Decolonial Studies, Non-Extractive Methods, and Participatory Action Research in Accounting

Abstract

Objective: this paper discusses how accounting supports financial capitalism in the Global South through neocolonialist languages and practices, aiming to put forth a decolonial agenda based on non-extractive methodologies to recover alternative knowledge and (re)build new ones. Method: we revisited critical accounting literature, connecting it to decolonial epistemology. We described the assumptions behind different non-extractive methods and contrasted participatory action research (PAR) with different approaches to knowledge production and consumption. We also outlined some PAR operational strategies, discussed action research in management and accounting studies, and examined the potential for a participatory accounting agenda. Results: non-extractive methods can respect and value different worldviews in each social phenomenon. This points to non-traditional and emancipatory research alternatives to produce a new sentipensante in accounting to decolonize knowledge, bodies, and minds. Conclusions: this paper presents PAR as allowing (re)existence of different worldviews by recognizing its ability to recover and rebuild knowledge ‘with’ participants. PAR supports programmatic engagement with subalternized voices to coproduce pluriversality in accounting - instead of reproducing universalisms - and bolsters academics and practitioners to transcend Western modernity.

Introduction to the Special Issue Call for Qualitative Research Tutorials in Contemporary Administration Studies: An Editorial

“…Another area is a concern with social justice, and particularly how subaltern voices and experiences can not only be recognized and heard, but also enabled to challenge dominant voices, practices, and epistemologies. In their paper, Silva et al (2022) explicitly link the decolonial agenda to practices of research itself and the imposition and reproduction of colonial hegemonies through management, accounting, and research practices. They argue that 'non-extractive methods' such as participatory action research offer a means by which research can include participants not simply as subjects or contributors but as co-constructors of knowledge; a theme also highlighted by Cheron et al (2022), who observe how interviews 'reframe' participants in the research process from 'mere sources of information' to co-producers of knowledge based on a shared interest in the phenomenon under study.…”

“…They argue that 'non-extractive methods' such as participatory action research offer a means by which research can include participants not simply as subjects or contributors but as co-constructors of knowledge; a theme also highlighted by Cheron et al (2022), who observe how interviews 'reframe' participants in the research process from 'mere sources of information' to co-producers of knowledge based on a shared interest in the phenomenon under study. However, Silva et al (2022) also discuss how such methods also challenge researcher 'blind spots' arising from their own interests or 'grand theories,' by addressing the local experience of participants and producing knowledge that is useful in that local context. This concern with the local experience and knowledge of participants, and the critique of the allknowing, all-seeing researcher is also reflected in Behling et al (2022).…”

“…One common question is how we might know better. All the papers are concerned, to some extent, with widening perspectives of any management, organizational, or social phenomenon: by seeking out and including subaltern voices (Melo & Dourado, 2022;Silva, Sauerbronn, & Thiollent, 2022) and marginalized ideologies (Deus, Campos, & Rocha, 2022), developing dialogues and collaborative approaches with research participants (Cheron et al, 2022;Melo & Dourado, 2022;Silva et al, 2022), uncovering and surfacing endogenous theories in use by participants themselves (Silva et al, 2022), reflecting multiple and diverse perspectives (Deus et al, 2022), or capturing and tracking social attitudes over time (Deus et al, 2022). A second question is what we might study better, or how we might expand topics of interest and relevance for management and organization studies.…”

“…A second question is what we might study better, or how we might expand topics of interest and relevance for management and organization studies. Silva et al (2022), for example, argue that by taking a decolonial, non-extractive, and participatory approach, research into accounting can extend beyond 'control of profitability for shareholders' (Silva et al, 2022) into various forms of societal concerns and demands, such as environmental impact, gender and racial violence, and human rights. Melo and Dourado (2022) argue that the process of working out how best to research 'online as a full form of human life' also leads to developing new insights into the full nature of that form of life, and to knowing the world in ways that cannot currently be envisaged.…”

“…Studies, Non-Extractive Methods, and Participatory Action Research in Accounting This paper by Silva et al (2022) discusses how accounting supports financial capitalism in the Global South through neocolonialist languages and practices, aiming to put forth a decolonial agenda based on non-extractive methodologies to recover alternative knowledge and (re) build new ones. The authors outline the critical accounting literature, connecting it to decolonial epistemology.…”