Interventionist Research in Accounting

A Methodological Approach

Vicki C. Baard, John Dumay, Vicki Baard

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781138579163
• eBook ISBN: 9781351262620
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Accounting
• Index: Business

This book is the first comprehensive methodological guide for accounting researchers on Interventionist Research (IVR). It provides all the fundamental components needed for understanding what IVR is, and how to plan, design, and conduct legitimate intervention studies, which can endure the scrutiny of institutions and peer review. This text systematically opens the 'black box' of an alternative research paradigm seeking to contribute simultaneously to theory and practice, through direct and collaborative engagement with organisations, practitioners, managers and professionals. It mobilises the production of innovative and theoretically grounded research for academe, and of practical relevance or usefulness and interest to the field of practice.

Interventionist Research in Accounting: A Methodological Approach unpacks current thinking on IVR to forge a confident path ahead for IVR through adopting a forward-thinking approach. This book recognises the remedial potential of IVR to address the research-practice-relevance gap in accounting research and deliberates the challenges of IVR in accounting. It addresses the design, development, and implementation of interventions, critical to solving real-world problems as well as guiding readers in planning the IVR project including budgetary and ethical aspects, utilising suitable research methods and data collection techniques, and establishing validity and reliability. Further, it offers guidance on selecting and managing the research team and recruiting, accessing, and retaining intervention participants; these two components are crucial to creating collaborative relationships required for effective intervention.

This book is a guide serving as a valuable resource for accounting researchers conducting intervention studies, for doctoral and other research students undertaking accounting research, and academics working in universities and business schools or teaching courses in accounting and research methodology.

Part 1
Interventionist Research—Why It Matters and Why You Should Care

1
An Introduction to Interventionist Research

We begin this book by discussing the nature of IVR. Although we recognise that some scholars reading this book may be familiar with or currently undertaking IVR, others may be unfamiliar with or have reservations about this approach as a methodology. IVR is a reliable and valid methodology, but likely any methodology is not without its challenges and risks. Hence, this chapter provides an understanding of IVR’s origins and the governing principles essential to undertaking IVR in today’s world. This understanding includes the output that IVR can produce and the significance of that output to researchers and people in organisations.

We also recognise that IVR is one of many methodological choices for accounting researchers. Therefore, this chapter also addresses the fundamental differences between IVR and other more traditional forms of research. However, rather than argue for IVR as a substitute to more traditional paradigms, we regard it as a contemporary counterpart to positivist and interpretivist methodologies. IVR has great potential to solve real-life problems experienced by people in organisations and of interest to researchers. It also brings meaning and value from an empirical and theoretical perspective to accounting research. IVR is an evolving methodology and given its unique nature, embraces theory as a critical component to delivering theoretically relevant and legitimate research. Hence, in this chapter we also discuss theory, in a general sense, as a critical component of IVR.

The Nature of IVR

IVR is a methodological approach that originated from Kurt Lewin’s (1946, 1947b) notion of a ‘type of action research’ in the social sciences (Baard & Dumay, 2018; Lukka & Vinnari, 2017). In the absence of a definitive definition of IVR, we refer to Dumay and Baard (2017) who define IVR as:

a research methodology based on case study research, whereby researchers involve themselves in working directly with managers in organisations to solve real-world problems by deploying theory for designing and implementing solutions through interventions and analysing the results from both a theoretical and practice perspective.

Intervening is the essence of IVR (e.g., Argyris, 1970; Rothman & Thomas, 1994; Gitlin & Czaja, 2016). Therefore, to enhance our understanding of what IVR is, we must consider what it means to intervene and what constitutes an intervention. Argyris (1970, p. 15) states that “to intervene is to enter into an ongoing system of relationships, to come between or among persons, groups or objects for the purpose of helping them.” Carkhuff (1983, p. 63) defines an intervention as:

both a response and an initiative. It is a response to a situation that defines a need. It is a response to a deficit or what is not present. At the same time, it is an initiative to influence that situation—to fill in what is not present, to transform the deficits into assets. In short, an intervention is an attempt to make a difference.

Fraser et al. (2009) refer to interventions as one or more actions with the purpose of: changing social system behaviours, attitudes, or beliefs; altering social system variables, such as culture, leadership, social structures, policies, etc.; and/or ameliorating real-world problems. Social systems embody individuals, families, peer groups, teams, intergroups, work units, businesses, schools, universities, government agencies, national or multinational corporations, and communities (Bruhn & Rebach, 2007). We follow Argyris’ (1970) interpretation of intergroups as interdependent groups that draw on important resources and interactions to achieve a superordinate goal. Social system actors refer to people inhabiting a social system, for instance, employees; managers; group, intergroup, or team members; accountants, auditors, and other accounting-oriented practitioners; and standard setters and policymakers. We refer to social systems and social system actors throughout this book as a proxy for research participants. Thomas and Rothman (1994) state that the aim of an intervention should be to improve organisational or community life and well-being by developing practices and/or products that are effective in real-life contexts. Inherently, that means involving a coordinated effort of research participants who are experiencing the problem. Mullen (1994, p. 167) concurs, arguing that interventions should result in a social technology that solves a social problem and inspires change in a situation brought about by a social problem.

