Position paper: Defeating the ‘paradigm wars’ in accounting: A mixed-methods approach is needed in the education of PhD scholars

References

• Anderson, S., & Widener, S. (2007). Doing quantitative field research in management accounting. In C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research (Vol. 1, pp. 319–341). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (1998). Critical realism: Essential readings. London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bak, O. (2011). The role of qualitative research in a mixed methods study. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 76–84.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, C., & Bettner, M. (1997). Interpretive and critical research in accounting: A commentary on its absence from mainstream accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 8(4), 293–310.
   Google Scholar
• Bhasker, R. (1978). A realist theory of science (2nd ed.). Brighton, England: Harvester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bhasker, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism. Sussex, England: Harvester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bhasker, R. (1989). Reclaiming reality. London, England: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Bisman, J. (2002). The critical realist paradigm as an approach to research in accounting, Accounting Association of Australian and New Zealand Annual Conference, Perth, Australia, July.
   Google Scholar
• Bisman, J. (2010). Postpositivism and accounting research: A (personal) primer on critical realism. Australian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 4(4), 3–25.
   Google Scholar
• Blaikie, N. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality and Quantity, 25, 115–136.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, R., Gasper, P., & Trout, J. (Eds.). (1991). The philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 111–126.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 8–22.
   Google Scholar
• Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London, England: Heinemann Educational.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, R. (2011). Mixed methods in business and management: A call to the ‘first generation’. Journal of Management and Organization, 17(2), 245–267.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, R., & Molina-Azorin, J. (2011a). The acceptance of mixed methods in business and management research. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 19(3), 256–270.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, R., & Molina-Azorin, J. (2011b). Editorial: Mixed methods research in business and management. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5(3), 286–289. Retrieved from http://mra.e-contentmanagement.com/archives/vol/5/issue/3/article/4474/mixed-methods-research-in-business-and-management.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
   Google Scholar
• Churchland, P. (1979). Scientific realism and the plasticity of mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Loo, I., & Lowe, A. (2011). Mixed methods research: Don’t – ‘just do it’. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), 22–38.
   Google Scholar
• De Silva, T.-A. (2011). Mixed methods: A reflection of its adoption in environmental reporting. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), 91–104.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York, NY: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 19, 118–128.
   Google Scholar
• Fleetwood, S. (1999). Situating critical realism in economics. In S. Fleetwood (Ed.), Critical realism in economics (pp. 127–135). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Golicic, S., & Davis, D. (2012). Implementing mixed methods research in supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), 726–741.
   Google Scholar
• Grafton, J., Lillis, A., & Mahama, H. (2011). Mixed methods research in accounting. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), 5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 195–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, R. (2013). Using mixed methods designs in the Journal of Business Research, 1990–2010. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2153–2162.
   Google Scholar
• Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 118–126.
   Google Scholar
• Hines, R. (1988). Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(3), 251–261.
   Google Scholar
• Hodgkinson, G., & Rousseau, D. (2009). Bridging the rigour – relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534–546.
   Google Scholar
• Hopwood, A. (2008). Management accounting research in a changing world. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 20, 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt, S. (1991). Modern marketing theory. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.
   Google Scholar
• Husey, J., & Husey, R. (1997). Business research. London, England: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.
   Google Scholar
• Jogulu, U., & Pansiri, J. (2011). Mixed methods: A research design for management doctoral dissertations. Management Research Review, 34(6), 687–701.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
   Google Scholar
• Kiessling, T., & Harvey, M. (2005). Strategic global human resource management research in the twentyfirst century: An endorsement of the mixed-method research methodology. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 22–45.
   Google Scholar
• Klaes, M. (2012). Paradigm ‘wars’ as methodenstreit. Methodology of management studies meets economic methodology. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(1), 13–24.
   Google Scholar
• Krauss, S. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758–770.
   Google Scholar
• Krivokapic-Skoko, B., & O’Neill, G. (2011). Beyond the qualitative-quantitative distinction: Some innovative methods for business and management research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5(3), 290–300. doi: 10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.290
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lillis, A., & Mundy, J. (2005). Cross-sectional field studies in management accounting research – closing the gap between surveys and case studies. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 17, 119–141.
   Google Scholar
• Llewellyn, S. (2007). Case studies and differentiated realities. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 4, 53–68.
   Google Scholar
• Lukka, K. (2010). The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21, 110–115.
   Google Scholar
• Malina, M., Norreklit, H., & Selto, F. (2011). Lessons learned: Advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), 59–71.
   Google Scholar
• Malmi, T. (2010). Reflections on paradigms in action in accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21, 121–123.
   Google Scholar
• Manicas, P., & Secord, P. (1982). Implications for psychology of the new philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 38, 390–413.
   Google Scholar
• Merchant, K. (2010). Paradigms in accounting research: A view from North America. Management Accounting Research, 21, 116–120.
   Google Scholar
• Mingers, J. (2004). Real-izing information systems: Critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information and Organization, 14(2), 87–103.
   Google Scholar
• Modell, S. (2005). Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting research: An assessment of validity implications. Management Accounting Research, 16, 231–254.
   Google Scholar
• Modell, S. (2009). In defence of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20, 208–221.
   Google Scholar
• Modell, S. (2010). Bridging the paradigm divide in management accounting research: The role of mixed methods approaches. Management Accounting Research, 21, 124–129.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, L., & Maguire, W. (2011). Applying mixed methods research in evaluation clinical trials. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), 72–90.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, L., Kramar, R., & Dyball, M. (2013). Complementing a positivist approach to investment analysis with critical realism. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 5(1), 6–25.
   Google Scholar
• Perry, C., Alizadeh, Y., & Riege, A. (1997, September 21–23). Qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research. In Proceedings of the annual conference of the small enterprise association Australia and New Zealand (pp. 547–567). Coffs Harbour, NSW: Southern Cross University.
   Google Scholar
• Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd ed.). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Schwandt, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Schwandt, T. (2006). Opposition redirected. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 803–810.
   Google Scholar
• Steinmetz, G. (1998). Critical realism and historical sociology. A review article. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 40(1), 170–186.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.
   Google Scholar
• von der Heidt, T. (2011). Informing regulatory reform in Australian industry through mixed research: A post-hoc evaluation of research design. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5(3), 301–317. doi: 10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.301
   Google Scholar
• Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., & Barrett, M. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 855–879.
   Google Scholar