In defence of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting
Introduction
Mixed methods research, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, has a long history in management accounting (e.g., Hopwood, 1973, Otley, 1978) and has recently attracted increasing attention (Anderson and Widener, 2007, Brown and Brignall, 2007, Hopper and Hoque, 2006, Lillis and Mundy, 2005, Modell, 2005, Modell, 2007). Although the majority of this research tends to be classified into the functionalist paradigm, there is evidence of growing interest in combining theories and methods generally associated with different paradigms (Brown and Brignall, 2007, Hopper and Hoque, 2006, Modell, 2005). Recent debates on qualitative management accounting research also suggest that such paradigm-straddling approaches, combining elements of the functionalist and interpretive paradigms, are indeed more widespread and perhaps accepted than previously recognized (Ahrens, 2008, Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al., 2008a, Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al., 2008b). At the same time, however, there are growing concerns with the lack of recognition and communication across these paradigms resulting from the fragmentation and polarization of accounting academia (e.g., Ahrens et al., 2008, Hopwood, 2007, Hopwood, 2008, Khalifa and Quattrone, 2008, Reiter and Williams, 2002). This suggests that, however desirable from the point of view of furthering our understanding of management accounting (cf. Gioia and Pitre, 1990), there may be considerable barriers to combining different paradigms in actual research practice.
The tensions associated with straddling between paradigms are readily observable when one considers the issue of triangulation between theories and methods rooted in different paradigms. While triangulation is generally seen as a vital validation technique in mixed methods research (Brewer and Hunter, 1989, Erzberger and Kelle, 2003, Erzberger and Prein, 1997), some scepticism of such practices has emerged in the management accounting literature. The notion of triangulation originates in positioning geometry, where one's position in space is determined in relation to some stable and objectively verifiable reference points. Several authors have questioned the usefulness of this metaphor as a means of more ‘accurate’ positioning of research findings where reality is seen as changeable and socially constructed (Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, Llewellyn, 2007, Tomkins and Groves, 1983a, Tomkins and Groves, 1983b). Similar criticisms have been raised in the wider mixed methods literature in the social sciences and suggest that triangulation is not a legitimate validation technique where research straddles between the functionalist and interpretive paradigms (e.g., Blaikie, 1991, Blaikie, 2000).
These philosophically tuned criticisms of triangulation have not yet been satisfactorily addressed by advocates of mixed methods research in management accounting. Discussions of such research have either tended to be mute about its philosophical underpinnings (but see Brown and Brignall (2007) for an exception) or premised on the assumption that the choice of theories and methods may be emancipated from their ontological and epistemological roots (Modell, 2005). This neglect of the philosophical foundations of triangulation is potentially detrimental to the status of mixed methods research in management accounting as it may lead opponents of such research to reject it as excessively eclectic or resting on inconsistent philosophical assumptions (Modell, 2007).
This paper addresses this problem by advancing a critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Critical realism has recently been advocated as a potential way of bridging the polarized positions of the functionalist and interpretive paradigms in organization and management studies (e.g., Ackroyd and Fleetwood, 2000, Fleetwood, 2004, Fleetwood, 2005, Reed, 2005a, Sayer, 2004) and has gradually found its way into the mixed methods literature in management accounting (e.g., Brown and Brignall, 2007). A key premise in this regard is that critical realism, unlike more ‘naïve’ forms of empirical realism,1 accepts the existence of some reasonably stable and mind-independent reality but rejects the possibility of verifying research findings in any absolute or ‘objective’ sense. This position partly mirrors the criticisms of triangulation outlined above and underlines the potential usefulness of critical realism for dealing with these. However, critical realism has not yet been systematically applied to examine how a modified notion of triangulation may be advanced in mixed methods research in management accounting.
The remainder of the paper and my over-riding line of argument are structured as follows. Given the often ill-specified meanings attributed to triangulation, I start by briefly reviewing the use of this concept in functionalist management accounting research and elaborate on the target of criticism in Section 2. I also examine how mixed methods researchers subscribing to pragmatist lines of thought have responded to these criticisms before advancing a critical realist approach to triangulation in Section 3. While there is some resemblance between these pragmatist and critical realist approaches, I argue that the latter provides a more clearly articulated foundation for modifying the notion of triangulation in response to objections to its use in mixed methods research straddling between the functionalist and interpretive paradigms. This modified notion of triangulation rests heavily on abductive reasoning as a means of deriving theoretically informed explanations while preserving researchers’ sensitivity to variations in situated meanings. To illustrate how such a notion of triangulation may be applied in practice, I review two management accounting studies in Section 4 (Covaleski and Dirsmith, 1983, Hoque and Hopper, 1994, Hoque and Hopper, 1997). My analysis of these studies raises the issue of whether some mixed methods research in management accounting is indeed more consistent with critical realism than hitherto recognized. This forms the stepping-stone for discussing the conclusions and implications for future research in Section 5.