These definitions of ‘intervening’ and ‘intervention’ have some key features that further inform us about what IVR is. For instance, each demand that researchers physically inhabit a social system in the field to construct an understanding of the situation; this is consistent with Lewin’s governing principle of doing research in the field. Immersion in real-life events is fundamental to IVR (e.g., Merchant, 2012). Additionally, that researchers collaborate with actors in a coordinated effort to focus on a problem or problematic situation is another feature of the methodology. Inevitably, when researchers undertake IVR, they must adopt a managerial perspective, which allows them to experience and understand how accounting influences the everyday lives of all the research participants (Cullen et al., 2013). Fundamental to all these definitions is that IVR is oriented toward problem-solving, where researchers respond to a need in a social system. Greenwood and Levin (2007) argue that researchers might stimulate change by attempting to solve or solving problems when conducting IVR (see also Baard & Dumay, 2018). Developing solutions through interventions is essential for solving practical problems. Designing, developing, and implementing workable solutions is an important catalyst for social system change. Solutions to problems and the knowledge they contribute to practice is an IVR output.

Two of Lewin’s governing principles include problem-solving and seeking change in the social system being researched. Baard and Dumay (2018) view change as a singular concept, incorporating social and organisational change, where the interaction of both forms potentially stimulate positive changes in social system actors with respect to social values and power. In this way, IVR can potentially emancipate a system’s actors or indeed the system itself (Boog, 2003). Thus, IVR’s emancipatory potential positions accounting research to serving the needs of diverse social systems. This is societally relevant research (Lukka & Suomala, 2014), which in part characterises the ‘good’ of IVR (see Chapter 2).

IVR and Accounting

In the context of accounting, IVR is referred to as a qualitative methodology (Parker, 2014). Its use is most dominant in the management accounting discipline using a longitudinal case study method (Lukka & Vinnari, 2017; Merchant, 2012). IVR’s association with management accounting may be because management accounting owes its existence to real-world practice and functional issues (Mitchell, 2002). IVR is also evident in critical accounting (e.g., Neu et al., 2001) and in business information systems research (Baard, 2010). Lewin (1946, 1947b) refers to IVR as a form of field experimentation and, based on our review of the literature, we find most accounting researchers have interpreted IVR as case study research. Although IVR incorporates some elements from other methodologies, it is different from traditional research. Later in this chapter, we contrast IVR with non-IVR methodologies.

Since Lewin’s early work using this kind of action research, diverse scholarly interpretations of his work have given rise to several variations of the methodology (Baard, 2010). Accordingly, IVR can be thought of as an umbrella concept incorporating these variants, for example, action research, action science, clinical research, design science, and constructivist research (Jönsson & Lukka, 2007). More recently, Lukka and Suomala (2014) introduced engaged scholarship as an additional variant of IVR. Baard and Dumay (2018) and Jönsson and Lukka (2007) argue that the many different interpretations of IVR are problematic because they create confusion about what IVR is and what it produces. In turn, this undermines the scientific and practical value of the methodology and jeopardises scholarly attempts to forge a path ahead for IVR. These many variations are one of the ‘bad’ aspects of IVR we discuss further in Chapter 3.

In reflecting on IVR as an umbrella concept, Baard and Dumay (2018) argue for researchers to adopt a ‘purist’ form of IVR to preserve the original intentions and scientific value of the methodology. The purest form of IVR is one that closely follows Lewin’s governing principles and Argyris’ (1970) intervention theory (see also Baard, 2010; Dumay & Baard, 2017). In our discourse so far, we have identified several of Lewin’s governing principles. Another governing principle, relevant to the idea of IVR in a ‘purist’ form, is that the methodology must produce theoretical and practical outcomes. He referred to this as the duality of output, which constitutes an important feature of IVR, and may present in varying forms—especially given the diverse scholarly interpretations of IVR that have been developed since. An IVR study that achieves the duality of output is research that simultaneously contributes knowledge to theory and practice (Lukka & Suomala, 2014). Recent examples of accounting IVR studies fulfilling this goal include Cullen et al. (2013), Campanale et al. (2014), and Chiucchi (2013). Achieving IVR’s duality of output also positions the methodology to generate research with theoretical and practical relevance. IVR’s remedial potential to address the irrelevance of accounting research and the research-practice gap reside in this duality (Evans et al., 2011; Jönsson & Lukka, 2007). This remedial potential in part characterises the ‘good’ of IVR (see Chapter 2).

We acknowledge that accounting scholars’ decision to adopt a ‘purist’ form of IVR or one of its variations is one each researcher must make for themselves. We also recognise that sometimes this decision will depend on the research aims, the research question, and the desired research outcomes. Scholars choosing the purist form are encouraged to refer to their methodology as IVR, while scholars choosing a variation should not muddy the IVR waters and instead use the actual name of the variation. This, after all, is basic scientific precision and rigour. Further, regardless of any approach taken, it is wise for researchers to always go back to the “methodological drawing board” when following any research methodology (Parker & Roffey, 1997).

Several scholars have attempted to argue for IVR’s potential value for accounting researchers (e.g., Cullen et al., 2013; Parker, 2014; Lukka & Vinnari, 2017). However, its use in the accounting literature is still limited, and we find a protracted sense of academic reluctance to engage with it. In part, this reluctance may be due to the risks and challenges sometimes encountered in IVR’s perilous landscape; awareness of them means one can avoid them (see Chapter 3).

The Origins of IVR

Kurt Lewin (1890 to 1947), a social psychologist whose work is grounded in social science, is recognised ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Part 1 Interventionist Research—Why It Matters and Why You Should Care
• Part 2 Methodological Foundations and Design—The Pillars of Authenticity
• Part 3 People, Social Systems, and Interventions—Putting It Together
• Part 4 Intervention Implementation and Dissemination—In Touch With Reality
• Index