Samenvatting
Summary Research methods in accounting - Smith
- Instelling
- Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
Samenvatting Research Methods in Accounting, Malcolm Smith hele boek
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 34 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 34 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
9 beoordelingen
Door: RobinHuisman95 • 4 jaar geleden
Door: balen4jesse • 6 jaar geleden
typing up
Door: dickbosman • 7 jaar geleden
Door: MarcoMT8 • 5 jaar geleden
Door: anacarolinacampos • 7 jaar geleden
Door: marcopolo1994 • 6 jaar geleden
Door: dennisboer • 7 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Research methods in accounting – MalcolmSmith
Chapter one: introduction and overview
Accounting researchers have little theory of their own (they rely on economics,
finance, psychology, sociology and organizational behavior as their major
sources); they have no methods of their own (they are all adapted from the
natural and social sciences); and they have few instruments of their own (with
many of these originating in or adapted from the organizational behavior
literature).
Research in accounting is concerned with solving problems, investigating
relationships and building a body of knowledge.
Bennett (1991) identifies four basic levels of research:
- Description: concerned with the collection and reporting of data related to
what is, or was, the case. This would include means and standard
deviations of individual variables, and correlations between pairs of
variables.
- Classification: still descriptive, but easing the reporting process, and
highlighting similarities and clustering through grouping and classifying
(e.g. through the familiar cross-tabulation facility in most basic statistical
packages).
- Explanation: an attempt to make sense of observations by explaining the
relationships observed and attributing causality based on some
appropriate theory.
- Prediction: going beyond the understanding and explaining of the prior
stage, to model observations in a way that allows testable predictions to
be made of unknown events.
Distressed companies = companies that will fail in the short term.
Two major processes of reasoning:
1. Deductive: theory to observation. Starts with the theory and proceeds to
generate specific predictions which follow from its application. The
prediction can be verified, or otherwise, from subsequent observations.
2. Inductive: observation to theory. Starts with specific observations (data)
from which theories can be generated; a generalizable pattern may
emerge from further observations and repeated testing for compliance.
Hawking (1998) notes that generalizations made on the basis of induction
can never be regarded as ‘certain’, since just one contrary instance can
cause them to be overturned.
A strict division of reasoning processes is not always helpful because
interdependencies almost always exist: induction will usually imply some
knowledge of theory in order to select the data to be observed; deduction will be
dependent on the selection of the initial hypotheses for testing.
1
,An interpretive perspective: From an interpretive perspective, human actions are
the result of external influences. These actions have both intentions and
reflections, and take place within a structure of rules which binds the
participants. The task of the researcher goes beyond measurement to developing
an understanding
of the situation. To
do this effectively,
active
participation,
rather than
detached
observation, may
be required. Since
the ‘action’ may
be interpreted
ambiguously
when taken out of
context, this
perspective places
the fundamental
emphasis on the
understanding of
the process.
A critical
perspective: The
critical approach
expands on the
scope of the
interpretive
approach by
focusing on the
ownership of knowledge and the associated social, economic and political
implications. An empirical approach is criticized on the grounds that the research
process is value-laden, and that the acquisition of knowledge provides the
opportunity to oppress those being researched.
Table 1.1 summary of the differences in research assumptions, process and outcomes
associated with each of the three major approaches.
Three alternative approaches (adapted from Connole, 1993)
2
,Kuhn (1970) suggests that researchers are concerned with problem-solving within
a single framework of widely accepted beliefs, values, assumptions and
techniques. This shared framework, or view of the world, he termed a paradigm,
so that a ‘paradigm shift’ corresponds with some revolution where the existing
framework and theories can no longer cope with the volume of disconfirming
evidence (example of a deck of cards).
Four stages of the process necessary to discredit an unwelcome report:
1. Refuse to accept findings on the basis that they could be misinterpreted,
and that a wider and more detailed study is required.
2. Discredit the evidence on the basis that it is inconclusive and the figures
are open to other interpretations, or that the findings are contradictory and
leave important questions unanswered.
3. Undermine the recommendations because they say nothing new, and
provide insufficient information on which to draw valid conclusions.
4. Discredit the researcher by questioning his or her integrity, competence
and methods employed.
Three fundamental criteria exist to judge whether theory fits observation:
- Co-variation: even where no causality exists we would expect the two
variables to move together so that a high degree of correlation exists
between the two variables. Where there is no co-variation it will be difficult
to establish a causal link.
- Cause prior to effect: if a causal link is to be established then the ‘causal
event’ should occur before the ‘effect event’. The sequence of events can
therefore help to establish an explanatory direction.
- Absence of plausible rival hypotheses: the third rule seeks to eliminate
alternative explanations of the events as being implausible. This may only
be possible in the present, because future researchers may develop
competing explanations of the events from a re-analysis of the data.
Researchers should report everything that they did, why they did it and how they
did it. If they have any doubts about any stage of the procedure, then these
should be stated, along with their likely implications and what, if anything, has
been done to overcome these doubts.
Researchers would usually want to address the following:
- Why is this article interesting/important?
- Are the outcomes important?
- What motivates the authors to write this article now?
- What is the research problem/question?
- What theory or theoretical framework underpins the research?
- What are the key motivating literatures on which the study depends?
- Which research method has been chosen?
- How has the sample been selected?
3
, - How have questions of validity been addressed?
- How have the results been analyzed?
- Are the conclusions and recommendations consistent with the findings?
Chapter two: developing the research idea
The typical research sequence (Howard and Sharp, 1983):
1. Identify broad area: narrow the focus from accounting in general to a
stream associated with financial accounting, management accounting,
auditing, accounting education or accounting information systems.
2. Select topic: specification of a sub-area to provide a tighter focus, and one
for which supervision capacity is available, but one which may be modified
in the light of subsequent developments.
3. Decide approach: early thoughts regarding the approach to be adopted will
revolve around the resources available, and in particular access to the
necessary data sources. A detailed specification of research methods to be
adopted must wait until the literature review has been conducted and
theoretical foundations and outline hypotheses have been established.
4. Formulate plan: milestones and targets should be established at the outset
so that it is clear how the research will progress over an extended period.
This is particularly important for part-time researchers who may be
contemplating study over six or seven years. A Gantt chart, or similar, is
very helpful in clarifying the extent of the program of work and the mutual
expectations of those involved, especially if this concerns the relationship
between candidate and supervisor in doctoral work. This plan should
include target conferences where preliminary findings may be presented,
especially where deadlines are important to the candidate. The
commencement period can often cause anxiety because of the perceived
need to make swift progress. It cannot be emphasized enough how
important an extended period of reading is to ensure that effort is not
wasted performing experiments of surveys which subsequently emerge as
being unnecessary of fatally flawed.
5. Collect information: data collection can safely proceed only when we
recognize exactly what we want to know, and for what purpose. The
planning stage should highlight the period over which we want to collect
data; this usually effectively precludes most longitudinal studies, partly
because it takes too long to collect data and partly because of the
increased vulnerability associated with extended site access. We may
require access to commercial databases; if these are an essential
requirement then permissions should be sought immediately.
6. Analyze data: methods of data analysis and software requirements should
be apparent early in the research process.
7. Present findings: preliminary findings will normally be presented at
university workshops and seminars, and then at specialist conferences.
These provide the precursor to publication in the refereed literature, which
may take place before completion of any associated doctoral dissertation.
Publication in the professional literature will bring important findings to the
attention of interested practitioners.
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper Willemyn. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €2,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 52510 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen