This paper seeks to contribute to the emerging stream of literature on the problematics of accountability (Messner, 2009;Roberts, 2009;McKernan, 2011) and the possibilities of accounterability (Kamuf, 2007) by questioning whether and how accounterability can appear as a response to the problematics of accountability"s operationalisation. To answer this question, this research considers the problematics of accountability found in the limits inherent to the giving of an account (Messner, 2009), in the ambiguous relationship between accountability and transparency (Roberts, 2009), and in the as yet unresolved contradictions of accountability (McKernan, 2011). Accounterability is seen as a practice of resisting accountability demands whilst giving an account. Alternative practices arising out of such resistance are inductively identified through an ethnographic study of the day-to-day practices of the Salvation Army used as an extreme case. This case shows how an ideal form of accountability raises more questions than it answers in practice, thereby leading individuals to develop their own counter-abilities. Because accountability to a Higher-Stakeholder appears to be an unreachable ideal, identifying to whom one should give an account of oneself becomes problematic. A working response to the problematics of accountability, accounterability emerges as the mechanism whereby the limits and contradictions of account giving are transformed into the conditions of its realisation: unreachable accountability is transformed into tangible day-to-day practices that may differ slightly from expected ideal conduct. It transpires from this study that the main strength of accountability lies in its ability to absorb and to override its limits and contradictions, transforming them into conditions of its possibility. As such, accounterability emerges as the ultimate manifestation of this strength.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the sociology-of-science type of accounting literature, addressing how accounting knowledge is established, advanced and extended. Design/methodology/approach -The research question is answered through the example of research into linkages between accounting and religion. Adopting an actor-network theory (ANT) approach, the paper follows the actors involved in the construction of accounting as an academic discipline through the controversies in which they engage to develop knowledge. Findings -The paper reveals that accounting knowledge is established, advanced and developed through the ongoing mobilisation of nonhumans (journals) who can enrol other humans and nonhumans. It shows that knowledge advancement, establishment and development is more contingent on network breadth than on research paradigms, which appear as side-effects of positioning vis-à -vis a community. Originality/value -The originality of this paper is twofold. First, ANT is applied to accounting knowledge, whereas the accounting literature applies it to the spread of management accounting ideas, methods and practices. Second, an original methodology for data collection is developed by inviting authors from the network to give a reflexive account of their writings at the time they joined the network. Well diffused in sociology and philosophy, such an approach is, albeit, original in accounting research.

Purpose: The present paper is a comment on Gurd's paper published in QRAM on the use of grounded theory in interpretive accounting research. Methodology: Like Gurd, we conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings: We found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, we arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations: In our research, we did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. We took for granted that they had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method. Practical implications: The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his own techniques and procedures. Originality/Value of the paper: This paper stimulates debates on grounded theory based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.