

the lines that the draw the difference between the two attitudes equally important.

Since the research is descriptive, various studies was considered to support the claims of

the author. By contrasting the two-way bipolar continuum of Burrell and Morgan to the five-part

schema of social science continuum, the study created simplified choices of what empirical

researches should be concerned initially. Burrell and Morgans idea was composed of one that

classifies social science concerns from being subjectivists to objectivists and the other with

described nature of the society ranging to sociology of regulation to sociology of radical change.
Five-part schema includes ontology, human nature, nature of society, epistemology, and

methodology. From there, three broad categories of concerns were created, namely: theory,

methodology and change. Theory choice includes concerns towards what perspective about the

world and nature of knowledge to use in the inquiry (ontology and epistemology, respectively).

Methodology option was concerned with the function of the researcher and the manner of

exploration in the phenomenon observed (human nature and methodology, respectively). Change

concerns included the projection of the attitude towards achieving a difference in the society.

The creation of a three-dimensional plane showing the level of the theory, methodology

and change choice to utilize in the research with the introduction of different school of thoughts of

related social sciences field and positioning them in the diagram increased the utility of Laughlins

study as researchers now can have a better idea of doing empirical research in accounting. A

theory, methodology and change can be classified as high, medium, or low level. A high

theoretical perspective assumes that the nature of the world is material, separate from the

perception of humans and generality occurs which was widely researched in the past, and its a

low one if otherwise. A high methodology follows a defined process of inquiry free from the bias

and partiality of the observer, thus if one has freedom to exert its own opinion irrespective of

defined rules then the its a low one. A high change attitude sees everything in the world as

changeable with none worth keeping and a low one otherwise. Accordingly, medium theory,

methodology and change choice stands halfway between their respective high and low and

counterparts. Though the way these philosophies were ranked was controversial since it was done

by profiling the person behind the approach, the purpose to stir a debate based on this can surely

be achieved. He expressly stated that what was important is to express the merit of the chosen

perspective, defend its position and be ready for contradictions.


In totality, Laughlin suggested the following category of study indicating a theory,

methodology and change choice mix based on the introduced philosophies and school of thoughts;

high-high-low, low-low-low, and medium-medium-medium. The first two suggestions were

standing on both extremes in terms of theory and methodology used whereas the last one stands

on the middle which is favored by the author. Well, accounting in a strict sense is not a pure science

where a general pattern or single commonality exists and will not be realized even with the used

of highly defined methodology thus high-high-low mix could be difficult. Same with the low-low-

low choice, since accounting situations were not entirely dependent from each other that

generalizations will not exist thus use only a simple methodology to do the study. Supporting the

claim of the author on the usage of skeletals or solid frameworks in the theory and methodology

of the empirical research that has strategic deployment of change, it is logically sound to follow

this direction of research.

Вам также может понравиться