Breaking incommensurability boundaries? On the production and publication of interparadigmatic research

Abstract

Purpose This essay takes issue with the incommensurability thesis, which assumes that meaningful research work across different paradigms cannot occur. Could it be that the thesis understates the case for meaningful relationships to develop across paradigms? Is it possible that researchers can authentically and rewardingly collaborate across paradigms and create joint studies published in established journals? Design/methodology/approach Based on the observation that interparadigmatic research exists, the authors investigate two questions. How is interparadigmatic research expressed in the accounting research literature? How can we comprehend the process that underlies the development and publication of interparadigmatic research, focusing on cohabitation involving the positivist and interpretive paradigms of research? Findings To deal with the first question, the authors focus on two interparadigmatic articles: Greenwood et al. (2002) and Paugam et al. (2021). The authors find each article showcases a dominant paradigm – whereas the role of the other paradigm is represented as secondary; that is, complementing and enriching the dominant paradigm. To address the second question, the authors rely especially on their involvement as coauthors of three interparadigmatic studies, published between 2019 and 2022 in FT50 journals. The authors’ analysis brings to the fore a range of facilitators that fit their experiences, such as the development of cross-paradigmatic agreement within the authorship to cope with the complexity surrounding the object of study, the crafting of methodological compromises (e.g. regarding the number of documents to analyze) and the strategizing that the authorship enacted in dealing with journal gatekeepers. Originality/value From the authors’ experiences, they develop a model, which provides a tentative template to make sense of the process by which interparadigmatic research takes place. The model highlights the role of what the authors call “epistemic mediation” in producing interparadigmatic studies.

Navigating knowledge and ignorance in the boardroom: A study of audit committee members' oversight styles

“…Importantly, combining paradigms in interview-based studies is perfectly acceptable as doing so elegantly (i.e., without engendering significant epistemological inconsistencies in a single paper) can mobilize the strength of each participating paradigm, as recently outlined by Gendron et al (2023). Along with Gendron et al (2023), we hope that future studies embrace combining paradigms in their research when a combined approach is appropriate for their research objective.…”

“…Our belief is that a systematic method can be adopted in such scenarios, allowing the construction of a meaningful theory directly from the data. This approach can be utilized regardless of the overarching paradigm-be it positivist, constructivist, or a mix (Gendron et al, 2023)guiding the study. Power and Gendron's work in 2015 provides an illuminating description of how these paradigms can be effectively employed within the realm of accounting research.…”

“…This is because the study purports to identify three oversight styles that presumably encapsulate ACMs' approaches to oversight-a claim about reality "out there" that is more conducive with positivism and even data collection methods, such as surveys, that strive to capture views representative of the population of interest (Vannette & Krosnick, 2017). Importantly, combining paradigms in interview-based studies is perfectly acceptable as doing so elegantly (i.e., without engendering significant epistemological inconsistencies in a single paper) can mobilize the strength of each participating paradigm, as recently outlined by Gendron et al (2023). Along with Gendron et al (2023), we hope that future studies embrace combining paradigms in their research when a combined approach is appropriate for their research objective.…”