Section snippets
The conventional logic of triangulation
The notion of triangulation in the social sciences is generally used in a less literal sense than in its original application in such fields as navigation and land surveying. Early articulations of this metaphor in the social sciences conceptualized it as the mixing of multiple theories, methods, data sources and/or researchers with the aim of enhancing the validity of research findings (e.g., Denzin, 1978, Jick, 1979). The emphasis was here on reducing bias by integrating theories, methods,
Ontological and epistemological underpinnings
Similar to the pragmatist position outlined above, critical realism rejects the possibility of ‘naïve’ realism, pivoting on the existence of a singular, objective world, which is readily observable and made knowable without being ‘filtered’ through the theories employed by researchers. Critical realism partly evolved as a critique of the possibilities of such a position, notably manifest in the use of natural science procedures in the social sciences (see e.g., Bhaskar, 1979). Although it
Empirical examples
To illustrate how evidence of the modified notion to triangulation outlined in the foregoing may be manifest in mixed methods research straddling between the functionalist and interpretive paradigms two empirical studies were selected for deeper analysis (Covaleski and Dirsmith, 1983, Hoque and Hopper, 1994, Hoque and Hopper, 1997). While neither of these studies explicitly mobilized critical realism, my ex post facto reading of them suggests that the reported research practices were largely
Conclusions
This paper has explicated how the notion of triangulation may be refined in response ontological and epistemological criticisms of it in management accounting research, as well as in the wider social sciences. Particular attention has been paid to the alleged propensity of method triangulation to treat empirical observations as objectively verifiable rather than inherently theory-related and to suppress variations in situated meanings. By mobilizing critical realism, I illustrate how these
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Kari Lukka who read and commented on several earlier drafts of this paper and with whom I have discussed many related ideas as part of our ongoing research collaboration. Additional comments by Jane Baxter, Albrecht Becker, Wai Fong Chua, David Emsley, Jonas Gerdin, Markus Granlund, Trevor Hopper, Zahirul Hoque, Sue Llewellyn, Habib Mahama, Jodie Moll, Bob Scapens and Bernhard Wieder are also gratefully acknowledged. Earlier versions of the paper were presented at workshops at
References (107)
Overcoming the subjective-objective divide in interpretive management accounting research
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2008)- et al.
The future of interpretive accounting research—a polyphonic debate
Critical Perspectives on Accounting
(2008) - et al.
Doing qualitative research in management accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2006) - et al.
Alternative management accounting research—whence and whither
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2003) - et al.
Defining management accounting constructs: a methodological note on the risks of conceptual misspecification
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2007) - et al.
Reflections on the use of a dual-methodology research design to evaluate accounting and management practice in UK university central administrative services
Management Accounting Research
(2007) - et al.
Budgets as a means of control and loose coupling
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(1983) - et al.
Rationality, accounting and politics: a case study of management control in a Bangladeshi jute mill
Management Accounting Research
(1994) - et al.
Straddling between paradigms: a naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting
Accounting, Organizations and Society
(2008) - et al.
No premature closures of debates, please: a response to Ahrens
Accounting Organizations and Society
(2008)
Reconsidering the status of tests of significance: an alternative criterion of adequacy
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Institutional rationality and practice variation: new directions in the institutional analysis of practice
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research: an assessment of validity implications
Management Accounting Research
The validity of management control topoi. Towards constructivist pragmatism
Management Accounting Research
The making of good academic accountants
Accounting, Organizations and Society
The structure and progressivity of accounting research: the crisis in the academy revisited
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: critical realism and information systems research
Information and Organization
The everyday accountant and researching his reality
Accounting, Organizations and Society
“The everyday accountant and researching his reality”: further thoughts
Accounting, Organizations and Society
An evaluation of “the everyday accountant and researching his reality”
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Research in managerial accounting: learning from others’ experiences
Accounting and Finance
Methodology for management and organisation studies: some implications of critical realism
Realism in contemporary organisation and management studies
Doing quantitative field research in management accounting
The Social Construction of Society
A Realist Theory of Science
The Possibilities of Naturalism. A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences
Reclaiming Reality. A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy
The case for multiple methods in empirical accounting research (with an illustration from budget setting)
Journal of Management Accounting Research
A critique of the use of triangulation in social research
Quality and Quantity
Designing Social Research
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles
Quantity and Quality in Social Research
Paradigm peace and the implications for quality
International Journal of Social Research Methodology
Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research
Journal of Mixed Methods Research
Business Research Methods
The roles of accounting in organizations and society
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis
You spin me round: the realist turn in organization and management studies
Journal of Management Studies
Dialectical tension, double reflexivity and the everyday accounting researcher: on using qualitative methods
Accounting, Organizations and Society
Managerial accounting research: the contributions of organizational and sociological theories
Journal of Management Accounting Research
Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences
The Research Act. A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods
The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism in organizational fields
American Sociological Review
Retroduction as mixed-methods triangulation in economic research: reorienting economics into social science
Cambridge Journal of Economics
Methodological fit in management field research
Academy of Management Review
Building theories from case study research
Academy of Management Review
Making inferences in mixed methods: the rules of integration
Triangulation: validity and empirically based hypothesis construction
Quality and Quantity
Linking Data: The Articulation of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research
Cited by (174)
Management accountants—A gendered image
2024, Critical Perspectives on AccountingBenefits for the bunker industry in adopting blockchain technology for dispute resolution
2023, Blockchain: Research and ApplicationsRurality and social innovation processes and outcomes: A realist evaluation of rural social enterprise activities
2023, Journal of Rural Studies